HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.2 Amend Recreation Vehicle Zoning Ord CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
City Council Meeting Date: January 13 , 1986
SUBJECT: Public Hearing
PA 85-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding
Recreational Vehicles (RV Ordinance)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: A - Draft Resolution approving Zoning Ordinance
Amendment Regarding Recreational Vehicles
B - Draft Ordinance Amending Zoning Or-dinance
Regarding Recreational Vehicles
BACKGROUND ATTACHMENTS : 1 - Handout : PC Recommended Draft Zoning
Ordinance Amendment Regarding Recreational
Vehicles (R. V. Ordinance ) , January 7 , 1986
2 - Areas on a Typical Residential Lot
3 - Memorandum from City Attorney
4 - Typical House on Street with 50-foot Right-
of-Way
5 - Written comments supporting rear or side yard
storage
6 - Written comments supporting front yard storage
7 - Existing Ordinance regarding R. V. ' s .
8 - Sample Side Yards
9 - Typical R. V. Dimensions
10 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 16 ,
October 7 , October 21 , November 4 ,
November 18 , and December 2 , 1985
11 - Planning Commission Agenda Statements of
October 7 , October 21 , November 4 ,
November 18 , and December 2 , 1985
12 - City Council Minutes and Agenda Statement of
June 10 , 1985
13 - R. V. regulations from other communities
RECOMMENDATION: 1 - Open Public Hearing and hear Staff
presentation
2 - Take testimony from the public
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. *5 ♦Z COPIES TO:
3 - Question Staff and the public
4 - Close the Public Hearing and deliberate
5a - Direct Staff to make revisions and continue,
or
5b - Adopt Resolution approving Zoning Ordinance
Amendment, waive reading and introduce
Ordinance regarding Recreational Vehicles
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION:
I . BACKGROUND
The existing Zoning Ordinance prohibits the parking or storage of
recreational vehicles (R. V. ' s ) , boats , trailers and similar items in
the required Front Yard and the required Side Yards in residential
areas .
On June 10 , 1985 , the City Council considered a request to revise
the City Recreational Vehicle Ordinance, The City Council referred
the matter to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation.
On October 7 , October 21 , November 4 , November 18 , and
December 2 , 1985 , the Planning Commission held public hearings . The
Planning Commission took a considerable amount of testimony both for
and against the storage of R. V. ' s in residential areas, and then
considered various alternates and recommended that the City Council
adopt a Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding Recreational Vehicles ,
The Planning Commission ' s recommended R. V. Ordinance would do
the following:
1 ) Allow parking or storage in the Rear Yard.
2 ) Allow parking or storage in the Side Yard behind the
adjacent front wall of the house with screening and access
and, if necessary, a curb cut .
3 ) In front of the house, allow short-term ( 72-hour ) R. V.
parking only in the driveway.
II . ISSUES
During our Planning Commission review of the R. V.
Ordinance, three areas were considered for the parking and storage of
R. V. ' s and similar items :
A. In the rear yard
B . In the rear yard and side yards
C. In the rear yard, side yards , and front yard
A number of major issues were raised during the analysis of the
three alternative R. V. areas :
1 . Storage in the front yard area: A basic issue raised was whether
or not it was appropriate to have R. V. ' s stored in the front
yards of the community. The front yards have been used as semi-
public open spaces typically landscaped with lawns, shrubs and
trees . The typical ••hei.ght limit for fences, hedges and walls in
the front yard is 4 feet . This height limit is intended to
assure that the front yard is visually open for aesthetic
purposes and so that there is little visual obstruction near
driveways. This helps create and maintain the residential
character of the community.
-2-
2 . Safety and sight distance: A critical issue with parking in the
front yard involved potential safety and sight distance hazards .
If an R. V. was parked next to the driveway, there would be the
potential for a driver backing out of the driveway to a) not see
someone on the sidewalk , b) not see another vehicle in the
street , or c) not be seen by a pedestrian or other vehicle.
3 . Storage on the driveway: The front driveway of a house typically
leads to the required off-street parking spaces in the garage.
The Zoning Ordinance requires that the required parking spaces
must be kept continuously accessible . Short term, temporary
parking is permitted. Storage or long term parking in the
driveway would block access to the required parking spaces and
could potentially result in additional parking and congestion on
the street . The Planning Commission felt that R. V. ' s and
similar items should be specifically limited to 72 hours parking
in the driveway.
4 . Potential City liability: The City Attorney has indicated that
if the City allows an R. V. to be stored in a way that
potentially blocks vision, the City would potentially be liable.
An R. V. stored alongside the driveway could block the view
between a car backing out and a pedestrian on the sidewalk . The
City could be held liable from a safety standpoint if it allowed
R. V. storage alongside the driveway. This becomes more critical
as the City faces the prospect of being unable to obtain
liability insurance in March, 1986 . ( See Attachment 3 ,
Memorandum from City Attorney. )
Other issues considered during the analysis included the following:
- On-street parking: The City Ordinance limits the parking of R.
V. ' s and other vehicles on public streets to 72 consecutive hours .
On- street storage is not allowed. The intent of the Ordinance is to
limit potential circulation and .visibility problems . It also allows a
reasonable amount of time for visitors and for loading and unloading a
vehicle.
- Uses of front, side and rear yards : Uses of front, side and
rear yards are generally limited to fences and accessory buildings .
The intent of the Ordinance is to provide a reasonable amount of air ,
light, privacy, safety, emergency access and to avoid visual clutter .
- Lack of commercial storage spaces : In October 1985 , the Staff
surveyed R. V. and boat storage facilities in the Tri-Valley area .
The rental of individual spaces was between $15 and $30 per month.
None were available at that time. One company was planning on
providing 200 additional spaces .
- Insurance for R. V. ' s : Local insurance agencies indicated
1 ) the insurance premium is the same whether the R. V. is parked on-
site or on the street, and 2 ) insurance for off-site storage is
available.
- Side yard areas : Staff did a random sample of typical side
yards in various Zoning Districts . In the R-1 5 , 000 sq. ft . and
R-1-B-E 6 , 500 sq. ft . Districts ( such as on Lancaster Road and on
Fredericksen Lane) , the typical side yards varied from 5 ft . to 9 ft .
wide, with most being 6 ft . wide. In R-1-B-E 7 , 000 sq. ft . and 8 , 000
sq. ft . Districts ( such as on Betlen Drive and on Southwick Drive ) , the
typical side yards varied from 7 ft. to 10+ ft . , with most being 10+
ft . wide.
Whether or not an R.V. or similar item could fit in the side yard
would depend on the width of the item and the side yard width
available on the particular lot . Most campers need at least 7 ft . in
width, while many small boats could fit into a 6 ft . wide area.
-3-
4
- Enforcement of R. V. Ordinance : The existing R. V. regulations
and other portions of the Zoning Ordinance are enforced primarily on a
complaint basis . The Zoning Investigator reviews complaints that are
filed. The Zoning Investigator does not drive the streets looking for
violations .
- R. V. Ordinances in other communities: The Staff surveyed the
R. V. ordinances in 8 other Bay Area cities: 5 allowing storage in
the rear and side yards ; 3 allowing storage in the rear , side and
front yards . San .Ramon and Livermore allow storage in the required
Front Yard; Pleasanton does not .
III . RECOMMENDATION
On December 2 , 1985 , the Planning Commission recommended that the
City Council adopt an R. V. Ordinance which would allow R. V. storage
in the rear and side yards . In the front yard, short term parking
would be allowed only in the driveway.
In December 1985 , the City conducted an R. V. survey in the
Newsletter . To date, 201 households have responded ( 4% of the
estimated 5 , 200 occupied households ) : 40 ( 20% of survey) in favor of
storage in rear yard only; 61 ( 30% of survey) in favor of storage in
rear and side yards ; 100 (50% of survey) in favor of storage in rear ,
side and front yards .
Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning
Commission recommendations and take the following actions :
1 . Adopt the Resolution approving the Zoning Ordinance Amendment .
2 . Waive the reading and introduce the Ordinance amending the Zoning
Ordinance .
If the City Council finds that additional review or revisions are
needed, Staff would recommend that the City Council direct Staff to
make any needed revisions and continue the item to a future City
Council meeting.
-4-
RESOLUTION NO:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVING PA 85-077 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES (R. V. ORDINANCE)
WHEREAS, the existing Zoning Ordinance prohibits the
parking or storage of recreational vehicles (R. V. ' s) and similar
items in the required Side Yards in residential areas; and
WHEREAS, some R. V. owners have indicated that the
existing Ordinance creates a hardship for them; and
WHEREAS, Clifford and Isabel Gonsalves requested the
City Council consider revising the existing Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on June 10, 1985, "considered
the request and referred the review of the existing Ordinance to
the Planning Commission for recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Staff has prepared a Draft Zoning
Ordinance Amendment Regarding Recreational Vehicles (R. V.
Ordinance) ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Draft
at Public Hearings on October 7, October 21 , November 4, November
18, and December 2, 1985, and recommended adoption; and
WHEREAS, the City . Council did hold a public hearing on
said application on January 13 , 1986; and
WHEREAS, notice of said hearing was provided in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, , said Draft Ordinance has been reviewed in
accordance with provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines and has
been found to be categorically exempt; and
WHEREAS, various Staff Reports and Agenda Statements
were submitted regarding said Draft Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all
said reports, recommendations, and testimony as hereinabove set
forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City
Council does hereby find that the Draft Ordinance will meet the
following purposes:
1 . To protect the character and stability of existing
residential development and to encourage orderly and beneficial
new residential development.
2. To provide adequate light, air, privacy, and
convenience of access to property, and to secure safety from fire
and other dangers.
3. To regulate the location and uses of land so as to
prevent undue interference with existing or prospective traffic
movements in public roads.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Recreational
Vehicles (R. V. Ordinance) .
•1 tY I�10 �i�Ll�� i
-1 -
1
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th
day of , 1986.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
I
-2-
4
F .
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF
CHAPTER 2 OF TITLE 8 OF THE DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES (R. V. ORDINANCE)
The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows :
SECTION 1 AMENDMENTS:
A. Section 8-21 . 2 . 2 is added to read as follows:
"Section 8-21 , 2 . 2 HOUSE CAR. - A ' house car ' is a motor
vehicle originally designed, or permanently altered, and
equipped for human habitation, or to which a camper has been
permanently attached. "
B . Section 8-22 . 12 . 7 is added to read as follows :
"Section 8-22. 12 . 7 STORAGE. The term ' storage ' or ' store '
shall mean to place or keep an item on a lot for seventy-two
( 72 ) consecutive hours . "
C. Section 8-22 . 51 is amended to read as follows :
"Section 8-22 . 51 RECREATIONAL VEHICLE. 'Recreational
vehicle ' means a vehicle with or without motive power ,
designed for human habitation for recreational or emergency
occupancy. The term ' recreational vehicle ' includes, but is
not limited to, camp cars, motor homes, travel trailers, tent
trailers , pickup truck campers, and house cars . For the
purposes of this section, references to types of conveyances
shall have the same meanings as defined in the California
State Vehicle Code, where such definitions are available. "
D. Section 8-23 . 2 . 1 is added to read as follows :
"Section 8-23 . 2 . 1 VEHICLE. A ' vehicle ' is a device by which
any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon
a highway, excepting a device moved by human power or used
exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks . "
E. Section 8-60 . 33 is amended to read as follows :
"Section 8-60 . 33 YARD REGULATIONS. In order to secure
minimum basic provision for light, air , privacy, and safety
from fire hazards, it is required that every building
hereafter constructed shall be upon a Building Site of
dimensions such as to provide for the yards specified for the
District in which the lot is located, and the following
sections shall apply and control . Every such Yard shall be
open and unobstructed from the ground upward, except as
otherwise provided for Accessory Buildings in Sections 8-
60 . 27 , 8-60 . 31 , and 8-60 . 32 , for fences in Section 8-60 . 53
and for other buildings in Section 8-60 . 37 and for signs as
regulated by Section 8-60 . 65 and Section 8-60 , 59 (b) .
No Mobilehome, Recreational Vehicle, utility trailer ,
unmounted camper top, boat, car , truck , or other vehicle
shall be parked or stored in the Front Yard, in the area
between the Front Yard and the front of the Main Building, in
the Side Yard, or within twenty ( 20 ) feet of the corner
common to a Corner Lot and a Key Lot in any R District except
as follows:
maim
1W.
-1-
M :_ _
a ) A Mobilehome, Recreational Vehicle, utility trailer ,
unmounted camper top, boat , car , truck , or other vehicle
may be parked or stored in the Side Yard behind the
adjacent front wall of the Main Building if ( 1 ) screened
from . view from the street and adjoining lots by a legal
six ( 6 ) foot high fence, wall, hedge, or equivalent
screening, and ( 2 ) provided with access and a curb cut
in conformance with standards established by and subject
to the approval of the City Engineer .
b) In no case shall any part of the specified item be
stored to:
1 ) be located on a corner lot within thirty ( 30 )
feet of the intersection of the Street lot lines or
the projections of such lines;
2 ) create a condition determined by the City to be
unsafe or a nuisance.
c) No Mobilehome, Recreational Vehicle, utility
trailer , unmounted camper top, boat, car , truck , or
other vehicle parked or stored on a lot shall be
occupied for living, sleeping, or any other purpose
except as legally allowed in a bona-fide trailer park .
d) A Mobilehome, Recreational Vehicle, utility trailer ,
unmounted camper top, boat, car , truck , or other vehicle
stored as herein provided shall be owned by the
occupants of the premises upon which it is stored.
e) The owner of a Mobilehome, Recreational Vehicle,
utility trailer , unmounted camper top, boat, car , truck ,
or other vehicle parked or stored as herein provided
shall be responsible for any and all damages caused by
said item.
f ) A Mobilehome, Recreational Vehicle, utility trailer ,
unmounted camper top, or boat may be parked in the
driveway for no more than seventy-two ( 72 ) consecutive
hours . "
SECTION 2 EFFECTIVE DATE:
This Ordinance shall become effective thirty ( 30 ) days after its
final passage and adoption by the City Council . Before the expiration
of fifteen ( 15 ) days after its passage, it shall be published once,
with the names of the Council Members voting for and against the same,
in the Tri-Valley Herald, a newspaper published in Alameda County and
available in the City of Dublin.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN on
this day of 1986 , by the following votes :
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-2-
i... �.j j'Y S��vW �Yi .{i 1 ..� .1' '��y Y"1^S` y R }; ?"'^•.. 1
Development Services CITY OF DUBLIN Planning/Zoning 829-4916
P.O. Box 2340 Building & Safety 829-0822
Dublin, CA 94568 Engineering/Public Works 829-4927
1 /7/86
PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
REGARDING RECREATIONAL VEHICLES
(R. V. ORDINANCE)
(TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL)
The last sentence of the Zoning Ordinance Section 8-60. 33 YARD
REGULATIONS would be amended as follows:
"No Mobilehome, Recreational Vehicle, utility trailer, unmounted camper
top, boat, car, truck, or other vehicle shall be parked or stored in the
Front Yard, in the area between the Front Yard and the front of the Main
Building, in the Side Yard, or within twenty ( 20 ) feet of the corner
common to a Corner Lot and a Key Lot in any R District except as
follows:
a) A Mobilehome, Recreational Vehicle, utility trailer,
unmounted camper top, boat, car, truck, or other vehicle may be parked
or stored in the Side Yard behind the adjacent front wall of the Main
Building if ( 1 ) screened from view from the street and adjoining lots by
a legal 6 ( six) foot high fence, wall, hedge, or equivalent screening,
and ( 2 ) provided with access and a curb cut in conformance with
standards established by and subject to the approval of the City
Engineer.
b) In no case shall any part of the specified items be stored
to:
1 ) be located on a corner lot within thirty ( 30) feet of the
intersection of the Street lot lines or the projections of
such lines;
2 ) create a condition determined by the City to be unsafe or a
nuisance.
c) No Mobilehome, Recreational Vehicle, utility trailer,
unmounted camper top, boat, car, truck, or other vehicle parked or
stored on a lot shall be occupied for living, sleeping, or any other
purpose except as legally allowed in a bona-fide trailer park.
d) A Mobilehome, Recreational Vehicle, utility trailer,
unmounted camper top, boat, car, truck, or other vehicle stored as
herein provided shall be owned by the occupants of the premises upon
which it is stored. "
e) The owner of a Mobilehome, Recreational Vehicle, utility
trailer, unmounted camper top, boat, car, truck, or other vehicle parked
or stored as herein provided shall be responsible for any and all
damages caused by said item.
ANACHMENT L
-1 -
f) A Mobilehome, Recreational Vehicle, utility trailer,
unmounted camper top, or boat may be parked in the driveway for no more
than seventy-two ( 72 ) consecutive hours.
The Zoning Ordinance definition found in Section 8-22. 51 RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE would be clarified to read as follows:
" 'Recreational vehicle ' means a vehicle with or without motive power,
designed for human habitation for recreational or emergency occupancy.
The term 'recreational vehicle ' includes, but is not limited to, camp
cars, motor homes, travel trailers, tent trailers, pickup truck campers,
and house cars. For the purposes of this section, references to types
of conveyances shall have the same meanings as defined in the California
State Vehicle Code, where such definitions are available. "
A definition of "House Car" consistent with the California State Vehicle
Code would be added to the Zoning Ordinance as Section 8-21 . 2. 2 HOUSE
CAR and would read as follows:
"A 'house car' is a motor vehicle originally designed, or permanently
altered, and equipped for human habitation, or to which a camper has
been permanently attached. "
A definition of Storage would be added to the Zoning Ordinance as
Section 8-22. 12. 7 STORAGE and would read as follows:
"The term ' Storage ' or ' Store' shall mean to place or keep an item on a
lot for seventy-two ( 72 ) consecutive hours. "
A definition of "Vehicle" would be added to the Zoning Ordinance as
Section 8-23. 2. 1 VEHICLE and would read as follows:
"A 'vehicle ' is a device by which any person or property may be
propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved by
human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. "
-2-
AREAS ON A TYPICAL
RE.SIDENTIAL LOT.. .
- .S GALS -111Cz, -.1
OEM" ...- ...r . 0 81 i6
2 3
1.) Rear Yard
2) Area between Rear Yard-
and rear of Main Building
MAIN BUILDING
4 4 3 ) Side Yard
{ 4) Area. between Side Yard
f and adjacent side wall
5) Front Yard
a) Front Yard = driveway
b) Front Yard = narrower
of two- areas along
side of driveway
I ' 6) Area between Front Yard
land front of Main
• �� .� ___. rl _ ; — _ _ Building
SIDEWALK
V_J
Mks
i�.
S Vii r y .i ry i�t: 2J"'•��.f f.y i' .,. f v�'A�r a tY�t':�r}� i A; �� a� � � r r 1 5 r`�7"� a L n .'...-a J-y t � i i., - _ r-
lt P. ?. � s °;.a• t'} .,r+t r'el"f;'� him � f�+b �'+Y S`�f t��' �5�5 � i � h � S 1.r ik�_ f1jR„kj'� .rr r 5 ,,L. � r 4 �r tXy� ,`
r.�}•��i''�.,�.-�i`..t.f ..i».y��.*�L`��%�k\.� ��J� 7�'-��Fr ilk' }� �§R,o'(a:. r 4r. il�rTMt y�Y.1 rt.^t` i'y Y�;4 A y.t3 13� •� ,t� �j i J �. 4 j i r
aIG P..- ;.�.� i r it',� t s{r.{{-, �s�'` -+ti.. '��''•t.�`k 3"�13.�...� y�f��,`��){.`''ty^�, "}a.�. "�n.�'�.4:•4. �yi'�' V- ,z a,, ��1 r rh.-.).r. 1� �ra4 .t '4N r
)w. � 4 c�� T xd}`r.�, y � d di s �"i n�1 .�.,cc S'�s•-�,ai v{?' ✓' rx,�� -�� S..
r .ay rka tl; K '+' �` F a � lar 'R,c K Y' S » �,j„°i,. ,,,.t.r r.• w tc
+t+�'#?a�:1�"�,,,fl�''i cJ';,a'•rp �_S. �`"� .,�+��y i:, -LCn- ,r• h`x ;3i•,,� y��..t'p��'�✓f;frr r r:t � �r.+ �,�rN y�.+.r .. ��,xf r � .-..
�� a) S'i{:'.�� :�. ��,' n '� � �^+�,�,��r�ri ;rr , k�?cfr�•'nK.:��.� •�ti#.'Y1�; �i�� "�rtfi�,.�"�'.fr s F�V, , '
a {9,.�"tR,� - � €!`•ys��g a ��+y4+J$d7 � 4 p�-u.a '' is L' S i.j �yFr,-,u i s`ZS' ��G -Y.s �'ti-.ar T� ti'-L�r '! f s i �H�`�' �
i t�trS,K`... � 1..;.r•"f�a{�-.k1y�""r.,a''1'.... L•�cr�`'� T'�L'�:rf `M L � k.� �a�YF-��'����}-", ,ai+�i v kj�rw rt{.-C.r gi�.sv�. �.�:'`. _, '1., .`5.� ~1
i C"�.,.. ...a.�...�y.�.r7:.f,..?•'r >r.:.,....4h; i.ti .f:-., t$ { ......?r..__:•ah sr�?a, .P,.._ r
...... ....: . .. . ...i.. _._... ...... ._ . ... ...
CITY OF DUBLIN
Development Services Planning/Zoning 829-4916
P.O. Box 2340 Building & Safety 829-0822
Dublin, CA 94568 Engineering/Public Works 829-4927
MEMO TO: Larry Tong
FROM: Michael R. Nave
RE: Proposed Recreational Vehicle Ordinance
DATE: January 6, 1986
In the recent case of CARSON VS. CITY OF SAN -DIEGO,
( 1984) , 36 Ca1.3D 830, the California Supreme Court. held that the
City of San Diego could be liable for injuries to the family of a
person who was killed. when hit by a driver whose vision of an
intersection was obstructed by an advertising sign and shrubbery
in a parking strip.
By reason of the Carson case, it is my opinion that Dublin
should not permit the parking of recreational vehicles in the
area commonly known as the planter strip ( lying between the curb
and sidewalk) .
(NOTE: This was taken over the telephone from the City
Attorney' s Office on January $, 1986 )
/ao
A"Ip T A H M E N T
� c- �o y5= btj STR T
— — Vj Crj 5 0 r—T• R 16ff—r OF WA-(
� u
�;c�• -o F�cuc ! s GALS � le
f �
t a _
rc`I
I
of o Q f
1171
,
2.5
i
45
f .
•sn.,.,. _. t"s r ,r,.r..t ?_ .,2.s�..��� �.�'Si r:'_ tiw,t,`;,. ,? ,7,a�,.>fif.�,w ,..ar.. _.t.. :h-, �`u_ �.,..:_ �.. x.� i:-.,_
X �
u ` 1
(, �'.
,l,C,fs Lu--p
CCU-
RECEIVED
NOY 14 1
jDjJWN P_LANNIRG
or
woe
DUBLIN PLANNING
� -76t6 >
7a �3 �
�� � -•cL,�� �- cam. _ ..
ke
_ 17 a"
SL
/ '
..�'-w.•f,"�v�T'ra'iS^t{^� s;T+Y Rte^-'^'y"_ F9` r ."' .v't' k•�..'��,�.7�*'FF'"�'.�"� J•vr �,�?. °..." .. _
Dear Editor:
•I would like to respond to the recent uproar over Dublin' s new
I
rdinance banning R.V. ' s, boats, trailers, etc. from being
parked in residential areas. These- vehicles along with many
commercial types create numerous problems. Fu1 is the congestion.
As the valley grows and more homes are built, our neighborhoods
are terribly overcrowded with too many vehicles. This certainly
creates some very unattractive sights as well as unsafe conditions.
Children can't be as easily seen playing when R.V. ' s, trucks, etc .
block driver3 9 views, nor can cars easily pass each other when
driving through some neighborhoods. This could also propose a
problem should there be a fire and necessary equipment find it
more difficult to reach a burning home with these oversize vehicles
in the way.
Since Californians don' t have basements, much storage is done in the
garage . Thus, cars, etc. end up in driveways and on the street.
Some people consider this a fight between aesthetics -and freedom.
I disagree . Freedom does not mean doing whatever you darn well
please at the expense of your neighbor. Freedom is personal
responsibility, too. It is neither the responsibility of the city
nor your neighbor to provide storage for your excess vehicles.
It is up to the owner to make appropriate storage arrangements.
Side access is fine with me . But if the - R.V. , trailer, etc . is
now moved to the driveway, then more cars end up in the street .
It is still unattractive and they still pose . a safety problem
in blocking vision when pulling out of driveways , etc . I under-
stand that a number of Dublin City Council members own R.V. ' s.
I would hope that they will set an example of properly storing
their vehicles rather than to perpetuate this problem. Other
communities have a similar ordinance and live with it . So can we .
I would also like to point out the problem of commercial vehicles
in residential areas. You can drive through any -area of Dublin
and see truck cabs parked in driveways, and many other unsightly
trucks parked along the street. I also just heard that a tow truck
slipped its brake up in the new Foothill Estates area during the
night , rolling down hill and damaging a number of other cart.
Our neighborhoods are not meant to-store these vehicles.
Dublin has just invested a great deal of money in upgrading its
main thoroughfares with new walls, trees, medians, etc. Our city
has needed to improve its image by cleaning up! When I drive down
our streets , I want to see green grass, trees, nicely kept homes
and businesses because it makes life more pleasant and it shows
respect for ourselves and for oneanother. I , personally, do not
want to live in the middle of a dumpy, overcrowded "parking lot" .
Sincerely,
ce ,
HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 2135
Dublin. California
October 4 , 1985
City of Dublin
Planning Commission
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Commission Members :
The Briarhill Homeowners Association met on September 30 , 1985
to discuss the issue of recreational vehicles . The meeting
was open to all homeowners in the Briarhill/Silveraate area
and was advertised in the hope of obtaining_ a aood cross-section
of our community. It should be noted that the majority of those
in attendance currently own and operate a recreational_ vehicle .
All members who attended the meeting were of the opinion that
we have each invested a substantial amount of money in our
homes and our priority should be in striving to increase the
value of our properties , not only to enhance a future sale,
but to make our community the most pleasant it can be for
ourselves and our neighbors .
The following key points have been adopted as policy reco-w-enc?a.-
tions to the City of Dublin:
1. We recommend that no mobile homes, trailers of any king?,
permanent tents or similar structures, truck campers
larger than � ton pick-up trucks , recreational motor
homes , or boats should be allowed to park on the streets
or driveways. (including auxilliary driveways) on any
residential property in the City of Dublin.
2 . Although we would prefer not to have the aforementioned
vehicles anywhere on the property, we would be willing to
concede that given a sufficient space for a side yard
access , that such vehicles may be stored there behind an
appropriate six-foot fence .
Ff` a 1"^ �.. z T.."7 .,r- .. �"''*t'a' - N tie�S�.P L�?i"' •"'sr�. x u •-?�-xs x-r,Zr c-;y ` . :ti.,{,. ..,.�� ri _ ..
•
f
t
Planning Commission
October 4 , 1985
Page 2
,'A7e were aware throughout our discussions that a major problem
with our position is the lack of adequate public storage in
the area. This problem may best be solved by a special task
force with the City of Dublin to find adequate storage or
make available lands useable for this purpose.
We believe it is imperative now, for Dublin to take a stand
not to lower its standards .
Sincerely,
Briarhill Homeowners Association
7-.. - ..
1
JI 1
rD fa girt c o, / S 6 ^
0-
Ml, -Ton
� \/ 1 ` ('
vli ,n bL-1 , C\� 1 ;f� A2�`c C�� O tt ("
Ll
( A CA e < <:V
40 M
Li
Cl— p (� �
n r v
l �.-� (�L V� � .S°- F'- � Q n.� -� m�./-� •�.•t C C., c
J( s
C, ,.�.�f o, L/Cr
Q C o
Yjp r( Vcl 1"` c l n .
CJ- Lit\ � 11 v SrLC (n
�rc1.7�
or a, c � �^�
tl
V q�i �rrd !1 D�Gzlr-� � C��y c;��`�c'i� �� b ( (n •2- ! �-/� c u-�k•�
cZ n 0 r gL% n aj-L-c t 5z. V/`a✓�. ��n ;�.� l�V f S "-J b
kc
Q (v1 n
�taCV
RECEIYED
qL �EtL2E
S`P 2 1885
8456 �EVE��t� fane.
DUBLIN PLANNING 94568
...x--.t z•�-e'•ry r- -,..,.'tT"Y.rf•v'T'.�„'r "F ''f?1' + X^'y,r�,yv S'nws.rm u-r a.. 7--t�-9- ....A"-,p,_.,'. r,:�-n -^r.T7,-r t c- s r --------- ..
City Manager
The City Of Dublin
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, Cal. 94568
Dear Sir; 12/12/85
I have been a Property Owner in Dublin since 1955 and a RV
Owner since 1977 .. I 've had a 201 Motorhom,- parked in my
front yard, on a cement pad, opposite my driveway for 8 years
and I have not had any complaints from any of my neighbors .
My home was built approx. 1960. At that time the lots were
fairly small. I would be willing to bet that there are very
-few Lots in the Frederiksen Track that are large enou h to
park a RV next to the driveway or in the rear yard. ton-
-Corner Lots)
I consider it an INFRINGEMENT of my RIGHTS as a PROPERTY
OWNER & TAXPAYER to have any City Officials tell me what .I
can . or Gantt do in my own front yard.
My Motorhomdvrolling st.ock, .not a permanate structure.
It is not a EYE SORE or HAZARD to the neighbors, or a
libility to the City.
I personally think you City Officials have really opened up
a CAN OF WORMS this time . I think you are going to find
there are a lot of RV' ers who don 't share your views on this
issue.
I believe this whole issue was started by a few DO-GOODERS
who would like to drive down our City streets and see large ,
flowine landscapes with no motor vehicles in sight.
To these people I say, Go drive around BLACKHAWK.
A R fines
P.S. We wouldn 't ask you to our ark MERCEDES out in some
P y e
field without any security, so don't ask us to do that with
our RV' s .
a AMEN
ATTAbHMENT (P
4�SS 0
PROPOSED DUBLIN RV ORDINANCE
POINTS OF DISCUSSION:
1 . WHY WHEN THE OBVIOUS MAJORITY OF ATTENDEES AT THE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS WANT THE RIGHT TO PART,.
THEIR RV'S ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY DOES THE PROPOSED
ORDINANCE TEND MORE AND MORE TOWARD THE ELIMINATION
OF THIS RIGHT FOR A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF THE
RESIDENTS OF DUBLIN,. AND WHY WHEN ONE OF THE
OVERRIDING CONCERNS EXPRESSED AT THESE MEETINGS WAS
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT—DOES THE CURRENT PROPOSED
ORDINANCE NECESSITATE THAT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF
RESIDENTS SPEND THE MONEY TO POUR A CEMENT FAD AND
HAVE THE SIDEWALK CUT, WHICH WILL INCIDENTALLY HAVE
THE EFFECT OF REDUCING THE AMOUNT- OF CURRENT ON—
STREET PARKING.
?. WHY WAS THE ORDINANCE PROPOSED AT THE FIRST- MEETING
REGARDING PARKING IN THE DRIVEWAY ELIMINATED I N .THE
FIRST DRAFT.
—IF THE REASON IS SAFETY, WHAT IS LESS Ss± E ABOUT
PARKING AN RV IN THE DRIVEWAY THAN PARKING ONE OR TWO
AUTOMOBILES, OR IN OTHER WORDS, HOW CAN SOMETHING
THAT THE STATE HAS DEEMED SAFE TO TRAVEL AT FIFTY—
FIVE MILES PER HOUR ON PUBLIC STREETS BE SO UNSAFE
STANDING STILL.
—IF THE REASON IS THAT IT CREATES AN "EYESORE" ISN 'T
THE RELATIVE ATTENDANCE AT THE MEETING SUFFICIENT
INDICATION THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS DO NOT
IN FACT CONSIDER RV 'S AN "EYESORE"
—IF THE REASON IBS THAT IT BLOCKS A NEIGHBORS VIEW
WILL WE NEXT LEGISLATE AGAINST TREES OR TALL SHRUBS
ON THE SAME BASIS. IN MY SPECIFIC CASE, IF I . WERE TO
INSTALL A PAD IN THE PROPOSED AREA ADJACENT TO MY
DRIVEWAY, I WOULD FIRST HAVE TO HAVE TWO 40 ' PLUS
TREES REMOVED, IF MY NEIGHBORS OBJECTED TO THE SIGHT
OF MY CAMPER, THEY THEM WOULD HAVE AN UNINTERRUPTED
VIEW, NOT OF PINE TREES, BUT OF MY CAMPER.
7. I INTERPRET THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO READ THAT YOUR
RV CANNOT BE PARKED WITHIN TWO AND ONE—HALF FEET OF
THE SIDEWALK BECAUSE THIS IS AN EASEMENT, OR .RIGHT OF
WAY. I KNOW VERY LITTLE OF THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS
OF THIS TERM, BUT I THOUGHT THAT YOU WERE EVEN
ALLOWED TO BUILD STRUCTURES ON EASEMENTS, BUT MAY BE
REQUIRED TO MOVE THEM IF FOR INSTANCE THE CITY WANTED
TO PUT UNDERGROUND PIPING THROUGH THE EASEMENT AREA.
SINCE I BELIEVE THAT CARS ARE ALLOWED TO PARK IN THE
EASEMENT AREA AND A NUMBER OF SEMI—PERMANENT
STRUCTURES SUCH AS SOME RELATIVELY ORNATE FENCES
ARE OFTEN BUILT IN THIS ANA, WOULD IT NOT BE
APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW RV'S TO PAM: THERE ALSO ON THE
SAME TERMS THAT CARS ARE ALLOWED TO PARK THERE IE:
THAT THEY BE MOVED IF THERE IS WORK TO BE DONE IN THE
EASEMENT AREA.
win
.•..:.. ... .,, ..:,..:.car e•:,:.'
y
folly
f lcS.' �y c� 1 r .. x3�,. 31 y r Fy },i,+.• i , ' .Lyi <
7 t T .'7
}. ....�:..? '�:�.".�a�.'-Y_�.n�::�i .._... t� t.;«`..�,�471,.v.:?• i}'J} �� t..Cx'r 7"s'� 1£.�.iS�1-:- r',�.. f t ?.;•„.d.,.cv.r'� w�Ia����'i 4y �...d�.............. .��`�.:r
of
IN CONCLUSION, IF THE GOAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIOi�l AND
LATER THE CITY COUNCIL IS TO PROPOSE AN-ORDINANCE THAT WILL
SATISFY THE MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS OF DUBLIN AND YET
ADDRESS MANY OF THE CONCERNS OF THOSE OPPOSED TO THE SIGHT OF
AN RV ANYWHERE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT
THE CURRENT PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE AMENDED TO ALLOW PARKING ON
OR BESIDE THE DRIVEWAY WHERE REAR OR SIDE ACCESS IS NOT
AVAILABLE AND ALSO THAT NO PART OF THE RV OVERHANG THE
SIDEWALK RATHER THAN NOT BEING ALLOWED ANYWHERE IN THE
EASEMENT AREA.
THr^d'JK YOU.
JOHIN M. HAYWARD, J:-:.
6 382 MANSFIELD AVE.
DUBLIN, CA 94568
7
er-�-7 ,..77 r rsx+,-• ,;r, +."tT.T•' }:�r :ir+.r+rfi: *:.,,, _
October 10,1985
Dublin City Planning Commission
Dublin, CA 94568
Larry Tong, Planning Director
Dear Sir;
It is requested consideration be given to the provision of
a "Grand fathering clause" in the formulating of the RV Park-
ing Proposal for the city of Dublin. This would satisfy people
like myself (three other at the public hearing) who cannot fit
in the (3) three options included in the proposal drafted at
the public hearing, October 7, 1985 but have already provided
concrete pads using them safely and without complaints from
fellow residents or neighbors, some for many years .
The attached plan is of my property located at 7696 Frederik-
sen Lane, Dublin. My request for continuing the use of this
pad to park my RV is based on the following:
1 . I have resided at this residence for 18 years and consider
it to be my home for many years to come.
2. Public parking lots are far too expensive and will �on_tin-
ue to increase.
3 . My RV (a Minnie Winnie) has been parked as it is now for
three years and have no complaints from any one.
4. It is a safe parking space sitting back farer_ough not to
restrict the vision of children or motorist .
5. As the attached plan indicates my back yard is inaccessable
bodering the zone 7 flood control ditch. The back yard was
further reduced when the flood control program originally
required and got an easement over the rear 10 feet for
public utility and incidental purposes .
6 . I consider my front yard exceptionally large as with all 4
bed rooms type on this street. There are no Neighbors drive
way on either side of my lot, a definite plus .
7.. The existing pad was poured by a concrete contractor, the
size 10'X20' and is 6" thick. It is perfectly level with
top of lawn.
8. My garage drive way is not near level and the garage door
will not swing open when RV is parked clearing the side
walk.
9 —This request, if accepted, would prevent my parking the RV
on the street and having to move it every 72 hours etc. It
would in fact be similar to the new RV parking ordinance
adopted in San Ramon.
My reason for writing this letter is that I will be out of
town for the next public hearing October 21, 1985•
Sin erfly .. wrs
t fL
7696 Frederiksen Lane
R E C E IV E D Dublin, CA 94568 • °
OCT. Phone Number 828-5240
�. � �9�5:
DUBLIN PLANNING
-c�xxYZY Ye,_1 ,y, (Y% i�'/S�`rMX.�r�� X`✓
N-oo :) 6
.f
• c
f
I �
J
,y
PRA
FREDElZIKS .EM �?
. ' r
ELLIOTT H. -HEALY p
11362 Betlen Drive ��(
Dublin, CA 94568
July 3, 1985t� ���U
c��i1N Q
Larry Tong, Director of Planning
City'of Dublin
Dublin, CA 94+568
Dear Mr. Tong;
I am a 20 year resident of Dublin and the owner of a 17 foot Toyota
Mini-motor home. To eliminate the safety hazard caused by parking
my motor home on the streetal have graded and gravelled a parking
area *next to my driveway. With our RV parked in this area, the
safety hazard is eliminated and the RV is lass visible than parked
on the street.
Recently, I was notified by the Ci tir of Dublin, this is a violation
of the city' s zoning code. Unaware of such a code, I inquired at the
city office and was shown by Juanita Stagner this particular code. I
was further informed that the City of Dublin_ had adopted this code
from the County of Alameda. Upon reading this ordinance, I find it
vague and lacking necessary detail. Nowhere, for example, is there
a clear definition of the word "storage". ,drat constitutes storage?
Is 'storage" measured in minutes, hours, weeks or months? If the
Herald article of June 18th is correct, I am permitted to leave my
RV parked on the street so long as I move it every 72 hours. Is this
true? From a practical standpoint I feel that the City of Dublin
should consider a modification_ of this code. I believe a compromise is
needed between the need to protect Dublin neighborhoods -from RV
"trashing' an". the recognition that more and more homeowners are
acquiring various forms of RV vehicles requiring storage, that is not
presently available in Dublin. With this in mind, I offer the follow-
ing suggestions for reasonable modifications:
a) Allow no more than one 21 ft. RV vehicle per household to -be
parked on the property in front of the house.
b) No vehicle may be parked closer than 5 feet from the front of
the house.
c) No vehicle to protrude into the area of -he City' s sidewalks.
d) Issue annual permits for owners to°park on their oti-m property
providing the RV meets a reasonable quality of ap_oearance and
the aforementioned requirements.
I trust that serious consideration will be given to these suggestions.
Sincerely,
Elliott Ho Healy
cc:' Mayor of Dublin,
City Council members
y..-i.-•.F- :'n-n".4-sn ,,.nf`�=si�.4•'aa n r?'-"'.. :° F- sr,.-r `f - � -;•r^� �2 fr--- •s'f5•v��•� yr _ _
8-60.32 ACCESSORY STRICTURES: IN REAR YARD• Except as otherwise ,
provided in Section 8-60.29 for a stable, detached Accessory
Buildings in an R District may occupy up to a maximum of thirty
per cent of the area of a required rear yard, provided that the
maximum 30% coverage provision shall not apply to private swimming
pools.
(Amended by sec. 4, Ord. 68-33)
8-60.33 YARD REGULATIONS. In order to secure minimum basic pro-
vision for light, air, privacy and safety from fire hazards, it is r
required that every building hereafter constructed shall be upon a
Building Site of dimensions such as to provide for the yards
specified for the District in which the lot is located, and the follow-
ing section shall apply and control Every uc—Yaia shall-be open
ra—nE unobstructed from tFie ground upwaexcept as other-.rise provior Accessory Buildings in Sections 8 60.27, 8-60.31 and 8-60.32, for
fences in Section 8-60.53 and for other buildings in Section 8-60.37
and for signs as regulated by Section 8-60.65 and Section 8-60.59 (b �
No•MfobtlzlIf me Recreational Ve icle. utiTit trailer, unn ed camoer
top or boat shall be stored in the Front Yard or the required Side
Yard in any R District._
(Amended by sec. 11, Ord. 68-27; amended by sec. 5, Ord. 68-33;
amended by sec. 4, Ord. 69-93)
8-60.34 YARDS: DI24-EYSIONS.- Every front yard shall have a depth equal
to or greater than that required for the District and shall extend across
the full width of the front of the Building Site. Every Rear Yard
shall have a depth equal to or greater than that required for the
District and shall extend across the full width of the rear of the
Building Site_ Every Side Yard shall have a width equal to or. greater
than that required for the District and shall extend along the side Lot
Line from the front Lot Line to the rear Lot Line.
8-60.35 YARDS: MEASUREEENT: REAR AND SIDE LINES. The measurement of -
the required depth of a Rear Yard or the required width of an interior
side yard shall be horizontal and inward from the Loc' Line at a right
angle. Where the side Lot Lines converge, or nearly converge, a line
ten (10) feet long within the lot, parallel to the front Lot Line and
at a maximum distance therefrom shall be deemed to be the rear Lot Line
for the purposes of this section. ,
8-60.36 YARDS: MEASUREMENT: FRONT LINE. The measurement of the required
depth of a Front Yard, or the required width of the street side yard
of a Corner Lot, shall be horizontal and inward from the street Lot
Line at a right angle; provided, however, that where any official
right-of-way line, or any Future Width Line pursuant to Section
8-80.0, traverses the building site, the measurement here specified
shall be taken from such right-of-way line, such Future Width Line or
from the street Lot Line, whiche-- -
Lots have two front Lot Lines, .f
be measured. AT. M 0%plf,
.1T,4 �� � r. y`; 5 •,, � 1,` 9jJ ^ �' tK' � � � 4f y f
t �� J - i Z 1 a^ r tx.�v ' �• 'M fbr ,-4 f} �?'�*+..� fF! 1-� t.i�' � � ti �`i° t�1�c" w:.. ,� 1 f.. „z. >1 ✓
t ati i. _ *.T J f „t� J aCr 7 �T A �` S 11•�• �.-! P l ,.G� 3 Y.i, y, A .�
Nv �wtg st�"'7 w"�s^�y�j.'^y�"G'��'11y.,rg7'z'"4.�".,,`�T'�''- i•�,. '�G�y.';�y�'� "�t�"�''�,'5.1�,a:`ry,'� r �.1t{. s.a��,�. -�r �,' �.p?A�•Y�+;�.�t`.�t�"�"�'r•Y, ,rA�:-r ,P -
'3,�.,1`,,.r ,,a..w^2ti'.tYO,.bS, .uk�,..r.�`'�3sSak.'�r?�...'�a.'��''f.�:��1+d1a.�"��``-';k•.t�� y�5���.',Y.d3, .r ,,.�T�'� {: �������� ".:e. �`�"„� �'� '� _. =:._.� '? _ .. .,
8-22.5 PRIVATE GARAGE. Private garage means a Building or portion of a
Building used for the parking of one or more automobiles where the Use
is accessory to the Principal Use of the Building or the premises.
§ 8-22.5A RECYCLING CENTER 'Recycling Center means a facility that
collects, sorts, and temporarily stores glass, metals and other re-
usable materials. The term does not include any processing activity.
,30,� (Based on sec. 1, Ord. 73-74)
§ 8-22.51 RECREATIONAL VEHICLE. "Recreational vehicle" is a camp De
motor home, travel trailer or tent trailer, with or without mpower, designed for human habi
tation for recreational or emeroccupancy, with a living area less than 220 square feet, exclbuilt-in equipment such as wardrobes, closets, cabinets, kitcunits, or fixtures, bath and toilet rooms, and is identified creational vehicle by the manufacturer.
(Bas.ed on sec. 4, Ord. 69-93)
§ 8-22.51 RACE TRACK. Race Track means a facility for the competitive
or recreational use of motor vehicles which are principally designed
or commonly used for off highway or recreational purposes.
(Based on sec. 2, Ord. 70-25)
4 8-22.52 RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PAR— "Recreational Vehicle Par'_!' is
any Building Site where one or more sites are rented or leased or held
out for rent or lease for one or more days to owners or users of
Recreational Vehicles. -
(Based on sec. 4, Ord. 69-93)
8-22.53 RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SITE. "Recreational Vehicle Site" is that
portion of a Recreational Vehicle Park designed or used for the
occupancy of one Recreational Vehicle_
(Based on sec. 4, Ord. 69-93)
J '
§ 8-22.6 SALVAGE YARD. Salvage Yard means the use of more than two-hundred
(200) square feet outside a building an ar,7 handling or
storage of scrap metal, p a p er rag s
materials of any kind. The term incrgdes automobile wrecking yards,
used lumber yards, junk yards and storage of salvaged house wreck±ng
and structural steel materials and equipment, but does not include
yards for the storage or sale of operable used cars or machinery or
the incidental processing of used or salvaged materials where per-
mitted, as part of a lawful manufacturing or industrial use on the same
premises.
r
l
J.
IL 4"�\ 1 ( �: Y� - w !'� ""P .� t '"C". -�lt'LT.9" .'§F ; •4 �. -
0
8-26.5 BUILDING SITE: R-1 DISTRICTS. Except as otherwise specified
in the case of a combining District, every Use in an R-1 District
shall be on a Building Site having a Median Lot Width not less than
fifty (50) feet and an area not less than five thousand (5,000) square
feet. A Corner Building Site shall have a Median Lot Width of not less
than sixty (60) feet.
f3 8=26.6 YARDS: R-1 DISTRICTS. Except as otherwise specified in the case
of a Combining District, the minimum requirements for Yards in R-1
Districts shall be as follows, subject to the provisions of Section 8-60.33.
Depth of Front Yard - twenty (20) feet;
Depth of Rear Yard - twenty (20) feet;
Width of Side Yards - not less than five (5) feet plus one foot' for
each full ten (10) feet by which .the Median Lot Width exceeds
fifty (50) feet up to a maximum requirement of ten (10) feet,
except that in every case the Side Yard on the street side of a
g
6-3-6. Corner Lot shall have a width not less than ten (10) feet.
8-26.7 SAIME: DWELLING FACLVG SIDE YARD. No Dwelling shall be so oriented
upon a Lot is an "R-1" District as to have its front or living room entrance
opening into a Side Yard less than ten (10) feet wide, extending from said
entrance to the front yard.
8-26.8 HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS: R-1 DISTRICT'. No Dwelling shall have a
height of more than two (2) stories, except as provided by Section 8-60. 11
nor shall any Building or Structure have a height ir. excess of twenty-five
(25) feet, except as provided by Sections 8-60.9 and 8-60.10.
J '
8-26.6.1 ssme:Alternate provision of Rear Yard.Section 8-26.6 notwithstanding.a rear
yard may have a depth o!not less than ten feet(10')it that portion of the rearyard less than
twenty feet(20')in depth is compensated by open areas within the same or adjacent yards 11<1 7
on the same Building Site that exceed side and rear yard requirements by-2n area at least ,
equal to the extent of building coverage of the twenty foot(20')rearyard.Said compensat-
ing area shall be considered a Required Yard in accordance with Section a-60.23.
R-2 DISTRICTS
• 8-27.0 TWO FAy.ILY RESIDENCE DISTRICTS: UITE`IT. ' Two-Family Residence
Districts, hereinafter designated as R-2 Districts, are established
to provide for the protection of established neighborhoods in which duplex
Dwellings are located, and generally to provide a transitional area
between single and multiple residence Districts or between single
residence Districts and areas of light 'to=ercial use, for additional
development of this kind.
r
;.. - r
8-60.52 . YARDS: OFFICIAL LINES. No Building or Structure shall be located
on any Lot or Building Site in the area between a Street Lot Line and
any Official Right-of-Way Line, Future Width Line or Special Building
Line alonq the street which has been established by ordinance.
8-60.53 FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES. Fences, walls and hedges, as regulated
in this and the following sections may occupy any yard and are required
where specified in this Chapter. The term "wall" as used in this
connection shall not be deemed to apply to the wall of a Building, or
to the supporting portion of a retaining wall . The term "hedge"
means cultivated plant growth along a line which is sufficiently dense
to obstruct passage and visibility from one side to the other.
8=60.511 • HEDGES. Where the Side Yard or Rear Yard of a C or M use abuts
an R District, there shall be planted and maintained a hedge approximately
four (4) feet wide and six (6) feet high along that property line of
that C or M District parcel , except that within twenty (20) feet of a
Street Lot Line, the required hedge shall not exceed four (4) feet
In height.
.8-60.55 SAME: HEIGHT LIMITATIONS. The maximum permitted height of fences,
walls and hedges, except as otherwise provided in Section 8-60.51 and
8-60,56 shall be as follows:
a) When located in a required Yard on a Corner Lot and within thirty
(30) feet of the intersection of the Street Lot Lines or of the
projections of such lines -- two (2) feet, measured upward from
the centerline grade of the Street opposite thereto;
b) When located in a required Rear or. Street Side Yard of a
Corner Lot and within twenty (20) feet of the corner common to. such
a lot and a Key Lot at the rear -- four (4) feet;
Ld) When located in a required Front Yard other than as specified in
subparagraph (a) hereof four (4) feet;
When located in any A or R District other than as specified
hereinabove, six (6) feet;
e) When located in any C or M District and within five (5) feet of
the boundary of any A or R District, six (6) feet.
_J
MdOC, SAME: EXCEPTIONS TO HEIGHT LIMITATIONS. The limitations on
height specified in Section 8--60.55 shall not appJ,y:
a) Where a higher fence is required by any other ordinance of the
county or by 'State or Federal regulation;
b) Where a higher fence is made a condition of approval of a
Conditional Use or a Variance pursuant ' to this Chapter, provided
that no such condition shall require or permit a fence having a
height in excess of twelve (12) .feet;
c) To a fence around all or part of a tennis court, a playground or
a swimming pool which is, at least in that portion which exceeds
the applicable limitation, constructed of open wire or steel mesh
capable of admitting not less than—ninety (90) per cent light as
measured by a reputable light meter;
d) An open wire fence up to six (6) feet high in an A District.
'•A - } , x r r ,+q.>� k% k r F ti '4 t . r r s' �a � r� i.+... ct;,r,F j,a7,.c-a rj`ym i.. r✓,. - , �I t.
1Jr b r .' �'` {c: i. -t.j' n� f..^•t•x� } t r Phi`..1'i r.• --r�kt �"� `.; �a• .r,Y �. _7 -
>�a �t,T4r�•^r'7;:'�jD.�.x 3'."•: yv� `iC=,�j,'"'�>t ';:'rtp'�;e fi„`"""t?sn7,,, , i"Tf "''e.'S�i '�t`�.�',.�; �'"mi � 'Si.";{ '''�, � -�st t .r t x""�'.y-.�i•A4• _,i ��;-a" r,.. -
Jr-.�.,,_. 2.:.a:,.t�.:,t...�..,y;'c^..,`k..r•:t."�t... .�3:, _ r..'..:'r>":a , -.t�°e[';:.t.��,' ��. .�:. �mm. � >. '� .'-., -
.... .?.......,..,. ,-r..sh�... ..s�,.-,.ire.•.f`nai, SS.N,:. a;cx. � F+ ,},::I4",-:.. �*_� ,,'�'. •
CHART OF SA,-(—'E SIDE YARDS
ZONING MINIMUM TYPICAL MINIMUM RANDOM
DISTRICT REQUIRED LOT REQUIRED ACTUAL
LOT AREA DIMENSIONS SIDE YARD SIDE YARDS
R-1 5, 000 60 ' x 100 ' varies from 6--6 ft.'
(such as on sq. ft. ( 6, 000 5 ' to 6' 6--6
Lancaster sq. ft- ) 9--5
Road) 6--6 5__9
6--6
8--6
6--6
6--6
6--6
R-1 B-E 6, 500 66 ' x 100 ' varies from 8--13
6, 500 sq.ft. sq. ft. ( 6, 600 6 ' to 8 ' 7--6
(such as on sq- ft) 7--6
Fredericksen 6--6
6--6
Lane) 6--6
6--6 .5
6--6
9--6
6--8
R-1-B-E 7 , 000 70 ' x 100 ' varies from 9--29
7, 000 sq.ft. sq. ft. (7 , 000 7 ' to 10 ' 10--11
(such as on sq. ft- ) 13--11
7 . 5--7
Betlen 9--11
Drive) 7--7
11--20
18--9
9--30
18--13
R_1-B-E 8, 000 75 ' x 107 ' varies 9--9
8, 000 -sq.ft . sq. ft- (8, 025 typically 10--17
(such as on sq. ft. ) from 8 ' to 10--10
- 10 , 10--22
Southwick
11--13
Drive) 15--15
15--8
11--13
8--8
8--18
.,CrcpN (joe
YAK
r
SiGE i j ftC�`C-P-D
ATRI�2A C P�Mm
I .
i
-rm,c�,L ter
-
1 �
Mobile Homes 61
gout : A�rCC-ctuR�- b�Hc. ST��os .
e•-o'e•-e'•n'-o'
R,�I,a. I n0-O.I n—0' I wrC7 2'P-O'r•.w•Cxs IAPOK __—L
CM
I
El
�� F=11 r >
t SLIOE-tN•-CAB OVCR CAMPER a+OTORMOMC
�}IASSIO MOUNTED CAMPER Made to fit 6 n/s•.S.9•pickup beds Sites and design vary.TYpical width 6•-Cr der
ar trucks of 157--1Sr.wMallsam dual rear wheels Widths vary 6•-91. 7-6', W-o'No"
;do door,rear Iwrlge•Widths:-T'-8-. fl-Cr i
:-AmpER3
10•MrI•�TO
_ I '�T ACJOINING � If C�•R
Cr
a
^ r+OS.rT I II �1•� � TRwst.ER
Jf I 1 t
rW
n I II
v f, i l wI I TERRACE
I T 1 • C� Ie• 10' I3.
D � 1•� � I t,AWN
ai s E f eras I 1� i !
r l`,C� STaNp I t C i I SaoEwALrc�l
W J
It b
�• ,W V D O , w I R cc
D
6ydyW •METL'R If II RI AOACS ANO PaGttJTES AS ACQUIRED FOR
.d3 P•^rEl.Arclll II eeCNS w•O erl.t r•OME P-AKS
Oyu STbRK,E II'+ 11
+ym LoCxEa II� II Muimum permissible length of motor vehicle and
•,I N II
UU I (II wailer together varies from sD to 65 ft.according to
I t! the various state statutes
TOURING TRAILER PARK LOT
I I v'f.s.•.r ro roar
..cwr
ss • r�ie- ..war.
S - I star rw.r
I o
ATIO r+.....c
I 11 I
I r •r.•vccL
I i•O•,< • I �1 IO• OIAMET£R twcr+r•+<w• .
✓p. n II 11 CONCRETE PIERS
I 11 TYPICAL PLUMBING HOOKUP
I ter• t '
3 1 a `1r -•�S;
nl 11 •I Stn \O•• •
T`..•rl� -•TI_ •1� -� ill
r0-4 I �{ III I
I III •I �, .o.
CJ s•wC'rED /2' CcNCA ETZ I 1 T C C
wav El WAU< I � iI - 1 ANCS•ORS RS o.
T I RAMP DESIGN CRITERIA
1. Slope must not exceed 1 in 15.
i •�L 2. Remo should be at least 4 h wide
1 Handrails on both sides are 2 h 8 in.high and have
rails that are easily gra=ed.
o<NEAA� LAYOUT 1 IOUr`IOATION REOUIR EMENTS 4• Handrails are exwded horizontally 1 h beyond
wrIUTICS cONr aecrriON'. PAVINO. ANO the top and bottom of the ramp.
UTILITY LINES i Large flat platform at the too and large flat paved
bT� area at the bottom of ramps should be provided.
w-water. S sewer, G'gas E electric, T'tole• rx Long ramps re broken with flat platform area at
Cor.ult zoning ordinance for local regulations _
L YfIOT1f: phony
tom 12 h standard.Some 14 h models
the market. Many states restrict width far
hIt"y transport. 1. WATER SERVICE.
2 LENGTH:46 to 60 tL A 68 h model is available. 2. GAS SERVICE: M
w.. •1 Wr�EI�G�H,.T OF MOBILE HOMES:15 to 20 tons tanks n and afar•
+•4 OSSIFICATIONS OF MOBILE HOMES: Ind& tanks outside of to y i,1 F'
•:�'•r' otwlt o least 5 h from any
p•r` • F! -`+- r} .
equipped with flush toilet and tub or
1 ELECTRICAL SE:
Dependent is not equipped with plumbing Underground distrit ��-• fi r'' r-.; r
F �t
;r•,•,•>'rOel� HOME PARK8
,1✓•j���'M'rl
AA aM Frsnk G—Wot•R A.:North Whwa Ibsen%Maw York
:Y TRANSPORTATION
-M a
Ir1 .!' Mt J V YI•�) y j:; yry t y f !h I� tx :1 fk�'I y 1 L' k_{ YY �p .J ry �: 2 )I Y
.IL. .-•a^"1,r'•,asr-s'I MS r,.> -S'�M r r-w;,�tw t.p,c s^ .. �< �:^,��.a�, •�1,,�.�,,t"�.���N��n's'""`�.� 5}r*.- t>. 'C�.tti #�4 :r rr'� '� � Z -
�'
�P.r;?:�,.<';'�r�.`r�^.�Ady„vii""4'�c`7�h`�"`,�..,<�•s. �,4'r�'yS`t�P±'v��!rx�s`,raal �°w '��..nT�<..rC'c�.��.1 .��.r,•l.}-:��:,:� .._..:+j,s+A_ ..�.�i�4s,'..F"A°i• ?1t`,�E�'.:��a�e�w�a :.x+9�'��.,��".1"�T,"V.'�"•..'.i""Y.s»,,.�; x:.Y';-.,. .. .. ..
NEW BUSINESS
Recreational Vehicle Ordinance - Background information
Mr . Tong provided a brief chronology of the events leading up to
the scheduling of this item before the Planning Commission. The
Staff', report providing background information indicated the
existing ordinance requirements, discussed options and possible
modifications which might be available through an ordinance
revision process, and provided copies of three other cities '
regulations .
Mr . Tong discussed the mechanisms that will be involved to review
a possible ordinance revision.
Cm. Alexander opened the discussion to those present in the
audience, ( for sake of clarity and brevity; the speakers are
identified in the order they spoke and only those major points
not discussed by previous speakers are listed) .
Speaker 1 - Mary Tuma (Dublin Green Drive)
1. Questioned why the City sought to control parking of R.V. ' s
if there is no corresponding control of parking of cars .
2. Questioned the right/appropriateness of City controlling
activities on private property.
3 . Questioned what prompted discussion of the subject.
Speaker 2 - Stanley Greenspan (Amarillo Court)
1. If the City ' s desire is to present obstruction of air and to
eliminate fire hazard in side yard, then there should be
corresponding control on litter and placement of. sheds in
side yards .
Speaker 4 - Cliff Gonsalves (Amarillo Court)
1. Questioned the appropriateness of citing people who 've taken
steps to upgrade their property to provide for formal R.V.
parking.
2 . Process of enforcement will force people to move units to
other jurisdictions . ,
3 . Questioned whether enforcement will force unit owners to
park on steep streets.
Gil�6 f gj5 PCM-5-97
ATI
a
"T"'",T'sn?+.—.r<•,•, + ^ r cw7f• r r v t ••.*-'•a ,r�scz{'- *`�y...Fgx"T,`17—^ F-=--'�^f>x.t.. ._.i.
�t?��`V 'SS:; .��I.�,n.x� J.�c�. ...� t"'r.a,Y r:��.7«�.,r, :4*: . . •t
4 . Indicated that enforcement would force units out into
street creating safety hazard and possibly increasing
insurance premiums of unit owners .
5 ..' ,' Called for adoption of an ordinance requiring "legitimate"
pads for R.V. unit parking.
Speaker 5 - John Olves (Manzanita Lane )
1. Questioned enforcement of an ordinance where squabbles
necessitate involvement of City Staff, the Planning
Commission, the City Council and the General Public.
2 . Indicated opinion that Staff was "overreacting" .
3 . Indicated desire for new ordinance and moratorium of
enforcement of current ordinance.
Speaker 6 - Robert Stein (Peppertree Road)
1 . Indicated only "winners" in this issue will be storage yard
owners .
Speaker 7 - Phillip Sargent ( Shadow Drive)
1 . Inquired whether C C & R' s controlled against R.V. unit
parking.
2 . Stated current situation still could see R.V. unit owners
who rent private storage spaces ticketed when parking at
their homes during vacation preparation periods .
Speaker 8 - Norman Klein ( Hansen Drive)
1 . Indicated he was cited by City and moved unit to the private
storage facility on Portola .
2. Indicated support of City of San Ramon ' s R.V. ordinance.
Speaker 9 - Jim Kimzey ( 7796 Woodren Court )
1 . Stated his 14, 000 sq. ft. lot stnl wasn ' t big enough or
appropriately configured to avoid receiving citation from .
City, even though he ' d put in a pad, fence and gate for that
purpose.
2 . Complained rental storage spaces are subject to vandals .
3 . Stated City was sending message to public they don ' t want
families who camp.
9 '(6 ISS
PCM-5-98
�7 -7,"-*_
n — _
Speaker 10 - Joan Ferreira (Betlen Drive)
1. Asked why ordinances from Walnut Creek , Fremont and Palo
Alto were reviewed. (Mr. Tong stated City had those
ordinances, and we ' re working to secure copies of San Ramon,
Livermore and Pleasanton) .
Speaker 11 - Jim Cuellar (Hansen Drive)
1. Requested moratorium on enforcement during period of review
of the regulations . (Cm. Raley advised Mr. Cuellar to
,.,direct that request to the City Council.
Speaker 12 - Mr . Cliff Gonsalves (Amarillo Court )
1 . Advised Commission that he ' d previously requested City
Council consider ordinance adopted by the City of San Ramon
( 72 hours parking in front of home and one-week visitor ' s
permit) .
Speaker 13 - Mr . Donald Robinson (Amarillo Court)
1 . Discussed enforcement process for inoperable car he ' d been
involved with.
2 . Indicated he could understand concerns of property owners
who didn ' t own R.V. units regarding impacts on property
values if ordinance was made less restrictive .
3 . Asked how an effective voice to City Council could be made.
4 . Indicated public safety was also a legitimate concerns
relating R.V. unit parking . (Mr . Tong interjected that the
City Council action initiated the Zoning Ordinance Amendment
review process and was done in conjunction with direction
not to put enforcement moratorium into effect) .
Speaker 14 - Larry Baron (Hansen Drive )
1. Indicated need to separate R.V. unit parking issue from
concerns of front yards in "deplorable" condition.
2 . Questioned why "West of San Ramon Road" residents were being
""picked on" . . (Mr . Tong advised enforcement was being made
City-wide on a complaint basis) .
3 Stated that in his neighborhood R.V. unit owners did not
create a hazard.
4 . Stated that striving to assure public safety many clash with
appropriateness of imposing controls on private property.
5 . Expressed desire to have all R.V. unit owners involved in
the ordinance revision discussions.
q J1'E' I$s PCM-5-99
t•to...... ....:r•.«.:-....,.:'..•v:............ ...._._,.:. _.�.—.•,^.. Y'•"':.-.}.. r.,A._ .i'S..'^•'.' .. - - � _
Speaker 15 - Loraine Fojtik (Circle Way)
1. Questioned 72 hour standard and resultant " jockeying" of
R.V. units around street.
2 .• Stated parking in a storage yard is not a viable option due
to costs and threat of vandalism.
Speaker 16 - Mr William Spuit (Ladero Court)
1. Questioned 72 hour standard and resultant " jockeying" of
':R.V, units around street.
2 . Stated he purposely bought a lot with a wide side yard.
Speaker 17 - Mr . Prize
1 . Stated parking a boat was not materially different than
parking of a car .
2 . Stated forcing a boat into the street . creates a safety
hazard (propeller blade) .
Speaker 18 - Mr . Dan Sidbury (Padre Way)
1 . Stated that even those who don ' t own R.V. units see this
type of ordinance as an infringement on property rights .
2 . Stated parking in a storage yard is not a viable option.
Speaker 19 - Elliott Healey (Betlen Drive )
1 . Stated City leaders needed foresight, not bureaucracy.
2 . Called for City to provide a secure R.V. unit parking
facility in Dublin.
3 . Complained about enforcement process ( i . e . acting on
complaint basis only) .
A five minute adjournment was called for by Chairman Alexander .
An unidentified speaker suggested th(7 definition of R.V. units be
expanded to include vans and wagons; Mr . Gonsalves complained
apparently about the inconsistances in the citation time
allowances for corrective measure ( 10 - 15 - 30 days ) .
Speaker 20 - Yvonne McFadden (Peppertree)
1 . Suggested a revised ordinance look at allowing R.V. unit
parking in front yard, including driveway, and in side yard
setbacks . -
(6�PjS PCM-5-100
ss
s � '�., "'�-..,',z"•..s F"'�r f ,4. mot,•sr 7 ,-r -7A..
p ... }+ s., r ,. '3f� T• .;CT T. m ,., r. .J 4.-, "+ ".r'i ' ".� 7 i,�t - .
T v
2. Suggested ordinance provide for specific minimal safety
considerations (e.g. level pads or secured pads, fenced as
feasible) .
3 . • ' , Called for case-by-case review of aesthetics .
Speaker 21 - Lee Fletcher (Tyne Court)
1 . Stated the ordinance control on R.V. units seemed punitive
as R.V. units often are much more attractive then many
commercial vehicles which are allowed to park in residential
areas .
The Commissioners provided Staff with the following listings of
information they wished to have provided for the next Planning
Commission meeting on this subject :
1. Cm. Raley
A. Indication of how much R.V. unit storage was available
in Dublin (giving total space count and spaces vacant
and available) .
B . Indication of how much R.V. unit storage was available
within a reasonable distance (giving total space count
and spaces vacant and available) .
C. Background inf.ormation on insurance premiums/coverage
for R.V. unit parking where located; 1) on the street ,
2 ) in the front/sideyards , and 3 ) in the rear vard.
D. Costs of R.V. unit storage in private commercial yards .
E. Information on problems of R.V. units parked in front
yard with extension over property line into the public
right-of-way.
F . Determination on question of whether parking in the
driveway is allowed by current ordinance.
G. Discussion on feasibility of having one set of
regulations for "self-contained" units and one standard
for "non self-contained" urrifs .
2 . Cm. Petty
A. Clarification of regulations ( State/City) regarding
72-hour on-street parking .
B . Provision of other City' s regulations (preferably by `
separate, early mailout) .
Gj % I$S PCM-5- 101
77-
3 . Cm. Alexander
A. Provision of San Leandro ' s ordinance among sample
ordinances provided for review.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr . Tong advised the Commission that the City Council would
consider the Camp Parks area annexation at their next meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS CONCERNS
Cm. Raley questioned the City' s policy on installation of
sidewalks in new projects .
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
10 : 00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chairman
Laurence L. Tong,
Planning Director
PCM-5-102
SUBJECT: 7 . 2 PA 85-017 Kaufman and Broad of Northern
California, Inc. (Applicant and Owner ) Planned
Development (PD) Prezonin and -Rezoninq, Ann tion,
Tentative Map and Site Development Review lications
involving a 14 . 4+ acre portion of the N ' sen Ranch
Subdivision (Tentative Map 4859 ) at t extension of
Silvergate Drive north of Hansen D ' e.
Cm. Aiex* ander indicated that a letter f m the applicant had been
received requesting the item be cont ' ed to the Commission
Meeting of October 21 , 1985 . Cm. exander asked the audience if
anyone had any problems with th equest for continuance .
Jim Abreu (Amarillo Ct . ) c ented on the project ' s coverage-and
resultant drainage .
Cm. Raley indicated e ' d like to see the matter put over to the
meeting of Novemb 4 , 1985 .
Ron Grudzins , Kaufman and Broad, indicated a preference for the
October 2 1985 , meeting.
On m ion by Cm. Mack , and seconded by Cm. Raley, and by
un imous vote, the Planning Commission voted to continue the
em to the meeting of November 4 , 1985 ..
SUBJECT: 7 . 3 PA 85-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding
Recreational Vehicles (RV Ordinance)
Cm. Alexander opened the Public Hearing. Mr . Tong opened the
Staff Report by indicating that the regulations ultimately
adopted cannot please everyone . He indicated that this was the
first formal Public Hearing on the matter .
Mr . Tong provided a brief overview of the chronology of events
leading up to the Public Hearing and a, c' escription of the current
R. V. unit parking regulations . He discussed briefly the method
by which the City enforces the Ordinance, indicating that action
was on a complaints only basis .
Mr . Tong advised that Staff had surveyed . the regulations of eight
Bay Area cities to survey- the alternatives available for the
City' s Ordinance . The options available were indicated as
follows : ( 1 ) R. V. unit parking in rear yards of lots only;
( 2) R. V. unit parking in rear or side yards of lots with- use of
screening; and ( 3 ) R. V. unit parking in rear, side, or front
yards ( if space is not available in the -rear or side yards ) .
ICI? 1 6 PCM-5-105
1 ..'�,5.3 -. .. r t _fi ,i�.� s�v y;m w�'.f yak ..::a st �-` z� �r 24's..z Ft`� k,�`'rlu:, � _ci,^ �. ,,,,r .•.y,..;-;;.•� 'rs. _ ,
In answer to questions raised at the September 16, 1985, meeting,
Mr . Tong advised: (1 ) long-term parking in front driveway areas
is not allowed for under the current Ordinance regulations; ( 2)
that there are aproximately 43 R. V. unit storage areas in the
vic2n.ity (all currently full, with one to add space for 200
additional units in the near future) ; and (3 ) that insurance
rates for parking on private residential- properties doesn' t
differentiate as regards to where the parking occurs ( i. e. , in
front vs. rear yards) .
Cm. Alexander opened the discussion to those present in the
audience ( for the- sake of clarity and brevity, the speakers are
identified in the order they spoke, with only speakers raising
major points not discussed by previous speakers being listed) .
Speaker 1 - William Pennington (Portage Road) :
1 . Questioned who established the original Ordinance.
2 . Questioned whether issue should be subject to a special
ballot .
Speaker 2 - Debra Wynn (Tamarack ) :
1 . Indicated regulations appeared to conflict with private
property rights.
2 . Indicated support of change to allow R. V. unit parking
in front yard in cases where driveway width would
accommodate it and still allow access by cars to garage .
3 . Stated Ordinance should have provisions dealing with
unit upkeep and safety.
Speaker 3 - Gary West (Cardigan Street) :
1 . Voiced opinion that issue could be boiled down to
aesthetics vs . personal property rights .
2 . Stated he favored implementation of standards that
acknowledged personal rights rather than aesthetics .
Speaker 4 - Delores Raley ( Dillon Way) :
1 . Indicated opinion that issue was not just aesthetics and
personal property rights but also included the question
of impacts on property values.-
2 . Indicated that the $10 ,000 to $20 , 000 individual
investments by a minority of Dublin residents ( towards
their R. V. units ) had to be compared to the overall
impact to property values that ,may occur if their
unregulated presence in the City is allowed.
3 . Questioned why R. V. unit owners couldn ' t/wouldn ' t spend
the $15 .00 monthly to utilize private storage parking.
10-7 �Ss PCM-5-106
�:rY' �. t r '^Z.. 3 7 �;,1/ .,,fig, r ;.m r "��" �7r2 ..� �+^ � {�.is ..k� e„'" nsa �..13" ;-f.- -
'` qx"�'�'!'? 3�. n "'?�.{•, t+ v . .'4q t T'. - i`ixl'' r r r "4 s t t 1e j'.8
1+" .-r.:9i, r�..t, #:.. ,._, ..t 1:C s'-a�4'.t.:.�,.t-d;, ,....d_,:��'T} rl i,E:*,1_
Speaker 5 - Sue Moore (Cardigan Street) :
1 . Inquired as to the need to control R. V. units when no
corresponding control on the presence of trash in yards
' 1 is provided.
Speaker 6 - Chris Combs (Newcastle Lane) :
1 . Indicated he supported an Ordinance that would allow
parking in front and side yards .
2 . Stated he saw a problem being tied to those lots having
a large number of vehicles parked on the property and/or
along the street .
Speaker 7 - Stanley Greenspan (Amarillo Ct. ) :
1 . Stated that being an R. V. unit owner didn ' t mean you ' d
be unconcerned with aesthetics .
2 . Stated he saw restrictive regulations as being "anti-
family" in nature.
3 . Stated that tying the Ordinance to standards regarding
ventilation, clutter, and access to lighting is
inappropriate.
4 . Voiced opinion that standards adopted need not be "black
and white" but should allow flexibility.
Speaker 8 - John Johnson ( Estrella Ct . ) :
1 . Stated opinion that he, and others, have a right to have
many cars .
2 . Questioned fairness of standards geared to standard lots
( i . e . , rectangular lots ) when many Dublin lots are
loaded off of cul-de-sacs are pie-shaped.
Speaker 9 - Jim Cuellar :
1 . Read October 4 , 1985 , letter from Briarhill Homeowners '
Association which supports the option allowing parking
in sideyards with screening, but not in front yards .
2 . Stated that as an individual he supports front yard
parking if on a formal, safe pad.
Speaker 10 - Unidentifiable (Starward Drive) :
1 . Stated small sideyards are prevalent and cancel parking
options .
2 . Stated "72-hour" rule for on-street parking is a problem
and results in hazardous jockeying of R. V. units .
Speaker 11 - Robert Jeda (Oxbow Ct . ) :
1 . Stated he ' s one with lots of vehicles and small side a ,
yard.
2. Stated he couldn ' t afford fees for private storage
yards .
10 I� 'as PCM-5-107
''T:
s
Speaker 12 - Ann Vargas :
1 . Stated that parking of R. V. units in private yards has
historically occurred in Dublin and no active
enforcement of regulations has been made.
2 . Stated opinion that R. V. units .aren' t necessarily ugly.
Speaker 13 - Jeff Moore ( Cedar Lane) :
1 . Advised many individuals use their "R. V. units" as work
vehicles and that Ordinance should acknowledge that
situation.
Speaker 14 - Cathy Riordan ( Firebrand Drive) :
1 . Stated opinion that current Ordinance throws a large
number of law-abiding people into position of being-
"law-breakers , "
Speaker 15 - Jim Nelson ( St . Raymond Ct . ) :
1 . Stated opposition to current Ordinance since it forces
R. V. units into the street.
2 . Stated support of Ordinance reflecting standards adopted
by City of San Ramon.
Speaker 16 - Morrese Woodrow (Wicklow Lane) :
1 . Stated he ' s one of those with six cars, motor home, and
a boat , and with a valid reason for each.
Speaker 17 - Tim Bowes (Woodren Ct . ) :
1 . Questioned where logical endpoint of control of
"appearance of Dublin" would lead.
2 . Stated opinion that controls on R. V. unit parking was
discriminatory.
Speaker 18 - Dan Sidbury:
1 . Questioned Mr . Tong about the availability and security
of private storage parking fa<%lities in the area .
Speaker 19 - Ken Christman (Galindo Drive ) :
1 . Asked why provision for R. V. unit parking wasn' t
considered 20 years ago when the homes in the area were
built .
Speaker 20 - Larry Mayhew:
1 . Stated the whole process would .result in costs to many
for benefits of a relatively small number .
PCM-5-108
77'S'
7 `a Fx4t". lt.j' u• v. .�, , t k .r.�a
Speaker 21 - John Hayward (Mansfield Drive) :
1 . Stated regulations should differentiate between
standards for registered and unregistered vehicles.
Speaker •22 - Sheila Lewis (Dover Ct. ) :
1 . Stated problem is not just R. V. units but includes cars
in disrepair .
2 . Stated new lots should be required to have space for R.
V. unit parking.
Speaker 23 - Glenn Johnson (Manzanita Lane) :
1. Mentioned impact of closure of private R. V. unit
storage facility on Doty property.
Speaker 24 - Larry Baroni ( Hickory Lane) :
1 . Voiced concern about method meeting was noticed.
2 . Questioned how standards would apply to vans .
3 . Questioned what the function of driveways was supposed
to be.
Speaker 25 - Larry Horn (Tamarack Drive) :
1 . Stated support of ordinance requiring rearyard parking
if physically possible; if not, in front as long as not
extending into the public right-of-way.
2 . Stated he had some problems with standards in San
Ramon ' s ordinance regarding the allowable period for
on-street parking.
Speaker 26 - Bill Gonsalves :
1 . Reiterated complaint about method of noticing for the
meeting .
2 . Questioned the enforcement process regarding R. V. unit
parking.
Speaker 27 - Beverly Linell :
1 . Discussed enforcement process from her personal
experiences ..
Speaker 28 - Johnson :
1 . Questioned who was the "Zoning Investigator" and what
that person' s function/responsibility was .
2 . Stated opinion that enforcement of standards now would
be unfair and arbitrary.
tC) 1.7 PCM-5-109
i r
r" ,:..�, .�4: :T�+'�-Y,,''Y +-.f'''•r-r' 3: " -.r.rf sa rs r? °ro- ."�,.t ~�'?'1-,j -Y� : ya ;y-c, s. '— -
r ••
•
Speaker 29 - Cindi Raymond (Amador Valley Blvd. ) :
1. Indicated support for use of San Ramon' s Ordinance.
Speaker 30 - Donald Robinson (Amarillo Ct . ) :
1 . Stated opinion that average person is unaware of the
standards, process, or their options.
Speaker 31 - Clifford Gonsalves (Amarillo Ct. ) :
1•:. Stated support for San Ramon ' s Ordinance, modified to
have loading/unloading period extended and to eliminate
any permit process .
A TEN-MINUTE RECESS WAS TAKEN.
Speaker 32 - Lorraine Fordick (Circle Way) :
1 . Stated desire not to have some other City' s Ordinance,
but rather an Ordinance suited specifically for Dublin.
2 . Stated opinion that police monitoring of the "72-hour"
rule should be a low-priority duty.
Speaker 33 - Jim Abreu (Amarillo Ct . ) :
1 . Stated position that if R. V. units are allowed in
sideyards, then adequate access to rear yard on other
sideyard area should be required.
Speaker 34 - Lee Fletcher (Tina Ct . ) :
1 . Requested the Commission indicate their position on the
matter .
Speaker 35 - Anna Shada:
1 . Voiced concern of infringement on private property
rights .
Speaker 36 - Helen Stone :
1 . Questioned that if unlimited parking was allowed and
desired, then what would be the impacts to property
values and safety considerations .
On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Petty, and on
consensus , Cm. Alexander closed the Public Hearing .
The Commissioners proceeded to indicate their individual
positions/desires on the issue.
{p f I SS PCM-5-110
�j , -�.. �— "A .t -"'.:3, r cK 3,S 1 1� .��i�t. s'�•A'H N' 'r.Jf+ _ ',to _
Cm. Raley:
1 . Supports Ordinance similar to option 143 in Staff ' s
report (parking in front allowed if access to rear or
side not available) .
2 . Stated opposition to use of any permit process.
3 . Stated opposition of R. V. unit parking in the public
right-of-way due to safety concerns .
4 . Stated opinion units should, wherever feasible, be
behind a fence on a paved, formal pad.
Cm. MI i-ck :
1 . Stated support of action by City to provide a City-
owned, low-cost R. V. unit storage facility.
Cm. Barnes :
1 . Also supported concept of City-owned facility.
2 . Stated opposition for R. V. units on the street.
3 . Stated desire to have units on formal, paved areas .
4 . Stated desire to have units in sidevard or rear yard if
access was physically possible.
Cm. Pettv:
1 . Stated San Ramon ' s Ordinance was not a cure-all in that
all it achieved was getting units off the street
2 . Stated desire to have units in sidevard or rear yard if
access was physically possible .
Cm. Alexander directed specific questions to the Commission as
follows:
1 . What options are available regarding screening?
. 2 . Is there support of allowing/requiring widening the
driveway paving to locate the R. V. units in front?
The Commission gave the collective direction to Staff to return
to the October 21 , 1985 , meeting with a. Draft Ordinance which
would establish a tiered system of regulations . The stated
desire of the Commission was to requires-R. V. unit parking in
the rear yard or one sideyard access was physically possible . If
that access was not available, then it is the Commission ' s stated
desire to have the parking located adjoining the driveway in the
strip between the driveway and the nearest sideyard. If that •
still was not possible, then the Commission would support parking
within the driveway.
Additional discussion was given regarding corner lots , with
support indicated for parking in the portion of the street-side y
sideyard to the rear of the front of the residence.
PCM-5-111
— 7 -•:.-n. -r s
It was indicated that the public hearing on the item would be
reopened at the October 21, 1985 , hearing to allow discussion of
the Draft Ordinance.
- NEW BUSINESS
None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr . Tong advised that the City Council would nsider the Camp
Parks annexation at their next meeting (sec d reading) .
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ' CONCERNS
None .
ADJOURNMENT
. There being no furth business, the meeting was adjourned at
11 : 20 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pl ning Commission Chairman
Laurence L. Tong,
Planning Director
1b(7 8S PCM-5-112
R i«7" nyY?i+s .�" - r i c w f v..- L i"' _ lt" r"r� TTY`.+ Z ♦ "'.'?.'�,r;Y.L '{. i� _
��N Mri i t x ,✓ -" 'r i'-rvrt x4u�'.t v'w ti .+ 72��_. ��.tT :� '✓� � 7 , ..fir i", t
�• `
SUBJECT: PA 85-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding
Recreational Vehicles (RV Ordinance)
-Cm. Alexander reopened the Public Hearing. Mr. Tong opened the
staff report by summarizing the actions of the previous hearing
and discussing the present regulations . Mr. Tong continued by
discussing the tiered recommendations the Commission established
at the October 7 , 1985, hearing and identifying the remaining
issue areas .
Cm. Alexander opened the discussion to those present in the
audience (for the sake of clarity and brevity, the speakers
identified are those who had new major points not discussed by
previous speakers) .
Speaker 1 - Tom Bond (Amarillo Court)
A. Described his situation -(boat on concrete pad 65 ' + back from
face-of-curb with large tree screening view of boat) .
B. Stated opinion that the curb cuts (as called for in Draft
Ordinance) were unnecessary.
C. Stated opinion that imposing "newcomers '" standards on
Dublin' s "old-timers" was unfair.
Speaker 2 - -Robert Shadda (Oxbow Court)
A. Questioned how Draft Ordinance would establish what
constitutes "accessibility" to rear and sideyards _
(Cm. Raley questioned Mr. Shadda as to whether he supported the
requirement to provide a curb cut. )
Speaker 3 - Candice Larson (Corto Court)
Mrs . Larson read to the Commission a copy of her letter
previously submitted to the editor of a local paper. The main
points of the letter were as follows :
A. R.V. ' s stored in residential areas add to traffic
congestion.
B. R. V., units parking on-site are hazardous (they block
visibility) and are unattractive .
C. Storage in the side yard would be OK.
D . Commercial vehicles in residential areas are another
concern.
�p f yl (SS PCM-5-115
•xr`N �.R� ��r'G �1 r..'v` » � e �.-"`fir sv-_ r a : :^w +T3 t ,, � ' _
r
E. Our City has invested a great deal of money in upgrading the
area. We need to continue cleaning up and improving our image.
Speaker 4 - Steve Heath (Wicklow Lane)
)17. Stated problem with requiring new curb cuts is that it would
decrease available on-street parking. He would rather just use
a 4 x 4 or 4 x 6 in the gutter.
B. Stated that upkeep of curbs and sidewalks falls upon the
individual property owners (i. e. , if they damage curb and/or
sidewalk, they have the responsibility to repair it) .
Speaker 5 - Joe Mahan (Castilian Road)
A. Stated opinion that parking beside driveways should be
accessed from driveway, not from a new curb cut.
B. Indicated concern that "bureaucratic review" differs between
the City and County Staffs .
C. Stated . safety concerns can be adequately controlled by the
Motor Vehicle Code and enforcement of the 25 m.p.h. speed limit
in residential areas .
D . Stated opposition to a screening requirement.
E. Raised question of property rights vs . zoning police powers .
F . Stated opinion that a requirement that R. V. units be backed
into front-yard parking spaces would solve visibility concerns .
G . Complained he ' d bought into the neighborhood on an "as-is"
basis and that new residents shouldn' t be able to impose their
standards on existing residents .
Speaker 6 Laurie Petty (Shadow Place)
A. Requested the Commission reconsider the direction given to
date on this issue . Alluded to a 5-year process to upgrade the
appearance of the community, especially the City ' s commercial
areas .
B. Stated opinion that R. V. unit storage in the front of homes
was offensive, dangerous , and unnecessary.
C. Stated support for limiting R. V. unit parking to side
and/or rear yards .
D . Indicated opinion that the private property rights issue
pales when issue is viewed in a broader sense: property values
for the community at large.
10(-1•-t I 13 S PCM-5-116
E. Stated support for a permit process for R. V. unit unloading
or short-term visits .
Speaker 7 - Eric Klein (Hansen Drive)
A. Described his situation (meets the requirements outlined in
the Draft Ordinance) and indicated his support for the format of
the Draft Ordinance.
B. Stated the "old timers" were subject to CC&R regulations
that dealt with R. V. unit parking.
Speaker 8 - Robert Matheson (Wicklow Court)
A. Stated concern that Draft ' Ordinance is geared to standard,
rectangular lots, and that they don't consider the problem with
irregularly shaped lots .
B. Stated he 'd provide a curb cut if it was required by the new
ordinance regulations .
C. Voiced opinion that aesthetics weren't really a problem.
Speaker 9 - Mary Tuma (Dublin Green Drive)
A. Questioned appropriateness of requiring R. V. units in front
yards to be backed into parking area (Draft Ordinance doesn ' t
require this to be done) .
B. Called for use of some type of "grandfather" clause for
existing violators .
C . Called for use of better drafted definitions in the
Ordinance for clarity purposes .
D. Stated opposition to formalizing maximum allowable length of
R. V. unit parking spaces .
Speaker 10 - Ben Smith (Hansen Drive)
A. Stated opinion that actions to upgrade appearance of the
City are fine, but care should be taken not to go overboard to
financially impact a subgroup of thy, Citv' s residents .
B. Questioned appropriatness of the application of standards
that would impose costs by individual property owners to provide
their conformance to the revised ordinance (e . g. , requiring curb
cuts ) .
C. Questioned the 20-foot length cited in the Draft Ordinance
and indicated many R.V. units measure in the 21-foot to 24- foot
range.
PCM-5-117
. , -�.. ^,�Y_^-r-<'?aty",'T..:.;ac;----r'--. �.pq.r .. _I x 7"CS•1:?,rFd%. t?,rh +':.. '.�. _ _ _. _. ^'�.rw:..:..- .,o ,
D. Called for a definition of "incidental parking. "
Speaker 11 - Ken Helman (Allegheny Drive)
A. Described his own situation (having a boat and an R. V. unit
and being unable to find any offsite storage spaces ) .
B. Questioned what type of required "screening" was being
considered.
C. Questioned language in Draft Ordinance as it might apply to
someone with two R.V. units but with only room for one in the
sideyard. (Mr . Tong acknowledged that this area would need
clarification) .
Speaker 12 - Elliot Healy (Betlen Drive)
A. Asked for clarification of intent of the screening
requirement as it applied to the Draft Ordinance. (Mr. Tong
cited the section in the existing ordinance pertaining to fences ,
walls , and hedges ) .
Speaker 13 - Jim Conally (Langmuir Lane)
A. Complained about apparent ambiguity concerning the screening
requirement, stating six-foot height wouldn' t provide screening
of R.V. units .
B_ Indicated he didn ' t support a requirement that curb cuts be
made . He stated opinion that temporary ramps at the curb were
appropriate as long as the property owner in question assumed
responsibility for any damage done to the curb, gutter, or
sidewalk.
Speaker 14 - Larry Horn (Tamarack Drive)
A. Indicated the 20-foot maximum length for front yard R.V.
unit parkling was inappropriate and inadequate .
B. Stated that while a curb cut makes access to property easier
for R. V. units, he felt it was not necessary for protection of
sidewalks and would just result in unnecessary expenses for the
property owner.
Speaker 15 - Larry Baroni (Hickory Lane)
A. Stated opposition to a curb cut requirement.
B. Stated opinion that most R. V. unit owners are currently
backing their units into their lots and thereby facilitating
safer exits back onto the public street .
C . Restated concern that Ordinance will impact private property
rights .
PCM-5-118
-- .. +.r-. ?..�.rr'S` ^.jc.r;.,�^s.e •N.n ... ^=-c z•,"r:�' '.— 7•n• ,7 T.a' T' -.:''P i ?. r
Speaker 16 - Bill Allen (Fredricksen Lane)
A. Stated he can't support the Draft Ordinance in its present
form.
Bf Indicated he wants to be able to park his unit on his lawn.
C. Called for use of a grandfather clause (no complaints in
five years, then free and clear) .
Speaker 17 - Unidentified
A '. Indicated that parking on wide side of driveway would be
safer and more convenient.
Speaker 18 - Bert Jamison (Amarillo Ct. )
A. Said that there are typically conditions , covenants and
restrictions on the property. They were being ignored.
B. Hobbies , such as having a big boat, should not become a
neighbor ' s headache .
CM. ALEXANDER CALLED FOR A TEN-MINUTE RECESS
Upon reconvening, Cm. Raley stated he felt it appropriate to
leave the Public Hearing on the matter open and give direction to
Staff .
Prompted by Cm. Petty ' s inquiry to the members of the audience,
an extended discussion followed among the Commissioners regarding
the definition/interpretation sought for the concept of "physical
accessibility. " Cm. Raley expressed - concern that strict
interpretation of "physical accessibility" could result in loss
of established front yard landscaping. Cm. Raley questioned
whether the Commission would consider "grandfathering" existing
duplicate driveways and also indicated he had reservations about
storage of raised camper shells in the front yard. Cm. Raley
continued by indicating he had no problem with dropping the 20-
foot maximum length dimension, stating the important factor would
be just to require the unit to fit into the driveway. Cm. Raley
indicated a desire to have the Draft Ordinance specifically
restrict any vehicular parking in tie front yard area on the wide
side of the driveway.
Cm. Alexander stated strong support of a requirement to move
R. V. units to the rear of the yard if "physically accessible, "
regardless of whether a pad had been established previously in
the front yard.
Cm. Mack stated a preference to not have R. V. unit parking in
the front yard and stated strong support for requiring rear 'yard
or sideyard storage if "physically accessible. "
PCM-5-119
y,.. r - �,,, ..,. ,.. -;: `'. T' -:' •1-.sc r ,.m�a,y n... "'�.A. � R 77:y3'�"My
I
Cm. Barnes also stated strong support for rear yard or sideyard
storage and again stated support for the City developing and
operating a private storage yard within the City limits . Cm.
Barnes stated her observation of the residential area' s change
has been a downhill change.
Cm. Barnes and Cm. Raley jointly indicated that the majority of
phone calls they received from residents were opposed to storage
of R. V. units in front yard areas .
On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Mack, and on
consensus , Cm. Alexander closed the Public Hearing, and indicated
their intent to reopen the hearing for discussion on the Draft at
the next Planning 'Commission meeting.
Cm. Raley asked for clarification of what options were available
to the City Council as regards the question of instituting a
moratorium of enforcement of the existing Ordinance. Mr. Tong
reviewed the options .
Cm. Alexander stated support for removing the 20-foot maximum
dimension for frontyard R.V. unit parking and putting in its
place language tying the allowable length to garage location.
Cm. Alexander continued by stating concern that R. V. unit
parking in driveways should result in the corresponding loss of
access to the adjoining garage parking space .
In response to an inquiry from Cm. Alexander, Mr. Tong stated
that allowing R. V. unit parking to overhang into the public
right-of-way would involve _modifications to a different section
of the City ' s Ordinance and stated his anticipation that such a
change in the ordinance would be opposed by the Citv Attorney.
Cm. Alexander prompted the Commission ' s consideration of how the
Ordinance would apply to corner lots and called for a restriction
of parking in the first 30 feet of street-side sideyard or to the
corner of the home, whichever is greater.
Following additional discussion among the Commissioners , the
following two areas of Commission consensus were reached:
1 . Stated consensus support (on a 3-2 vote, Cm. Barnes and Cm.
Petty opposed) to allow R. V. unit parking along the driveway
(narrow sideyard area between dr-iueway and property line) if
sideyard or rear yards are not "physically accessible . "
2 . Stated consensus opposition (on a 3-2 vote, Cm. Raley and Cm.
Petty opposed) to allowing R. V. unit parking on driveways .
In response to the second item, Mr. Tong provided clarification
of how visitor or incidental R.V. unit parking in driveways had
been handled in the Draft Ordinance development of a definition
for storage; 72 hours in any 96-hour period) .
Cm. Raley voiced concern that the direction the Draft Ordinance
was taking may cause enforcement problems .
PCM-5-120
.+�"} 1.•;�„ -w..-r-'q�"'1.:_s r -4 } t vq,'! '^vn�`.t."'S'` rn >...5 .r,-ova_ .�.v. ,.+_TC ay v. ?t ^r.: -
Cm. Petty asked whether the new Ordinance would be actively or
passively enforced once in place. Mr: Tong indicated that short
of direction from the - City Council stating otherwise, the
existing approach of acting primarily on a complaint basis would
. be retained.
Discussion shifted to attempts to determine 'how "physically
accessible" could be defined and enforced. Cmmrs . Raley and
Alexander supported use of a 10-foot minimum width, between the
house and the sideyard property line. The ultimate consensus
reached by the Commission was that "if the unit fits, then it
must be placed into the sideyard or rear yard. "
It- was indicated* that the public hearing on the item would be
reopened at the November 4 , 1985 , Commission hearing to allow
discussion of the Draft Ordinance, and that the matter would be
put over to the November 18, 1985, meeting for final
consideration and action by the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
None .
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Cm. Barnes inquired as to the follow p steps taken on the
question of requiring reflectoriz tape on dumpsters placed
temporarily on the street .
PLANNING COMMISST ERS ' CONCERNS
Cm. Mack ed a complaint on an apparent abandoned vehicle along
Amador ley Bl1 vd. south of Ann Arbor Way.
PCM-5-121
.c ,
1
Condition #2 : Indicated that he wants the Site Development
Review to be subject to the Public Hearing process.
- Condition #10 : Stated provision of handicappel parking an
access should be as required by the Code.
Condition #11 : Called for clarification of language a intent
of the Condition.
- Condition #15 : Stated preference to drop the majo ty of on-
site pedestrian walkways recommended by Staff.
- Condition #16 : Stated desire to have a pool/s facility or
comparable, adequate recreation facility.
Condition #18 : Called for dollar amount o contribution to be
double-checked.
- Condition #34 : Stated preference for se of raised curbs as
opposed to wheel stops .
- Condition #48 : Called for correc ion of in-lieu parkland
dedication fee cited in draft re lution.
- Condition #51 : Stated suppo for crediting space in garage
towards required covered, pr ' ate storage space.
- Condition #60 : Stated ' s port of Staff ' s recommendation to
adjust the format of co itions to individually address the eight
sub-areas referenced i initial Staff Report.
Cm. Mack indicated r concurrence with the imposition of a
requirement for a assive recreational area on the east half of
the project and active recreational area on the west half.
Cm. Mack conti ed by stating that while a unit reduction was not
mandated, it uld probably be necessary to address Staff
concerns . C . Mack also concurred with the introduction of
additional teps in the finished floor elevations, the dropping
of the w ways suggested by Staff, rewording of Condition #11 ,
use of ised concrete curbs for wheelstops, and the correction
of the ndicated Park- Dedication Fee.
On tion by Cm. Raley, and seconded ly Cm. Petty, and by 3-0
u nimous voice vote, the Planning Commission voted to continue
e item to the November 18 , 1985, hearing.
SUBJECT: 7 .2 PA 85-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding
Recreational Vehicles (R. V. Ordinance) (continued
from October 7 and October 21 , 1985 , Planning
Commission meetings) .
Cm. - Mack opened the Public Hearing. Mr . Tong presented a brief
Staff Report discussing the background of the issue and the
remaining two issues in need of resolution:
t��4(gs
PCM_5-
128
1 ) Safety and sight distance, and
2 ) Policy regarding physical access and area.
Ms4 Laurie Petty, President of the Ponderosa Village Homeowners '
Association, indicated their .project ( 95 homes) was subject to
CC&R control which prohibits R. V. unit parking where visible
from the street or from adjoining properties . Ms. Petty
recommended the Planning Commissioners drive through the City and
review the situation firsthand. She posed the question as to
whether. the current situation was what the City as a whole wanted
to ..see formalized into the ordinance.
Mr-. Hans Heighdorn indicated support with Petty' s comments and
stated an opinion that the ownership of R. V. units is a luxury,
not a necessity, and as such, their parking should be in a manner
in which no aesthetic impact to the neighborhood would result .
He challenged the current direction of the Commission which he
saw as a "blank check" for individuals to do as they wished in
front yard areas . Mr . Heighdorn called for use of a referendum
on the issue to allow citizens to have direct input on the
matter .
John Hayward (Mansfield Drive) stated an opinion that the
Commission ' s direction on the issue was not reflective of the
majority of people in attendance at the meetings on the item (who
favored more lenient standards) . Mr . Hayward continued by
commenting on the economic impact that would be associated with a
requirement to install new curb cuts and questioned the
usefulness of new curb cuts when the loss of on-street parking
was considered. He stated support for allowing R. V. units to
park in a manner that overhangs the public right-of-way, while
not encroaching into the sidewalk area. He concluded with an
observation that while fewer and fewer people were attending
hearings, the proposed. ordinance was apparently becoming more and
more stringent .
Mary Tuma stated an opinion that if people want to buy into an
area that regulates R. V. parking, let them live elsewhere.
Mr . Burton pointed out that use of the variance process might
give some flexibility to the standards adopted.
Cm. Raley' s comments on the two outstanding issue areas were as
follows:
1 . Safety: Indicated that the ultimate direction must
eliminate or minimize to the greatest extent feasible the City' s
liability exposure.
2 . Physical Access: Indicated support of the itemized
criteria outlined by Staff in the Staff Report of November 4 ,
1985 .
(es PCM-5-129
r
Cm. Mack stated general. concurrence with Cm. Raley' s comments.
Cm. Petty expressed his personal problem with storage in the
front yard areas.
Cm. Raley stated his concern that if parking wasn ' t either flat-
out allowed or prohibited in the front yard area, that
conformance would be impossible to secure.
On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Petty, and on 3-0
voice vote consensus, the item was continued to the November 18 ,
198.5 , meeting.
N BUSINESS
None.
UNFINISHE BUSINESS
None.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ' C CERNS
Cm. Petty requested Staff to vestigate the timing of
construction of improvements al g San Ramon Road.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting s adjourned at .
12 : 00 midnight .
Respectfully sub tted,
Planning Commission Chairman
Laurence L. Tong,
Planning Director
PCM-5-130
SUBJECT: 7 .3 PA 85-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding
Recrational Vehicles (R.V. Ordinance) (continued
from October 7 and 21 and November 4, 1985,
Planning Commission meetings) .
Cm. Mack opened the public hearing. Mr. Tong opened the Staff
presentation by requesting that public testimony be limited to
discussion of new issues . Mr. Tong gave a brief chronology of
the actions leading up to the preparation of the proposed
ordinance amendment.
Cm. Raley requested clarification concerning the wording in the
latest draft ordinance as it related to vehicle parking in the
main portion of the front yards of residential properties .
`Mr . Gonsalves stated concern about how the draft ordinance would
impact one-vehicle owners whose single vehicle is a--R.V. unit.
His specific concern was whether under that particular . situation
the vehicle owner could park the R.V. unit in the driveway. Mr.
Tong provided clarification on the matter indicating that the
proposed definition of storage of vehicles would make such
parking allowable as long as parking did not occur for more than
72 hours in a 96 hour period.
Mr . Johnson, elaborating further on the point raised by Mr.
Gonsalves, stated that many elderly residents may be in a
situation where they leave their property only once a week,
thereby putting them into conflict with the driveway parking
restriction proposed in the draft ordinance .
Virginia Horner (Ashford Way) stated that while R.V. unit parking
in front yards would appear to be both unsafe and unattractive,
she suggested that the Commission condider adopting a grandfather
clause so that the new regulations would become applicable only
upon the resale of residential units .
John Hayward indicated he forsees enforcement problems relating
to the proposed definition of vehicle storage .
Self Kahn (Harlan Road) urged the Commission to call for the use
of a public referendum to sound out the desires of the entire
community as it relates to the R.V. unit parking issue.
Elliot Healy (Amarillo Drive) requested a clarification on the
screening requirement proposed.
Mary Tuma (Dublin Green Drive) stated that in response to
concerns about the City' s liability exposure, it should be noted
that all licensed drivers are required by law to carry insurance.
Ms . Tuma also stated that visitors to Dublin traveling in R.V.
units add money (through sales tax) to the City coffer.
Jake Green (Sheffield Lane) voiced concerns regarding how
enforcement of the new ordinance would occur.
PCM-5-126
Hans Heighdorn (Via Zapata Court) stressed that the difference
between parking and long term vehicle storage must be addressed
adequately by the new ordinance.
Mike Hammer (Livermore resident) stated his observation that an
extraordinary number of R.V. units seemed to be parked throughout
the residential streets of the City of Dublin.
On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a
unanimous voice vote, Cm. Mack closed the Public Hearing.
Cm. Petty observed that new discussion had occured on two issues,
the City ' s liability exposure and the use . of a public
referrendum. While indicating general support of the current
draft of the ordinance, Cm. Petty voiced his concerns about
allowing parking of R.V. units in front yard areas due to the
possibility of liability exposure to the City.
Cm. Barnes indicated that she ' d be unable to support the draft
ordinance in its current form. The basis of her problem with the
draft ordinance was indicated to be tied to aesthetic
considerations she has that run counter to allowing R.V. unit
parking to occur in any portion of front yard areas .
In response to a request from Cm. Raley, Mr. Tong indicated that
he ' d check with the City Attorney as to the City' s liability
exposure that may result from the parking of R.V. units in front
yard areas .
Mr. Raley indicated he ' d like the draft ordinance to be adjusted
specifically prohibit parking of any type of vehicle in the main
portion of front yard ares (i .e . , the "wide" side of the front
yard adjoining the driveway) . Mr. Raley continued by stating his
support of use of some type of grandfather clause that could be
used in conjunction with adoption of a new ordinance that would
prohibit any R.V. unit parking in front yard areas . Mr. Raley
reiterated his concern that enforcement of R.V. unit storage in
driveway areas would be beyond realistic enforcement by the City.
Cm. Mack also indicated support for use of a grandfather clause
which would apply new standards only on new residents and which
would probhit any R.V. unit parking in front yard areas . Cm.
Mack stated opposition to an ordinance revision that would allow
R.V. unit storage any where in front yard areas .
The item was continued by consensus direction from the Commission
with a stated intent that the meeting of December 2, 1985, be
located in a bigger meeting room, with an early starting time,
and that the public hearing be reopened at that hearing.
SUBJEC 5-017 Kaufman and Broad of Northern
Californ c . (Applicant and Owner) Planned
Development (P ezoning and Rezoning,
Annexation, Tentative Ma d Site Development
Review applications involving a cre portion
of the Nielsen Ranch Subdivision (Ten a a
PCM-5-127
Cm. Raley referred to two issues. 1 ) Any single family dwelling
unit may become a rental unit at the owners' option. 2) By
guaranteeing that at least one of the members of either the
rental unit or the main unit be over 60 years old or handic ped
and the other be the owner, the character of the units wil be
maintained. He stated he felt the request was worthy of
approval.
Cm. Petty stated he liked the proposed condition that ould
require a new Conditional Use Permit be obtained if wnership of
the property changes.
On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Pet , and by a three
to one vote, the Conditional Use Permit and V iance requests
were approved. Cm. Mack voted in oppositio o the motion.
RESOLUTION NO. 85- 4
A RESOLUTION OF THE PL NG COMMISSION
OF THE CITY DUBLIN
-------------------------------- --------------------------------
APPROVING PA 85-087.1 and GOMEZ (OWNER) WOODRUFF (APPLICANT)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT D VARIANCE REQUESTS TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND ELLING UNIT AT 8757 SHAMROCK PLACE AND
THE ELIMINATION OF HE FRONTYARD SETBACK FOR THE THIRD
REQUIR OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE.
Mr. Gailey advised r. King that there is an appeal period of 10
calendar days, ing which time a written appeal to the Planning
Department ma e submitted at 6500 Dublin Boulevard, Suite D.
MXi ssed his continued dissatisfaction with the subject
p Mack suggested Mr. King contact the owners
rdissatisfaction.
SUBJECT: 8. 2 PA 85-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding
Recreational Vehicles (R. V. Ordinance) (continued
from October 7, October 21 , November 4, and
November 18, 1985. Planning Commission meetings) .
Cm. Mack opened the public hearing. Mr. Tong advised that the
matter was appearing on the Agenda for its fifth public hearing
before the Planning Commission. He stated that extensive
testimony had been heard and has become a part of the public
record. He requested that issues which have been discussed
previously not be reiterated, and that only new concerns or
issues be raised. Mr. Tong advised that at the last public
hearing, held on November 18, 1985, the Commission directed that
the Ordinance be modified to contain the following provisions:
1 ) permit parking or storage in the rear yard; 2 ) permit parking
or storage in the side yard behind .-the adjacent front wall , of; the
�2.I2.�85 PCM-5-135
house with screening and access, and, if necessary, a curb cut;
and 3) permit short term parking in front of the house, but only
in the driveway.
Mr. Tong indicated that, per the Commission' s request, Staff
checked whether the City might have a liability exposure if it
permitted R. V. ' s and similar items to be parked in the front
yard along the side of the driveway. He indicated that the City
Attorney had recommended against such parking.
Mr. Tong also indicated that, again as per Commision' s request,
Staff checked whether or not the Ordinance could be drafted in a
way as to exempt current residents, at least on a temporary
` basis, from complying with the new Ordinance. He advised that
input from the City Attorney indicated that the Ordinance must be
applied equally to all residents.
.Mr. Tong indicated that the City Attorney was also consulted on
whether or not it would be appropriate for the Planning
Commission to discuss a referendum process, and that he had
advised that this would not be appropriate.
Cm. Raley asked Staff whether the City could be held liable for
accidents resulting from the presence of items, other than
R. V. ' s, such as trees and hedges in front yard areas. Mr. Tong
indicated that the specific court case cited involved a hedge
which exceeded four feet in height.
Cm. Raley indicated it was his understanding that the City' s
liability insurance expires some time in the middle of the
following month. He said it has become the trend for cities to
become self-insured. Mr. Tong said many cities have been
required to do this because of the exorbitant insurance fees, or
because insurance is no longer available to them. Cm. Raley
indicated he felt that if the Commission did not act in
accordance with the City Attorney' s recommendation, the City
would be in danger of having its insurance discontinued.
Mr. Tong referred to the "deep pocket" provisions of State law,
which expose cities to additional liability if a lawsuit is filed
and both a city and private owner are determined liable.
Mr. Tong indicated that under recent judgments cities often must
pay the burden of the claim not covered by the private owner.
William Boski, Bristol Road, said the City of Dublin exposes
itself to liability claims by its City street improvement
projects. He stated that an R. V. , a boat or a van, as long as
it does not overhang the sidewalk, would not block anyone' s view
when backing out of a driveway. Mr. Boski provided the Planning
Commissioners with copies of a handout which contained his
recommendations concerning the Ordinance.
(14 2(85 PCM-5-136
An unidentified speaker, Shamrock Place, said he thinks the
proposed Ordinance discriminates against owners of R. V. ' s. He
said he pays more taxes than those who do not own R. V. ' s, and
expressed his disapproval of the proposed Ordinance.
An unidentified speaker, Fredericksen Lane, said he wanted to
know if the City Attorney could make copies of the court cases
cited available to the general community. Mr. Tong said the City
Attorney is preparing a memorandum detailing the cases.
An unidentified speaker, Solano Drive, said owners of private
storage places would not take responsibility if something happens
to the R. V. ' s. He said R. V. owners would like to keep their
- units at their own homes, and asked if some type of compromise
could be developed. He also inquired why it would be necessary
to cut the curb for R. V. unit parking. —
Mr. Simms, Donohue. Drive, said he was confused about the
liability issue. Mr. Tong described a hypothetical situation
where an item blocks the view of someone backing out of the
driveway, or someone walking along the sidewalk, resulting in an
accident and a subsequent lawsuit. Mr. Tong indicated that under
those circumstances., the City might be held liable for damages
because it did not prohibit the presence of that item.
Gary Kale, Ebensburg Lane, asked what would result if someone was
hurt or killed. Cm. Raley said that if the item creating the
visibility constraint exceeded four feet in height, the City
might be held liable.
Mr. Gonzales, Amarillo Court, stated that in June he and his
neighbors were cited for parking their vehicles in their
driveways. Describing the way they eliminated their violations,
he indicated he and two neighbors moved their units onto the
street. Mr. Gonzales questioned whether it was better to have
these items parked on the street.
Mr. Bettencourt, Mansfield Drive, said that property owners carry
liability insurance on their own homes. He also indicated that
there is not enough room to have side yard access for some of the
residents. He indicated that if this Ordinance is passed and
this burden is placed on the residents, some of them will have to
place their vehicles in R. V. storage as far away as Pleasanton.
Unless it is an obvious obstruction, Mr. Bettencourt said he
didn' t think R. V. units should be required to be moved out of
front yards areas.
Tony Taylor, Ann Arbor Way, asked why this issue couldn' t be
placed on a ballot. Cm. Raley said the City Attorney has
indicated the Planning Commission does not have the authority to
do this.
�'��' SS PCM-5-137
Bill de Freeze said his unit has been parked in the front yard of
his house for 17 years. He indicated that there have been no
injuries and no property damage during that period of time. He
said the City should concentrate on taking care of some of the
things that really need its attention.
Mr. Abernathy said if the City could become liable in the case of
R. V. unit parking, each side yard in the City of Dublin contains
additional potential liability problems because of shrubs over
four feet tall. Mr. Abernathy also said if a person is backing
out and can' t see, and caused an accident, he would be cited for
improper lookout.
Gary West, Cardigan Court, said he was under the impression that
the City Council could make a decision on this issue. He asked
if it would be possible at this meeting for the Planni-ng
Commission to arrive at a conclusion. Cm. Mack said the
Commission hoped to make a recommendation to the City Council.
A member of the audience asked if the audience could be provided
with the names of the Council members. Cm. Mack said they are
regularly listed in the newspaper.
An unidentified speaker said he had been at all five of the
meetings and had not heard much opposition to amending the
Ordinance to make it less restrictive. He said at the five
meetings there had been a great deal of rhetoric and very little
action.
Mr. Moxinbox, Canterbury Lane, said that only a very small R. V.
could be parked on anyone ' s driveway. His R. V. is 28 feet long.
Several years ago he installed a slab to park it on and has never
received objections from his neighbors. He thinks the biggest
problem is that a few people don' t have or can' t afford R. V. ' s.
He also stated that until those who complain are wealthy enough
to pay his taxes, they should be quiet, and should take into
consideration that they chose this City in which to live, and
that R. V. ' s were here before they moved in.
Mr. Pudak, Mansfield Avenue, stated he would like to see a
consensus from the Commissioners on how they will stand on
proposed amendment of the Ordinance.
Larry Baroni, Hickory Lane, stated that in his opinion the people
who are making complaints are not neighbors of R. V. owners, but
are residents of the Briarhill area.
A man from the audience questioned why, if the County of Alameda
did not have any problems during these past 25 years, this issue
had now arisen. Cm. Raley said the reason the meetings are
being held was because a majority of the people in the room were
in violation of the Alameda County Ordinance.
(2 f 2 8S PCM-5-138
Rose Simms, Donohue Drive, commented that at the first meeting
diagrams and proposals had been made available to the public, and
she wanted to know what happened to those plans. Mr. Tong said
further revisions had been made along the way by the Staff, as
directed by the Commission, and that the Ordinance had evolved to
what is being discussed at this meeting.
An unidentified speaker from the Briarhill area said Briarhill
residents had been cited on boats and R. V. ' s. , and should not be
blamed for this Ordinance review. He referred to a list he had
drawn up and the suggestion that the vehicles be put in rear
yards, inside garages, or in side yards with fences. He asked
the Commission if they were aware of the cost that might be
involved to comply with the proposed Ordinance. He presented a
sketch of his property, indicating where he could theoretically
legally park his boat. He said it would cost him between $10, 000
and $20, 000 just to be able to place the boat in his back yard.
He said the best place to park the boat would be alongside his
driveway. He said he pays for liability insurance coverage on
his boat, his house and other vehicles.
A woman from the audience asked if the matter would go to the
City Council, and if it will go through another public hearing
process. She also asked what needed to be done to place this on
a ballot.
An unidentified speaker said he had tried parking his R. V. in a
storage space and it was vandalized twice. He said that is. why
he brought it home.
Jim Spegler, Calle Verde, said this is the first meeting he has
attended. He said that the City of Dublin had adopted Alameda
County' s ordinances. He stated that residents don' t want the
ordinance pertaining to R. V. ' s. , and asked why the City couldn' t
dispose of Alameda County' s Ordinance.
On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a
unanimous vote, the Public Hearing was closed.
Cm. Mack asked Planning Director Tong to read the parts of the
latest version of the Draft Ordinance to highlight those relevant
topics being discussed.
A man from the audience suggested that since the Alameda County
Ordinance was first passed in 1968, it may be possible that when
it was written side yards were more accessible than with more
recently constructed homes.
A woman from the audience asked if it is possible to completely
screen an R. V. in a side yard. Cm. Raley said a six foot fence
is all that is required.
l 2�85 PCM-5-139
A member of the audience asked why he would not be permitted to
park his car for a period of more than three days in his own
driveway. Mr. Tong --said there is a 72-hour parking provision in
the Draft Ordinance. He said the intent of the Draft Ordinance
is to allow for short term parking in the driveway, and to be
consistent with the regulations governing parking on the streets.
A member of the audience asked what procedures could be followed
if an owner went on vacation for more than 72 hours, but left a
vehicle parked in his or her driveway. Mr. Tong said if a
complaint is received about ..the vehicle. The Zoning Investigator
would review and follow up using the standard complaint
procedures.
Cm. Petty -stated that the proposed Ordinance is acceptable to him
in its current form. He said it is the obligation of the
Commissioners to accept an Ordinance similar to the one presented
to limit the City ' s liability exposure.
Cm. Barnes said she can support the way the Draft Ordinance was
presently written and would vote in favor of it.
Cm. Raley said he had difficulty with the specification which
would prohibit a car from parking in a driveway for more than 72
hours. He indicated he thought this should be modified. He said
he did not agree with the way the Draft Ordinance is written, but
cannot vote against it and put the .City in a position of being
exposed to potential liability judgment.
Cm. Mack said she would vote for the Ordinance as it stands,
deleting the phrase referring to "car, truck, or other vehicle"
from the prohibition of driveway storage.
Cm. Raley asked that that particular item be rewritten, if not
for further review by the Planning Commission, then as a point of
clarification for the City Council.
On motion by Cm. Petty, and seconded by Cm. Raley, and by a
unanimous vote, the Planning Commission adopted the Resolution
recommending the Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding
Recreational Vehicles be presented to the City Council for
adoption with the deletion of the language prohibiting driveway
storage by "car, truck or other vehicles".
A member of the audience asked when this would be acted on by the
City Council. Mr. Tong said probably some time in January.
Cm. Raley said regarding the question of enforcement, the only
reason he voted for this is because he felt the City Attorney
mandated it. Mr. Tong said if the City is made aware of a
violation, it must pursue it; however, potential liability is
reduced if the City has no knowledge of a particular violation.
P42-155 PCM-5-140
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: October 7, 1985
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: ' PA 85-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Regarding Recreational Vehicles (RV
Ordinance)
GENERAL INFORMATION
PROJECT: A Zoning Ordinance Amendment to consider
revisions to the City of. Dublin' s
regulations regarding te storage of
recreational vehicles, boats, and
similiar items in residential areas .
APPLICANT: City of Dublin
6500 Dublin Blvd. Ste. D
Dublin, CA 94568
LOCATION• The Zoning Ordinance Amendment would
affect all residential districts in the
City.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS :
Zoning Ordinance Section 8-60 . 33 states, in part, that: "No
mobilhome, recreational vehicle, utility trailer, unmounted
camper top or boat shall be stored in the Front Yard, or the
required Side Yard in any R (residential) District.
City . Ordinance Section 6-695 . 0 states, in part, that it is
illegal to park a vehicle on the street for more than 72
consecutive hours .
State Vehicle Code Section 670 states , in part, that a
vehicle is a 'device 'by which a person or property may be moved on
a road.
Other applicable regulations are contained in the September
16, 1985 Planning Commission Agenda Statement (see attachment 5 }
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorically exempt
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the October 7, 1985, hearing was
published in the Tri-Valley ._ Herald, mailed to various
property- owners", and posted in public buildings
ANALYSIS -
I . BACKGROUND
As discussed at the September 16, 1985, Planning Commission
meeting (see September 16, 1985 Planning Commission Agenda
Statement, Attachment 5 ) , the City Council has initiated a
review of the City' s "RV" Ordinance . The Planning
Commission reviewed the background information, provided
direction regarding issues and alternatives to be analyzed,
and scheduled the public hearing.
ITEM NO. /•
TxA. CH ENT
y ,• y !A a -Tk t . .. .,t p + z
ry y K{ 3 r is 1 :
s e'+
?1F4��r'"aW:;'�."alt_�."Jh�i�r�,'.+�'TS.�..�qA°"M1"�d'.{��'�;�.�i"�'_�i.'..o. .`."ae"�t:�r'.�.�a�.t'�.',i3*"�"M �T�.��A`�'La�n7..'4'h'PL'"`�fT's.: {7.'r$�dS.e.:i3`�xS''._�.'�.,1�'?, �..ki".�u:_...T•;.; °«`.'Q,:.� . ,7, ..k.a _,�'' .. .... ..
The existing or ance prohibits the parkii or storage of
recreational veh--les . (RV' s) , boats, trail, and similiar
items in the required front yard and required side yards in
all residential districts. The ordinance allows RV' s and
similar items to be stored in rear yards and in
exceptionally large front and side yards that exceed the
yard requirements . The . intent of the ordinance , is to
provide a reasonable amount of air, light, privacy, safety,
emergency access, and to avoid visual clutter.
The City' s ordinance also limits the parking of vehicles,
including RV' s on public streets to 72 hours . The intent of
this provisions is to limit the potential circulation and
visibility problems that could become safety hazards on the
streets and also allow a reasonable amount of time to visit
and to load and unload a vehicle. . The ordinance prevents
long term parking and storage on public streets .
The existing ordinance is being enforced primarily on a
complaint basis . If a complaint is filed, the Zoning
Investigator reviews the situation. The Zoning Investigator
does not drive the streets looking for potential zoning
violations .
II ISSUES
Staff has analyzed a number of issues, alternatives , and
other items associated with the RV ordinance:
A. Alternatives used in other communities
Staff has surveyed the RV regulations of eight
other cities in the Bay Area -
1) San Ramon - Allows RV parking and storage in
any yard; no RV parking on street except residents with a
permit for 1 day, or out of town visitor with a permit for
up to 7 days , or actual loading or unloading (see Attachment3 )
2 ) Livermore - Allows RV parking and storage in
front yard only if access is not possible to the rear yard
or if the .side yard is less than 10 feet wide; limited to
one item (see Attachment 1 ) .
3 ) San Leandro - Allows RV parking and storage
in front yard only if space in or reasonable access to rear
or side yard is not available ; must be on a paved driveway;
non-motorized vehicles cannot be parked on the street
between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. (see Attachment 2 ) .
4 ) Fremont - Allows RV parking and storage in
any yard; must be screened from view from public street (see
Attachment 5 ) .
5) Palo Alto - Allows RV parking and storage in
any yard; must be screened from view form the street and
adjoining losts by a legal fence, wall or equivalent (see
Attachment 5 ) .
6) Walnut Creek - Does not allow RV parking or
storage in required front yard or street side yard; allows
them in any other yard; must be owned by occupants of the
premises (see' ' r_tachment 5 ) .
7 ) . Pleasanton - Does not allow RV parking or
storage in required front yard or street side yard; allows
them in any other yard; must be screened from view from the
street; limited to one item (see Attachment 5 ) .
8) Menlo Park - Does not allow RV parking or
storage in required front yard or street side yard; allows
them in any other yard; must be screened from view from the
street; must be on a paved, weed-free surface; vehicle
cannot be parked on the street between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m_
B. Front driveway area
The front driveway of a house is intended to lead
to the . required off-street parking spaces which are
typically located in the garage. The zoning ordinance
states that the required . parking spaces must be kept
continuously accessible. While short term, _ temporary
1
r t
T" T'!'s,r �' - .. z„ 4.iv:`.. + r ,ary, �r•sA- ,.��+$-.. Y - Q aN ,� .we.�.e k Ll -.�+ "*,i �,t Yti _n
�r :l 4 •_• 6�,>1 �-t>t s•{ ..'� + <7 rt.H •��r S`s. � -F- t? f' s �x E (ni:. c`t.`:<' S , 3.�•w
'P'� .Y'Y.m. ,. .��' _.��Yr .t �.z.'..°x_... .�.rr_. ...�_1. ..-...N.._-_.. ....-. .,. ...,,... .,u... n.'E�,.. ..t.`..._ ..;� ..�",:'h�.`FT`a.�i..._,.a"^r7 ._..•."�_n*^Te'<..-. ... ..--.
is permitted. Long arm parking or
�ewa
parking in the y
storage of an RV inoperable vehicle in th riveway would
block access to the required off-street parking spaces and,
thus, is not allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
C. Commercial RV Storage Facilities
Staff has surveyed the RV and boat storage
facilities in the Dublin, San Ramon, Pleasanton and
Livermore area. According to our survey, there are a total
of approximatley 43 existing RV and boat storage spaces ,
with none currently available. One company, however, Is
planning on having 200 additional spaces available in
approximately 3 months . The cost of the individual spaces
was between $15 and $30 per month.
D. Insurance
Staff has been informed by local insurance agents
that 1) there is no difference in the insurance premium if
the RV is parked on-site versus on-street, and 2) even
though some insurance companies don't like to have RV' s -
stored in a facility away from the owner' s control,
insurance coverage for off-site storage is available.
E. Basic Alternatives
Staff has identified the following basic
alternatives available regarding the RV ordinance:
1) Allow RV parking and storage only in the rear
yard. The existing ordinance does this . It is more
restrictive than other cities ' regulations . It provides the
most air, light, privacy, safety, emergency access and
avoidance of visual clutter.
2) Allow RV parking and storage in the rear or
side yard with adequate screening. In effect, this is
similar to what is allowed in the cities of Fremont,
Palo Alto, Pleasanton, and Menlo Park. It provides for the
avoidance of visual clutter. The amount of air, light,
privacy, safety, and emergency access would be reduced from
the existing ordinance provisions .
3 ) Allow RV parking, and storage in the front
yard if space or access in rear or side yard is not
available . This is similar to what -is allowed in the cities
of San Ramon, Livermore and San Leandro. It would' provide
the least privacy, safety, emergency access , and avoidance
of visual clutter. RV' s parked in the front yard could also
generate some visibility problems and some vandalism or
break in problems .
-3-
a r t.3 c A r`•y + *ti[�v + `` .r. } lit.yr '4 •[ r ,,, . d r Lr.��y4 r`s K " }r+ �•'';. t 5 .yam Js to +.r V r 2 tth
���r `�r.:� .. ��i :A3J.rii•)�r.,..,.r����a'�if'�.�t-7 �"'I'`x�:;�r�'y Ae, a'�15...�_: .."�`�. ',,.-`.t-°rt�ic�'-�"Tn'� '�;.. ,..,"r'"s- ,:?-.`` .
RECOMMENDATION
FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff
presentation
2) Take testimony from the public
3 ) Question staff, and the public
4 ) Give Staff direction regarding any amendments to
the existing ordinance and continue public hearing
until October 21, 1985 Planning Commission meeting
ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the
following actions :
1)' . Direct Staff to prepare a draft of any . amendments to the
existing ordinance- which the Planning Commission feels are
appropriate.
2) Provide Staff with direction regarding ' any additional
issues, alternatives , or information to be analyzed.
3 ) Continue the public hearing until the October 21, 1985
Planning Commission meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Livermore RV Regulations _
2) San Leandro RV Regulations
3 ) San Ramon RV. Regulations
4 ) Pleasanton RV Regulations
5) September 16, 1985 Planning Commission Agenda Statement
COPIES TO
=4-
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 21, 1985
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: PA 85-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Regarding Recreational Vehicles
(R. V. Ordinance)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: A - Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Regarding Recreational Vehicles
(R. V. Ordinance)
Background Attachment
1 - October 7 , 1985 Planning Commission
Agenda Statement with attachments
RECOMMENDATION: 1 ) Re-open public hearing and hear
Staff presentation.
2 ) Take testimony from the public .
3 ) Question Staff and the public .
4 ) Close public hearing and deliberate .
5 ) Direct Staff to make revisions as
appropriate and continue the item.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None.
DESCRIPTION: I . BACKGROUND
On October 7 , 1985 , the Planning Commission opened
the public hearing on the "R. V. " Ordinance . The
Planning Commission received the Staff
presentation, took .testimony from the public,
closed the public hearing, and directed Staff to
draft an amendment to the R. V. Ordinance .
The existing Ordinance prohibits the parking o•r
storage of R. V. ' s and similar items in the
required front yard and the required side yard.
The Planning Commission ' s direction was to draft
an amendment which would do the following :
1 ) Allow parking or storage in the rear
yard or required side yard with
screening.
2 ) If access or area was not physically
possible in the rear yard or required
side yard, allow parking or storage in
the front yard on the narrower of the
two areas alongside the driveway.
3 ) If access or area was still not
physically possible, allow parking or
storage in the driveway.
Staff has prepared a Draft Amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance for. Planning Commission Review and
consideration.
ITEM NO.
5. zn-
II. ISSUES
Alternative 1 , allowing RV parking and storage in
the rear or side yard with adequate screening,
would generate a limited number of issues. The
amount of air, light, privacy, safety, and
emergency access would be somewhat reduced. The
aesthetics of the lot would be maintained by the
screening.
Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 , allowing R. V.
parking. and storage in the front yard, would
generate a number of issues:
1- Storage in the front yard: A
basic issue would be whether or not the
community wants to have the front yards
used for storage of R. V. ' s . The
existing ordinance calls for the front
yard to be used as a semi-public open
space, typically landscaped with lawn,
shrubs, and trees.
2- Safety and sight distance: If an
R. V. is parked next to the driveway,
there is a potential for a driver
backing out of the driveway to ( 11 not
see a person on the sidewalk , ( 2) not
see another . vehicle in the street, or
(3 ) not be seen by a pedestrian or other
vehicle. This situation may be
especially critical where the streets
are relatively narrow and where other
vehicles may be parked on the street .
3- Aesthetic: Community aesthetic
and visual clutter becomes an issue with
R. V. ' s parked in the front yard. The
typical height .limit of fences in the
front yard is four feet. This height
limit is -intended to assure that the
front yard is visually open both for
aesthetic - purposes and so that there is
little visual obstruction near
driveways . If an R. V. is parked in. the
front yard, the height limit for fences
would have little meaning.
4- Paving and Curb Cuts : If paving
is required for an R. V. parked in the
front yard area, it would need to be
permanent and would restrict use by
future prope*ty owners if the R. V.
owner moves . In addition, a curb cut
would be needed so that the R. V. would
not be driven over the sidewalk . The
curb cut could reduce the number of on-
street parking spaces available.
5- Policy Regarding Physical Access
and Area : A policy regarding how to
define physical access and physical area
would need to be clearly stated.
Potential -questions would include
consideration of accessory buildings or
accessory uses or landscaping in the
rear yard or side yard areas that would
otherwise be physically available. For
example, what if there is a tree .or
COPIES NO.. '.
-
Ir.
�^f�'t4. �d.yr�yi �'.•d*a}•'�^§ i{wr K �1TM?A"aI 'N, .S��'�'$G3➢N }�S`?=.I�.<. .'iEi'�`..L'•K_'..,�a'�?.��. 'tu`� 5�`.. ,�. b'S�^`. Jv�C. i�'Hh?-.Y.. .� ,4� u l�?4 n.i'�:e'.hs _-. ..
garden or some shrubs a►._ landscaping in
a side yard that would otherwise be
large enough to accommodate an R. V. ?
III . RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
review these issues, provide additional direction,
and continue the item to the next Planning
Commission meeting. -
ITEM NO. COPIES TO:
l
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 4 , 1985
SUBJECT: PA 85-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding
Recreational Vehicles (R. V. Ordinance)
( Item to be continued until November 18, 1985 , Planning Commission Meeting )
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
' A. Revised Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding
Recreational Vehicles (R. V. Ordinance)
Background Attachments :
1 - Areas on a Typical Residential Lot
2 - Typical House on Street With 50-foot Right-of-Way
3 - October 21 , 1985 Planning Commission Agenda Statement
with Attachments
4 - Letters Commenting on R. V. Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
1 - Re-open public hearing and hear Staff presentation
2 - Take testimony from the public
3 - Question Staff and the public
4 - Close public hearing and deliberate
5 - Direct Staff to make revisions as appropriate and
continue the item to the November 18 , 1985 , Planning
Commission meeting.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None .
DESCRIPTION:
I . BACKGROUND
The existing Ordinance prohibits the parking or storage of R. V. ' s
and similar items in the required Front Yard and the required Side Yard in
residential areas .
On October 7, 1985 , the Planning Commission opened the Public
Hearing on the R. V. Ordinance, took testimony both for and against the
storage of R. V. ' s in residential areas, closed the Public Hearing, and
directed Staff to draft an amendment to the Ordinance .
On October 21 , 1985 , the Planning Commission re-opened the Public
Hearing, took additional testimony both fqr and against the storage of R.
V. ' s in residential areas, closed the Public Hearing with the understanding
that it would be re-opened later , directed Staff to revise the Draft Zoning
Ordinance Amendment, and continued the item until the November 4 and
November 18 Planning Commission meetings .
The Planning Commission ' s direction was to revise the Draft
Amendment to do the .following:
1 ) Allow parking or storage in the rear yard.
2) Allow parking or storage in the side yard behind the adjacent
front wall of the house with screening and access, and if necessary, a curb
cut .
3 ) If access or area is not physically possible in the rear yard
or side yard, allow parking or storage in the front yard on the narrower of
the two areas alongside the driveway with paving and a curb cut .
---------------------------------=--------
ITEM N0. 7•Z
""lasaTX;.in,:'E "r-.?r-T.n, !.. _
The Staff has attached a revised Draft Amendment for Planning
Commission review and consideration. The Planning Commission also directed
Staff to provide draft policy direction regarding what would not be
considered physically possible in terms of access and area.
II .. ISSUES
Two remaining issues need to be resolved regarding the parking or
storage of R. V. ' s or similar items in the front yard:
1 ) Safety and sight distance:
If an R. V. is stored next to the driveway, a driver backing out
of the driveway ( 1 ) might not see a person on the sidewalk , ( 2 ) might not
see another vehicle in the street, or (3 ) might not be seen by a pedestrian
or other vehicle.
On a relatively narrow street, and where there are other vehicles
parked on the street, this situation could be critical ( See Attachment 2 ,
Typical House on Street with 50-foot Right of Way) .
2 ) Policy Regarding Physical Access and Area :
In order to clarify what would and what would not be considered
physical access and physical area, Staff has identified several items that
could be included in a resolution setting forth City policy:
A. Intent : The City shall determine if physical access to and
physical area in the areas outside of the Front Yard are at all reasonably
possible. If so, the Front Yard shall not be used for storage of an R. V.
or similar item.
B. The City shall determine if any of the following items make
physical access or physical area impossible:
1 ) Access to item: Lack of access necessary to enter or
exit an R. V. or similar item.
2 ) Access to street : Lack of direct, generally
perpendicular access to the street . For example, access might be blocked by
a fire hydrant, light pole, or tree .
3 ) Accessory buildings : An accessory building on a
permanent foundation, a swimming pool, or similar major , permanent
improvement .
4 ) Architectural features : An eave, fireplace, or other
major , permanent architectural feature of the Main Building .
5 ) Topography: Topography ( slopes ) which would require (a )
substantial regrading, or (b) retaining walls to retain more than two ( 2 )
feet of earth. '
6 ) Trees: A tree four ( 4 ) inches in diameter or ( 12 ) inches
in circumference or greater as measured two ( 2 ) feet above natural grade.
C. Paving and Access : Paving and access to the street can be
concrete, bricks, landscaping paver blocks, or equivalent as found
" acceptable by the City Engineer .
III . RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review these issues,
provide any additional direction, and continue the item to the November 18 ,
1985 , Planning Commission meeting for final recommendation to the City
Council .
---------------------------------=-------------------------------
ITEM NO. COPIES TO:
•5s+-a--. ..^.t......,;r,.. x7r—i+^r, !R.' -r•-^:'R't.ru._ ,�k .. +':xi:"' .'?:^1P^;".:r?'s73°^^^�"'.."°3^,. ...,.. ^'+'^• v.^-?.s.!'� •r-e•- .,..r•.t.,.; :res .,.... _...�...
JrT S-0 9
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 2, 1985
SUBJECT: PA 85-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding
Recreational Vehicles (R. V. Ordinance) .
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
A. Draft Resolution recommending Zoning Ordinance
Amendment Regarding Recreational Vehicles.
B . Draft Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance Regarding
Recreational Vehicles .
Background Attachments :
(For the following background attachments, see the
November 18 , 1985 , Planning Commission Agenda
Statement )
-1 Handout : Revised Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Regarding Recreational Vehicles (R. V. Ordinance) .
-2 Areas on a Typical Residential Lot.
-3 Typical House on Street with 50-foot Right-of-Way.
-4 Written comments on R. V. Ordinance.
-5 Planning Commission Minutes of September 16 ,
October 7 , and October. 21 , 1985 .
-6 Planning Commission Agenda Statements of November
4 , October 21 , and October 7 , 1985 , without
attachments .
-7 Existing Ordinance regarding R. V. ' s .
-8 Sample Side Yards .
-9 Typical R. V.' Dimensions .
-10 R. V. regulations from other communities .
-11 City Council Minutes and Agenda Statement of June
10 , 1985 .
RECOMMENDATION:
-1 Re-open Public Hearing and hear Staff presentation .
-2 Take testimony from the public.
-3 Question Staff and the public.
1 -4 Close the Public Hearing and deliberate.
-5 Adopt resolution recommending Zoning Ordinance
Amendment Regarding Recreational Vehicles .
ITEM 'NO �' �. .COPIES ..TO
�..�.�«,rw::. L..«wt%+wC....`L�'�,..J�1+:ic15Yn... .....T S�.r:.:e.:.'.7ws..",.. ...rw....:.. _ ...:.anLX2.^...:L.u:: ..-.�'.JS.:f�.w..t.'�..... — wt .....y..-.._ w._...�•.., .i-:-..
.,S"'x'c'„c' �'"•." r'"iI^"T-''r's� 'a?'7't^r7^r ..'^i "R.n�°':g^n^r^—r!^ra r n'k"�r.
"rax`a•-F 3r".+' JK :sTi• 7 rfi •�! !""a^a-m a ro —c.. a'"T .^..r: ... _
.. ,. ..,• :,r ..e. T'4r""x- .. ?.,• ,..�':. ?„7.t ._. ,. <.. .
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
The existing Ordinance prohibits the parking or storage
of R. V. ' s and similar items in the required Front Yard and the.
required Side Yards in residential areas .
On October 7 , October 21, November 4 , and November 18 ,
1985 , the Planning Commission held Public Hearings, took
testimony both for and against the storage of R. V. ' s in
residential areas, closed the public hearings, and gave Staff
direction regarding the R. V. Ordinance.
On November 18, 1985 , the Planning Commission' s
direction was to prepare the R. V. Ordinance with the following
provisions :
1 ) Allow parking or storage in the Rear Yard.
2 ) Allow parking or storage in the Side Yard behind
the adjacent front wall of the house with screening and access,
and, if necessary, a curb cut . -
3 ) In front of the house, allow short term parking
only in the driveway.
The Planning Commission requested that the City
Attorney comment on the following items :
1 ) Whether or not the City might be liable if it
permits an R V. to be parked or stored in the Front Yard
alongside the driveway.
The City Attorney recommends against permitting R. V.
parking alongside the driveway because several recent court cases
indicate that the City could be held liable from a safety
standpoint .
2) Whether or not the ordinance amendment could treat
existing residents differently from new residents , at least for a
short amount of time .
The City Attorney indicates that the ordinance
amendment would have to be applied equally. It could not treat
existing residents differently from new residents .
3 ) Whether or not it would be appropriate for the
Planning Commission to discuss a referendum.
The City Attorney indicates that it would not be
appropriate for the Planning Commission to discuss a referendum.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the R. V.
Ordinance.
y
_,
l+F L.rK-f 5.< a• }'
t r ot�t {+r —tA er y. tF•f rt y.1 rF. •.rJ t n,•yy �.•t + ' a -
,'a.3- ,a " ; at .-at •i
J .,�j. '3 r `•i :! ! !� f i Y}• i S 'k7 J� , .S » > 1 .f,t '<y,
...a: t.....,.�i....sl'....+f:•f.• 'A'y -.t% -...v.:.ti. r.,..�.,c �._ rw J L.'?�� :w.. r y.,r �.r. • �'
,. ,+ ^:. .5 'x'k°!;r•..>'•1'�"r-h�»'a',S"��.xt' Fi .'f'� � .._.. �cr�.... .»„ .-.a". ''°...' '"- .',d�"'��'r-:'�ti:'?°.'`ni;:?"'krpg�q?.','.
i
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 18, 1985
SUBJECT: PA 85-077 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding
Recreational Vehicles (R. V. Ordinance) .
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
A. Draft Resolution recommending Zoning Ordinance
Amendment Regarding Recreational Vehicles .
B . Draft Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance Regarding
Recreational Vehicles .
Background Attachments :
-1 Handout: Revised Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Regarding Recreational Vehicles (R. V. Ordinance ) .
-2 Areas on a Typical Residential Lot.
-3 Typical House on Street with 50-foot Right-of-Way.
-4 Written comments on R. V. Ordinance.
-5 Planning Commission Minutes of September 16 ,
October 7 , and October 21 , 1985 .
J
-6 Planning Commission Agenda Statements of November
4 , October 21 , and October 7 ,1985 , without
attachments .
-7 Existing Ordinance regarding R. V. ' s .
-8 Sample Side Yards .
-9 Typical R. V. Dimensions .
-10 R. V. regulations from other communities .
-11 City Council Minutes and Agenda Statement of June
10 , 1985 .
RECOMMENDATION:
-1 Re-open . Public Hearing and hear Staff presentation.
-2 Take testimony from the public.
-3 Question Staff and the public.
-4 Close the Public Hearing and deliberate .
-5 Adopt resolution recommending Zoning Ordinance
Amendment Regarding Recreational Vehicles.
ITEM NO., COPIES i.TO:
...�......... }s .� uw .\...L,...7 wc..:..Ee.{:..cd»n.w......... .S..r.��'i.+F'•..CY++=.IO.•....:f..:..+M. ..•...1 ar, ...:...4...'w�... .rYar ..,...r..........+..._^�• . •..: 1 ...... .....
^N^r7t "M n r„"�.y .n '^r.^.;,sagx^9 .,:.c.
.. ._..
T
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
None .
DESCRIPTION:
The existing Ordinance prohibits the parking or storage
of R. V. ' s and similar items in the required Front Yard and the
required Side Yards in residential areas .
On October 7 , October 21, and November 4 , 1985 , the
Planning Commission held Public Hearings, took testimony both for
and against the storage of R. V. ' s in residential areas , closed
the public hearings, and gave Staff direction regarding the R. V.
Ordinance and R. V. policies .
The Planning Commission ' s direction was to prepare the
R. V. Ordinance with the following provisions:
1 ) Allow parking or . storage in the Rear Yard.
2 ) Allow parking or storage in the Side Yard behind
the adjacent front wall of the house with screening and access,
and, if necessary, a curb cut .
3 ) If access or area is not physically possible in the
Rear Yard or Side Yard, allow parking or storage in the Front
Yard on the narrower of the two areas alongside the driveway with
paving and a curb cut.
The Planning Commission provided policy direction
regarding the intent of the R. V. Ordinance, what would make
storage in the Rear Yard or Side Yards impossible, and what types
of paving and access would be acceptable.
The Planning Commission determined that potential
safety and sight distance issues related to a driver backing out
of a driveway next to a stored R. V. would be the driver ' s
responsibility.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the R. V.
Ordinance.
-2-
Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $234,343 .42 ;
Approved the City Treasurer' s Investment Report for Peri nding May 31 ,
1985 ;
Denied the claim of Ann Benner and directed Staf to notify claimant and
insurance company;
Authorized the City' s participation in t Alameda County Fine Arts Patron
Program in an amount not to exceed $4 ;
Adopted r
R LUTION NO. 48 - 85
AMENDING RESO ION NO. 20-85 AND AMENDING MANDATORY DATES
FOR UND OUNDING OF UTILITIES IN THE SAN RAMON ROAD
UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NUMBER 1
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO . 49 - 85
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO AUTHORIZE PG&E TO PROCEED
WITH THE CONVERSION PROGRAM FOR STREET LIGHTS
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FROM CLIFFORD & ISABEL GONSALVES
REGARDING THE CITY'S RECREATION VEHICLE ORDINANCE
The City received a letter from Isabel and Clifford Gonsalves requesting that
the City Council consider revising the City' s existing Ordinance which
regulates the storage of mobile homes , recreation vehicles , utility trailers ,
unmounted camper tops or boats in the front or required side yards in the
residential district .
Clifford Gonsalves addressed the Council and stated he felt it unfair that
his recreation vehicle would be legal in San Ramon. He stated he will move
his ry into the street tomorrow and will keep a log and will see that it is
moved every 72 hours .
Cm. Vonheeder felt the ordinance should be studied and any legal issues
pending should be put into abeyance .
Mayor Snyder felt that by taking action to study this ordinance , the City
will be creating an ongoing situation of reviewing every single ordinance
everytime someone objects . The ordinance is in effect , and should be
enforced.
a
Cm. Jeffery felt the City should look at this ordinance in light of the fact
that there is no storage space available in Dublin.
Cm. Hegarty felt the environment should be safe and aesthetically pleasing
and. no matter what would come out of a study, you will not please everyone .
Regular Meeting June 10, 1985
John Collins , 7011 Allegheny questioned if an initiative could change the
existing ordinance .
It was reported that a referendum election could change the ordinance , but
the approach of a study of the ordinance would be an easier and quicker way
to proceed. .
Stanley Greenspan, Amarillo Court , asked that the Council consider- the
revenue to the City for licensing fees . He requested to be able to place a
recreation vehicle in a side yard where it does not interfere with access to
or from garage or in side yard behind fence .
e
Ann Henderson stated she would rather see the recreation vehicle behind a
fence than in front of homes on the street .
On motion. of Cm. Moffatt , seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote ,
the Council referred the review of the existing Ordinance to the Planning
Commission for study, with a request that it be handled in an expedient
manner. City Manager Nave stated that the existing ordinance will stay in
effect while being studied .
Cm. Moffatt made a motion which was seconded by Cm. Vonheeder that recorded
violations be suspended until study of ordinance is completed. City Attorney
Nave indicated he had doubts that the City could do this . Cm. Moffatt
questioned if the City could continue the violations . Mr. Nave stated he did
not feel that legally this could occur. During the study, the City must
continue to enforce the ordinance .
Cm. Moffatt withdrew his motion with the request that low priority be given
to the complaints . Cm. Vonheeder withdrew her second to the motion.
HEARING
APPEAL LANNING COMMISSION ACTION TO DENY CUP
WILDIS NORT ERICA CORPORATION/ALL SEASONS RIDING ACADEMY
Mayor Snyder opene e public hearing.
On June 6 , 1985 , Stel Papa ulos , the applicant/appellant , requested the
City Council to continue his ap until June 24, 1985 because of school
finals .
The two major proposed uses were 1) therapy ter for disabled. and non-
disabled athletes and 2 ) a place for public gat h ing, including classes ,
potluck dinners , meetings , and bingo .
The Planning Commission unanimously denied she application, ' nding that 1)
the use would be detrimental to the economic vitality of the e ' ting
commercial tenants and the center at large ; 2) the use would be in sistent
with the C-1 District intent to provide areas for comparison retail sh . ng
and office uses ; and 3 ) the use would be inconsistent with the General Pla
policy which calls for strengthening existing shopping centers .
CM-4-117
Regular Meeting June 10, 1985
: r�'PFmr r^... t, ?; T t?,•'Tj9q"^GY„^(:`�".y"""'h`t '..'.?J G'. + ;raw-. h r Z Y._f^.^.^ __ ,
-_ ( T'A'Y OF DUBLIN
A(,-,iDA- STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 10, 1985
3JECT Written Communication Re City Recreation Vehicle
Ordinance
iIBITS ATTACHED Letter from Mr'Se&ions .s-6Clifford Gonsalves Edte1
May 24 , 1985
Regulating the Storage of Recreation Vehicles on
Residential Properties
COMMENDATION �{- 1) Determine whether consideration should be .given to
the review and pote.^_tial revision of the City' s
existing Ordinance
�'e e:C'_Stin� or_ 1S 'deS�rcble
2) If a review Of t.,. ,
refer the review to the Planning Commission
� ) Direct Star recarding aperooria.te action for
ViOlatOrS which ha'ie been ncziTled
CNANCIAL STATEMENT: None at this time
ASCRIPTION The City Council has receive= a letter from Isabel and
Lifford Gonsalves �reauestina that the City CGLL''_C_I COnS'_Cer rev15_n� t:^.e
`C15t1n� OT �1nallCe Wr,1ci., r2aLFlateS t:'_° S�Ora�e O. mobile CiCCleS ,
1ty' S e� : �� trai 1 n*-S , unmoUntec. ca per toCS or boa s 11 Nil°
ecreation vehicles , ut _� - _
ront or re0Uired side yards in t;;e res=dential d_strict -
wi t:'L City Counc_1 direction. tae C--:;-;-Is Zc:,_rE n-J o: -eme.n-
n accord :1 1 =_nt� r =rC_r= �;.? StOr�=- O=Jr°C:ccC1GL
Onnel have res-oOnde^_ t0 Comp_ �_ - - ^
er. 1 SS i n L- Ole t- c. `' C; �;t' S OrC131a':Ce . Since t.'1=rr are r :V^_"O S
i .;_ t 1.e
e�i C ny Com�l='T1ts fi 1 er' , a number O. I
1olGt1ons i n tn15 Greta, Gnn ma_. _ Y--
groper ties have been riOtif=ed truth I e5�2Ct to �,.� COI reCti 0A CI t,1°_T
•esuective vi olati ors .
+ e'_1forcement,, act ii oa by the C1..y .0 G__ , ti
11654 Amarillo Court
Dublin, California, 94568
24 May 1984 -
resident
ublin City Council
500 Dublin Blvd -
ublin , California 94568
ear M.•-President: ,
•s a resident and homeowner of Dublin for the past 20. years , the image ,
afety and visibile impression of our community 'has been of prime
.nterest to our household.
)wring these years we have maintained our home in a manner befitting our
standards in concert with our neighbors . This has been done in an effort
;o maintain our pride and as a part of our total community; both of our
Lmmediate neighbors as well as those more distant. It has also been done
so as to maintain the value of our original investment. As retirees , it
Ls our intention to remain in this community for the rest of our lives .
Twenty years ago , when moving to this community , we immediately took
steps to provide for off-street parking of our motorhome so as (1 ) not to
interfer with the visibility of vehicular traffic; (2) remove from the
street what some might feel to be "commercial" equipment; and (3) conform
to the law of not permitting a vehicle Irom •being on the streets for over
12 hours . This -was achieved by expanding our driveway and parking the
unit on our property.
As retirees , we make frequent use of our motorhome; approximately once
each month we travel for extended weekends to points in Northern
California. During other periods of the year , extended trips are taken .
Consideration was given to renting space in what are refered to as RV
storage lots but this idea was quickly dropped due to the high costs ,
inaccessibility , and improper security (breakins' ) . When our
neighborhood was new, and we were planning for the offstreet parking of
our motorhome , discussion was held with all our neighbors as to their
feelings toward our plans . NOT ONE NEIGHBOR PROTESTED OUR PLANNED
ACTION . At the time of expanding our driveway, no less than four of our
neighbors assisted us in the project. Others might have helped but there
was not need nor space for them to work. ;
We were recently visited by a representative of the Dublin Zoning Office .
apprising us that our motorhome is out of compliance with City
Ordinances : 8-60 .33 citing . . . No Mobilehome , Recreational Vehicle ,
utility trailer , . . . shall be stored in the Front Yard or the required
Side Yard in any R District_
We were also apprised that this ordinance was put into effect some 15
years ago , five years after our moving into Dublin. We cannot recall any
notification of this ordinance ' s implementation, nor has this -household
ever. been cited for non-compliance SINCE ITS IMPOSITION _
i i .! 3i c� •r 1e3�9 rs "' f ; i� .++', -sr r
F c .. i 3... . P oaf . � .� 'r 9 fTl -. T_ w � ?F r r +•� �.i`f„�, i.. r' Rt b t { � _.
Y` t 7 S / L' ... i � k.<'r4�- s'� ,•. �i r � r1,{Ka.•' .�. �, -.i• 4 fi .,, C :3
✓iT�GT4t'�S-s*ri.7wmiF'f:`�d:1F°*.T�SSS+.".;.*" J3".;�1'.$.':t5"d3?A"0.r3,'.�R�•?'°�.'�",�.'.;?x'fi�cs?5�"` 's?"Li':F':�!�?'�"','dY.sr.. _ .:u. � .. _>.... .�.,,. *,'RC�'F``�'?�"'::�:7:r,^'n--'a,... ..._..,
uring these twenty years , many other neighbors have purchased
ecreational vehicles and boats . In our community each has taken steps
o satisfy the desires of the neighbors. Some have placed their units. in
heir side yards with little or no visibility frocn the front. None to my
tandards have in anyway reduced the value of the community• nor have
aused deterioration of the communities image.
t is our sincerest request that the Council give consideration to the
evocation of the above cited ordinance . It is our recommendation that
:he Council -provide a condition of storage of an RV/boat in a manner
refitting the community. It is felt that ordinances be effected - .
'equiring any or all of the following be implemented:
r
No RV/boat/trailer/camper/camper shell shall be parked on the street
for a period longer than 72 hours .
o No RV/boat/trailer/camper/camper shell shall be stored in a space
between the sidewalk and the front fence on an area other than one
which is paved , graveled , bricked or similarly designated as a
parking area. Parking on lawn areas would be considered as
inappropriate.
o Storage of an RV/boat/trailer/camper/camper shell behind any fence
equal to the outmost wall of the house shall be acceptable .
o No RV/boat/trailer/camper/camper shell shall be stored in a frontal
area in such a location as to interfer with the safe flow of
vehicular or pedestrian traffic nor interfer with sufficient
visibility for said parties.
o No RV/boat/trailer/camper/camper shell shall be stored in the
frontal_a_rea that is non-operational or undergoing long-termed
repairs . Such an item shall be used/moved at least once every
month.
As the law now states , it is permissible to park an R`! on the street for
72 hours . Should offstreet parking be declared as illegal, the resultant
effect might be that individuals will park their vehicles on the street
and move them every'72 hours . It is felt that the above recommendations
will serve as a form of compromise while still maintaining the integrety
of the community.
Reference should also be made of the Investigator ' s reference to
Ordinance 8-63 .2 which she refered to as pr;,viding offstreet parking for
"visitors" . It was her intention that "Parking of personal vehicles in
one ' s driveway was illegal" . This household has difficulty in accepting
her definition in that we are not permitted to park our personal property
on our real property .
This household is not debating that the negative condition of some of the
above cited vehicles will cause concern to others. Such a units
continued storage in a frontal area shall provide for a judgemental value
of the appropriateness of its continuing in the frontal area. .
Page 2
_";:-�o':•:r^,Fr-`!!?g�'Y :. cra•-;-cam,•.T;t-,. ._�•!'r" _ � c•'.z'-�^"".r"��:'-^ -;•s--ar-ie..—,.z - _. _ .. ... _ ..
We as professionals are making judgemental decisions daily after weighing
all facts and evidence. Where situations of due concern arise , this
matter may be solved through petition of removal signed by those '
concerned. '
It is hoped that the Council will see fit .to remove or modify Ordinance
8-60 .33 at its earlier convenience. This household and other interested
parties would appreciate the opportunity -to discuss this issue before the
Council should such be desired.
Very sincereL.y yours ,
Clifford Isabel Gonsalves
cc .
Paul Moffatt
J a
Page 3
• • _ i`- Z1= JCtIYED
. ,)EP 2 0 1985
MM614,j fkv DUBLIN PLANNING
ORDINANCE NO. 44
ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 84-68.808 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON AND ADDING SECTION B9-91 REGULATING
THE PARKING OF OVERSIZE VEHICLES AND TRAILERS
THE -CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAMON DOES ORDAIN as fol-
lows:
Section I. Section 84-68.808 of the Municipal Code of the
C: ty Of Sari Ramon is repealed.
Section 2. Article 8, PARKING, of Division 9, STREETS AND
HIGHWAYS, of Title B, REGULATIONS, of the Municipal Code
Of City of San Ramon is amended by adding Section B9-91
which reads:
----=--Section_B9_91___P�_�inQ__?_O!"r°l-ed_Vehicles---an-d--Trailer-s-
Prohibited.
(a) No person shall park or leave standing upon any public
street or highway within a residential district any
oversized vehicle or traiier not connected, in a .manner
aDDrOVed by the Vehicle Code, to a towing vehicle at any
time. For the purpose of this Section, the term "over-
sized vehicle" shall mean any vehicle or combination of
vehicle and trailer the dimensions of which exceed
eighteen feet (181 ) in length, eighty inches (SO-) in
width, or eighty-two inches (82••) in height.
(b) Exceptiona: .• This section shall not apply to:
1 . Any resident, with a permit issued by the City 0
San Ramon, whose oversized non-commercial vehicle
TME
f
or trailer is parked for a period not to exceed
twenty-four (24) consecutive hours in front of his
or her residence for the purpose of loading or un-
loading before and after a trip. The term "trip"
does not refer to daily use of the vehicle but in-
stead refers to an extended overnight use of the
vehicle which requires additional time to prepare
the vehicle. The term "loading or unloading" means
food, clothing and supplies and pre
the packing of
-
paring the vehicle's refrigeration and unpacking
the vehicle after the trip;
2. Any bona fide guest of a resident who has secured a
permit from the City of San Ramon. A permit not to
exceed seven (7) days will be issued if:
a The bona fide guest is not a resident of the
City of San Ramon; and
b The vehicle is registered to an address not
within the City or San Ramon.
3. Any person who is actually enraged in the loading or
unloading of any non-commercial oversi=e vehicle or
is actually engaged in making emergency repairs
thereon;
4 . Any commercial oversize vehicle making pickups or
deliveries of goods, wares, and merchandise from or
to any building or structure loc=ted. on a public
2
�.�. ,;..»-.. -- ..y....._:r�•; `` c '�-;`'a��:'r.r
street or highway within a residential zone or de-
liverying materials to be used in the actual and
bona fide repair, alteration, remodeling, or con-
` struction of any building or structure upon a pub-
lic street or highway within a residential zone for
which a building permit has previously been obtain-
ed.
5. The exceptions listed above shall not apply to any
over-sized vehicle or trailer parked (1) within
twenty-five (25) feet from the street corner as
defined in section 82-18.002 of the Contra Costa
County Code which was adopted by reference; or (2)
in such a manner as to obstruct and .prevent the
free use of sidewalks.
(c) All oversize vehicles parked pursuant to sub-section (b)
shall, in addition to the requirements of sections 24607
and 24608 of the Vehicle Code, be equipped with a
supplemental reflecting safety device mounted no lower
than thirty (30) inches or higher than sixty (60) inches
and .so maintained to be plainly visible at night from
all distances from twenty-five (25) to one hundred (100)
feet in front of lawful lower headlamp beams.
(d) Violation of this section is hereby deemed to be an
infraction and .is punishable according to the provisions
of section Al-33 of this Code. Furthermore, pursuant to
3
.r-_`t ..} F T 'i�. YtTT.^'•f9"4'rf • ray'..-.II S
7 7'r
section 22651 of the Vehicle Code, any oversi=ed vehicle
parked or left standing on a public street or highway in
a residential zone in violation of this section may be
removed from the street or highway upon which vehicle is
parked or left standing.
Section 3. Section 2 of this ordinance shall be effective on
and after April 8, 1985.
Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days
from', the date of its passage. Before the expiration of fifteen
(15) days after its passage, this ordinance shall be posted in
three (3) public places within the City of San Ramon along with
the names of the members of the City Council voting for and .
against the same.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced at the meeting of the
City Council of the City of San Ramon on December 11, 1584 and
aftar public hearing was adopted as amended herein on January 8,
1985 by the following vote :
AYES: Councilmembers Bennett, Meakin, Oliver, Schinnerer and
Mayor Harmon
NOES: None
ABSENT . None
--
-- Mayor - -
City Clerk
4
.°".1.... . .� T_......... T^S ?T _ :� _.".?'a7TS4;�".'s.'!r'G'jl ..c '".e..,,..T.°","^ .. ."T l.. r... .;j.., :•ce.:< _ - .._' _..
r
21 .44 F. 6. . Medical
Dental Clinics: Five (_ paces for each doc-
for or dentist. .
7 . Hotels , Motels, and Motor Hotels: One ( 1 ) space for each
living or sleeping unit, plus one ( 1 ) space for each ten
. ( 10) such units and one ( 1 ) for each three (3 ) seats
within appurtenant eating or drinking places.
8. Food Stores: 'Having a floor area 6 ,000 to 10 ,000 square
feet - two ( 2) square feet for each square foot of •floor
area; having a floor area in excess of 10 ,000 square feet
- three ( 3) square feet for each square foot of floor
area. * *..*::.....:. _
9 . Restaurants: One ( 1 ) stall for each three (3 ) seats. . .
10. Tennis/Racquetball Club: Three ( 3 ) stalls per court.
G. Trailer Storage: Trailers may be stored in conformance with
the following regulations:
1 . The business of railer storage may be permitted in the
"CG" , �ID�, or "IM" Zoning Districts subject to District
2. Private .trailer storage is per
in any "R"
District.
3. Within an "R" District, storage shall be permitted any
on the lot except within twenty (20) feet of the
intersection of a line tangent to the right-of-way line
of two ( 2) intersecting streets, and except within a re-
quired street frontage yard when rear yard access is pos
sible either directly or through a side yard having a
width of ten ( 10) feet or more.
4 . Storage within any street frontage yard or - side yard
shall be limited to one ( 1 ) trailer or unmounted camper
R C E 1 Y E D . top. No trailer stored in the .front yard shall exceed
nineteen ( 19 ) feet and in no case shall such storage be
_P 1 '1985 permitted where the trailer or camper top exceeds ten
( 10) feet in height.
DUSLIN PI- i NSING 5. In no case shall a trailer be stored within a public
right-of-way or in a manner that is determined by the
City to be unsafe.
6 . A trailer shall not b�e used for residential living pur-
poses except as otherwise provided herein.
.45 Parking Lot canoares : rarxing ioLs mall oe ceveiopea in con-
`, formance with accepted design standards and with the following
minimum standards:
A. A Parking Stall shall have a width of not less than nine and
one-half (9-1/2 ) feet and depth of not less than nineteen
( 19 ) feet except that thirty percent (30%) of the stalls may
have a depth of not less than sixteen ( 16) feet provides use
is limited to compact or sports cars . (Ord. 1105)
B. Aisle width shall not be less than thirteen ( 13 ) feet and
shall be increased in width related to the angle of parking
in accordance with the following . table :
Parking Aisle h
Anale in Fe
1 . 45 13
2. 50 13 '
3. 60 18
45c . Effective 5/12/82 (Ord . 1105)
•
�RQggo RV RL4AM40�45
TITLE VI VEHICLES
Chapter 1 Traffic Control
A variance granted pursuant to these .
provisions shall remain valid only so long as the necessary facts
established in order to obtain the variance continue to exist.
(b) off-Street Parking of Vehicles Of Certain Size ;
Residential.
( 1) No motor vehicle exceeding the following t:vo ( 2)
dimensions : twenty ( 20) feet in length and seven
( 7 ) feet in height shall be parked or left
standing within twenty ( 20) feet of the front yard
or street side yard (on a corner. lot) side of the
sidewalk; provided , however, that such motor
vehicles may be so parked or left standing on the
ereof, if space is not
driveway portion th
available upon the driveway of the vehicles to be
parked beyond said twenty ( 20) feet, or if space
is not available in the rear yard or side yard , or
there is no reasonable access to either the rear
yard or side yard ; a corner lot is presumed to
have reasonable access to the rear yard
( 2) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) ( 1) of this. section ,
no part of any motor vehicle may extend over
.the public sidewalk.
(c) Non-Motorized Vehicles .
LLCalifornia ehicle other than a motor vehicle as defined by
Vehicle Code 5 415 shall be parked or left
ding upon any street between the hours of 2 : 00 a.m.
6 :00 a .m.
Section 6-1-435 : PARKING SPACES. The City Manager may cause
parking spaces on streets or in municipal parking lots to be
marked with white lines designating such parking space . t10 -person
shall stop, park or leave standing any vehicle on a street or in : a
municipal parking lot in any manner other than wholly within a
parking space so designated.
(Legislative History: ordinance No. 1137 N.S. , 7/9/58 ; ordinance
No. 1197 N.S. , 3/2/59 ; ordinance No. 69-4 , 1/20/69 ; Ordinance
Vo . 77-27 , 6/13/77 , Gcdinance No. 79-40 , 12/17/79 ; ordinance No.
82-084 , 11/1/82; ordinance No. 83-08 , 2/22/33)
1/13/83 -9-
a
LTNCIi� OF THE CITY OF SAs�1 LEANDRO 1024
IN THE CITY CO
ORDIITANi cE IIO. 82 - 095
?V ORDJN L CE DING A SECTION TO TI�T^LL 4�ZT2, C'?A�T£R 3
OF THE S i1 Lt.?-•1DRO MTjR\TICIP?� CODE' RE_2LJT 2 G TO ZONING
(A-82-10 - Par:{ina Iz Frcnt 'bards)
The City Council of the Cit_T of San Le-and--o does ORDAIN
as follows:
Section .l_ Section 7-3-521.7 is herehv added to Title
VII, Chapter 3 of tae San Le_nd-o Municipal Code of 1957 to read
as follows :
Section 7-3-521.7 : P MKING IN REQUI-RED FRONT OR SIDE YA.PDS .
(a) E,,cept as provided in suhsectior_ (b) , no vehicles ,
whether motorized or non-motorized, shall be parked
in a required front yard or street Bice sidevard in a
r. i •-
residential di stricL� or in a re.L_�ec front va_d or
street side si.devard yard of a s==ele fami ly or t:ac
fa_r'ii ly GLvel 1 i nG* i_ a 7..on-resid ant_al di str;.cL, unless
.7,o^ a pave driveway w-ic_H pro v?d°_s access LC required
parking.
(b) The Enforci ng officer Shall re=:.-z idc park ina Ci such
-
vehicles on a parking area in a __u4red frcnt yard or
resi -`r=i , i ,-i ct or in
street Side Sid°_Tar�.�in a c�_G �._a_ d_S�._ -
a required
. front Varc or street side sideyard varC 0
a single ,family Or two family Gavel 1 i rC in a non-
residential district, provided S:�C~ parki_^_C area 1s
const_uct-- and maintained wit-h- a paved surface in
conformance with. desicn and construc"_0I1 S-a:lGcrdS
established by the City Ong-veer, and located a"--i a cen_
t0 such pa�i 2S-Cr iveT.Ja`Ts , and prCy=ded ru;t_^_Zr, that
SUCK par:{ing area, when added to e paved dr i'rewaV,
will not exceed fiat r (50) perc__^_t of -he width of
the subject property or thirty (3 0) feet, whichev er
is less, as me. sure_d at- th$ front- sethack !'i le.
'. ,:^"?`" 4"-aa rcxc*{'4 'r+«- i* 4'°i^r`` ,;s , i •.y*".'.�y.' Z+u*g"4 L'` 4 `'..T..-'�- -;-? r ' 777,17
5 0' 10 0'
1
Haw ./DOUNIL
House W/shmo
Garep� i 6oraQe
Lo-
Cirb e' �' 30' MAX.
fl 5- MAX. -- --
� _ 2
Sld.�dk
Dw Sid--C& Dsy
i Gutter Ciao t 6rtter
5 0'
® Allowable increase in area that may be utilized for parking In
front yard. (50% of frontage, but not more than 30 ft., '
which ever is less.)
Parking Area May Be=
3.5" PCC Concrete 5 sack mix.
(City Standard Specifications)
House */Double
1 I Or
Garage
l 2" Asphalt Concrete over, 4"Aggregrate Base.
(Base material must be compacted to 95%)
Or
Other paving materials and paving methods may be submitted
for approval by the City Engineer.
Public driveway (curb cut) may not be enlarged if such
25- MAX. enlargement win eliminate on on Street parking space.
20OW10 DWI
Curb L Goiter
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT _ CITY OF SAN LEANDRO
•POPOY"- OATE
NC. OAiE I REV;S10N EXAMPLES OF ON SITE PAVED
P Y.LO-G — R.C.C. -0.11170
AREAS FOR VEHICLE .PARKING �.BIIC -OAKS DIAECTO�f
04ECkE] BY
I
IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS oq:.wN 3Y- OK
ORD. 82-095 SCAILE
CASE 3 1.0 I.--
,, t -rT.''Ir}. y..�� P"'"°':T"s"Fr*a."."'�°"�sTr�+'F eT. T'f'...:��� {Ae".'r' 'r•''»rS^ ^.'-.Cr'�v"ni.s r 7 ,��"J'4 "� 4:�--ax.�'•.' a.�, ..
f f�eMoNT RV RE6k1AT10H 6
§ 8_29-006 ZONING §8-22006.1
required. The off-street loading facilities required for the
uses mentioned in this article, and for other similar uses, shall
in all cases be on the same lot as the structure they are in-
tended to serve. Space for required off-street parking and
loading shall not occupy any part of any required yard adjacent
_ to a street, except as otherwise provided in district -regula-
tions or this article. Where open, parking areas may be in-
cluded as part of a required open space for rear or side yard,
subject to other provisions of this article and chapter and
approved by the development organization.
(b) Guest and ca=per, boat, trailer parking: Guest park-
ing referred to in section 8-22003 shall generally be located
near each principal entrance and at other areas deemed ap-
propriate by the development organization- Guest spaces shall) -
be marked with the word "Guest". Guest parking spaces shall
not be used by tenants nor shall vehicles other than opera-
tional motor vehicles be parked in the spaces- No signs shall
be erected restricting guests from parking in properly marked
off-street guest spaces. Camper, boat and. trailer parking
spaces referred to in section 8-22003 shall generally be located
and screened so as not to be visible from public street, subject
o Cleve opment organization review an approval. (Ord. No.
1021, § 1, 1-7-75.)
Sec- 8-22006. Parking provided under separate ownership.
If a use requiring parking space is in one ownership and
all or part of the required parking space provided is in an-
other ownership, the property owners involved shall submit a
legal agreement approved by the city attorney as to form
and content guaranteeing that said required paring spaces
shall be maintained so long as the use requiring parking is in ,
existence or unless the required parking is provided elsewhere
in accordance with the provisions of this article. (Ord. No.
1021, § 1, 1-7-75.)
Sec. 8-22006.1. BART in-lieu parking.
For parking requirements for nonresidential development located
within five hundred feet of a BART station,a developer may substi-
232.11 Supp.No.3-82
r
( ti
fi
� t 4 it+- / y.N i/ J P '1'•f rY 1.1 V P '�M - ..( _
•: .., .: .d.•L Y J :.. ..gip
'1'"S"�"'.' °j i r - + .�.. y �cst�^t3C r v qc' ♦,"Yay."'R�"7"�"°.' *"e
�'sl�..�Ace�.v. ?ii..�-.',.'�e�#;�lEgs .;,b��iL`!+'�:a..0- '�,. �`.«_. dww•'2; t�t��,.:��... �Rn° �:.1, °s.2�`3Xr°:'°r'����4�c�.�a';�':�f,�r'��F}�'� F.;�a•� ..
18.88.160 . ZONING P {.�t7 �� � '�
Such reports and data shall be required for any use involving public ..�i
assembly.
(b) In-areas identified as subject to moderate risk,the building official
may require such reports as described in(a) for any use except single-family
use or two-family use. Such reports and data shall be required for any use
involving public assembly. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978).
FZs.� 160 Vehicle and equipment repair and storage. The,foll owing
s shall apply in all residential districts, and to all sites in any other
ed for residential occupancy:
Servicing, repairing, assembling, disassembling, wrecking,
o, restoring, or otherwise working on any vehicle, motor vehicle,
camp trailer. trailer, trailer coach, motorcycle, motor-driven cycle,
, boat, or similar conveyance is prohibited unless conducted within
or accessory ding, or in an area screened from view from the
street and adjoining lots by a legally located fence, wall, or equivalent
screening. -
(b) Storing, placing or parking any of the conveyances designated in
subsection (a), or any part thereof, which is disabled, unlicensed,
unregistered, inoperative, or from which an essential or legally required
operating part is removed, including an unmounted camper, camp trailer,
Laccessory ailer coach and similar nonmotorized conveyance, or any other
or device exceeding .46 cubic meters(sixteen cubic feet)in volume
ied upon or in any such conveyance, or any equipment,machinery,
material shall be prohibited unless conducted within a garage or
building, or in an area screened from view from the stre et and lots by a legally located fence, wall, or eouivalent screaningervrcrno, repa=g, assembling, alsassem ling, wrectang,
modifying, restoring, or otherwise working on, or storing, placing, and
parking any of the conveyances designated in this section (excluding (1)
Passenger vehicles other than house cars and (2) "Pickup" motor trucks on
which no equipment other than a camper is mounted), whether disabled or
fully operative, is permitted for an aggregate period of over seventy-two
hours during any continuous period of ninety-six hours in any open areas on
a lot only in locations where an accessory building or principal building of
equivalent height or bulk would be permitted by the provisions of this title.
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) and (b),
emergency repairs and short-term or temporary parking of any conveyance
7 listed in subsection (a), when owned by a person residing on the lot,may be
conducted for an aggregate period of up to seventy-two hours in any
continuous period of ninety-six hours exclusive of the screening
requirements.
(e) For the purpose of this section,refe=nces to types of conveyances
shall have the same meanings as defined in the Vehicle Code of the state of
California, where such definitions are available.-
(Palo Alto 8-80) 676-24
r
Y J
o' �.l -k3 � it rS vt 1K rY7 h -'-J t ¢ ..r_. { tT• � _ � . � �
r d
c �'. � R ) P v..rK s ... t •,� Y ,t ' :as' av�4. f 2 r a. ryr �R > rr '. t r Yt .. —a 5���• � n )
q
k '�.'.F. 7..�S3..k. '�..m...., ,1Ar��t�».....a,'t �"zhas�!'�2.�'i"�.•l�°CA{l[sji ''��Y`�h.`�c..."5'�,�`fT�w��.^�aa��+ t? b'.�i. ..•�.� >��i`.4`�u'�:ti .��.'��:"..-+,.....,�,.. -.
10_2,1910 Walnut Creek Municipal Code § 10-2.1915 '
�V R�bLU.�'ti atJs
Sec. 10-2. 1910. Projection into yards.
Eaves and other architectural features not an essential part of the .
building may project into any side or rear yard not more than forty percent
(40%) of the required width of said side or rear yard and not more than
four feet (4' ) into any required front yard. Notwithstanding the increased
required .'side and rear yards for multiple-story buildings, the side yard
widths for fireplaces and chimneys not exceeding eight feet (8') in length,
open balconies, and open framework' stairways shall be not less than the ad-
jacent side or rear yard required for a one-story building. (§ 8, Ord.
693, eff. December 20, 1963)
Sec. 10-2- 1911- Swimming pools- portion of a required front yard `
Swimming pools shall not occupy any
or street side yard. - O 8, Ord . 693, eff. December 20,* 1963)
Sec. 10-2. 1912. Temporary tract offices.
One temporary tract office shall be permitted within any subdivision
being developed in any residential district providing such office is re-
being or converted to an e noticeiof completion use
of saidwithin
strucnuref orrupon)
months subsequent to th
the sale of all houses or lots therein, whichever date is later, but in no
event shall any such building be sold unless it is converted to a conform-
ing use prior to sale. (§ 8, Ord . 693, eff. December 20, 1963)
ror ec. 10-2. 1913. Trailers, boats and pzCl"'boat5 and pickup campers, whether
Vacation trailers, utility trailers,
not mounted on a pickup, may be parked or stored in residential districts
boat or
when owned by the occupants of Lhe premises boat orlchmperhshalllbe,parked
camper is stored providing no such trailer, .
or stored in any required front or street side yard and provided, further,
that no trailer, boat or camper shall be occupied for rthaniag, sl ef?degtor
any other purpose while stored on y property
er park_ (� 8, Ord . 693, eff . December 20, 1963)
Sec. 10-2. 1914. Corner lots.
Regardless of the orientation of the main building, the front lot line
of a corner lot, other than a corner as
isa
that lot line separating the lot of
continuation of the front lot line of the adjacent interior lot. The front
lot line of a reversed corner lot may be the lot line abutting either
street . The side yard on a reversed rrdco 693, eff. extend
1963�he front
yard to the rear lot line.
Sec. 10-2. 1915. Irregularly shaped lots.
A lot bounded by only three (3) lines shall be deemed to have no rear or mre lines, only
lot line . In the five 5
the two (2) inter erbe deemed side
lot lines; all other December line shall be deemed the rear lot lines .
(§ 8, Ord. 693, eff.
341
(Reprint No. 1 - August 1, 1969)
t :`�Y .r� �,j S ^,L' p}:�.n ._d' 'Ytt«,b,.1u` .„'f"7 F4;:.� t r 1 x�. .N r t rr e �' C:i.! t � '• y - _
4�5;.`✓A� 4 R.�/°u.�nlii ..,°.' ... 'ikt�� ..t Div F!L.�4''Sl'�'t'N:.:�h.�l. �.� t... �tdi'�..,t� .�,i1^k��*sd'y �� ;;T_a�rf w„�. Yy..T��S'S... '. .e.<+f•�..,d.
PL0. NTo RV P �onls
§ 2-5.47 Types of Vehicles and Parking Locations Permitted in R Districts.
a. Except as specified in a use permit authorizing a conditional use, no truck
or bus larger than one ton capacity and no trailer longer than 25 feet shall
be parked or stored on a site.
b. No off-street parking space provided -in compliance with Article 16 (Schedule
for Dwellings and Lodgings) shall be located in a required front yard or in
a required side yard on the street side of a corner lot.
C. Except as specified in a use permit authorizing a conditional use, no more
than one vehicle, other than automobiles, shall be stored on a site in an
R-1 or RM-4,000 District except *in an enclosed garage.
d- .-'.No vehicle shall be parked or stored except in conformity with the require-
v ments of §2-5.40 (Traffic Sight Obstructions) .
(Based on Ord. 520, amended by Ord. 530)
e. No trailer, camper or boat shall be parked or stored in a front yar]oa
provided further, however, that, in addition, a trailer, camper or b
may not be parked or stored in the side-street side yard of a corne
(Based on Ord. 520, amended by Ord. 580)
f. No trailer, camper, or boat shall be parked or stored in the area b
the front yard and the front of a structure or in a side yard, unle
adequately screened from view from the street as determined by the
of Design Review.
B ased on Ord_ 520, amended by Ord. 594)
(Based on Ord. 520, amended by Ord. 520, 580, & 694
Title II, Page 61
7/81
^r nnr ;f Y4•(.. �"P't^J1 i+nr�.,r,z, r';'1 rM -•-^"¢ rcr . :''�'7i""f'.'�7T-i.."7^��r'*' �..�.y"°'" "'�`F"'.�'� it ..�,. '..,�,..„y, .4.-P"ix �.• .�,.:.,.�. ... '
PUBLIC ASSEMBL)
OM s
,foliated; provided, however, that any of the foregoing, building materials, exc:1,
L- or religious organization which is building materials reasonably required fo
•i r,cd for the primary purpose of conferring construction work on the premises pursuant to
valid and existing building permit issued by th,
Of commission, credit or ordination
` rice and not primarily for the purpose of city. (Prior code § 22A.2).
and practicing a religious doctrine or
not deemed to be a bona fide church or 8.20.030 Removal of stored objects. Any o
organization. (Ord. 502 § 2 (part), the property described in Section 8.20.02(
�I1I ll prior code § 18.15(b)). which has been stored in any required front yarc
I I S l
for less than one hundred twenty consecutiv-
z. _ hours and then removed shall not be agai:
Chapter.8.16 stored in. the required front yard at any tim
•; within one hundred twenty hours after it
:s• PUBLIC ASSEMBLY removal therefrom. (Prior code § 22A.3).
8.20.040 Motor vehicles. No motor vehicl
i t'.010 Obstructing streets. shall be stored or parked in any portion of an
required front yard except that portion of th
_. front yard which is paved or surfaced with a
16.010 Obstructing streets. Whenever the
;,.l,s gc of any street or sidewalk is all-weather, weed free and fire resistant surfac
ed by a crowd, except on occasions of permanently used or maintained as a drivewa
s'= meeting, the persons composing such or parking place. (Prior code § 22A.4).'
%!,all disperse or move on when directed
by any police officer. (Prior code 8.20.050 Side yard requirements.. Th
prohibitions relating to storage set forth L
. Sections 8.20.020 — 8.20.030 shall apply t
:} required side yards except when a fence h:
Chapter 8.20 been legally constntcted pursuant to cit
regulations of sufficient height and of a tyr
STORAGE IN YARDS which screens the stored property from publ
view and prevents it from becoming a nuisa c
by attraction to children. (Prior code § 22A.5
t :0.010 Storage defined.
t• .020 Front yard requirements— 8.20.060 Storage in vacant lots. T}-
Maximum length of time. . prohibitions relating to storage set forth i
;t) Removal of stored objects. Sections 8.20.020, 8.20.030 and 8.20.040 sha
t :(),)40 Motor vehicles. also apply to all portions of vacant lots, excef
US() Side yard requirements. that portion of any vacant lot which is paved c
:O ow Storage in vacant lots.. surfaced with an all-weather, weed free and fir
resistant surface permanently used c
t)
,•:-; - U I )
Storage defined. "Storage" as us d maintained as a parking lace and for which
d
.I1,pter means the physical presence f use permit authorizing such use has been grante
--rlhed property or any portion there f by the planning commission. (Ord. 536 §
t..c 1)rohibited area as such area is define 1973).
"mIn
ordinance (Title 16). (Prior code
' * I:ront yard requirements-
length —
of time. 'No portion of any' R E C E I V E D
) front yard shall, for any period of time
U� O;-T 3 . 1985
one hundred twenty consecutive
•�'• tr uxud for the storage of motor vehicles
DUBLIN PLANNING
��'t�lnobiles in a fully operational
°'')• trailers .airplanes, boats, parts of any
•• ti�
_ 8 (Menlo Park 8-15
III' I
I
ir...raiA1•'l...i+•±c:rw'�rw'MV>IY.tJw.•'! •..�:r>a�.ra�c t•.;±4�a:v.,..+�:.;✓-.,....,:-'_.,:,- .. .. _ .. ._, r ..,r,. ... ... ..
t t t f ,t a'•1iV•l. f.� � t n t f -.-� `
�T X �.<< •1r*p. ur.. r :i fa � ✓"Ci r a t 1^ "'S y ..2 �L +r':.0"�"' ' r a.+,• a �t ..r - r rt i•• #4. r
:,fir �� A r •�id+'��•.�2."� '2�'� � y.'�+t"�^`n�rc+n.*'°J�'+�°{"t; 'm�"i�RS.wk�' �i � ,.+� ".E''r.����r• +'x i�xr:`s
3a, - •"'-w�.�$_•'°...'�id¢ _.a,�'.. Er:t;�..�Rq ".r" e.s.�.:!'k°S:al� ;':�5"'9��kh'Vdsi��-,Fi...:&:':.f:i; W=2i.6°C:° Cexa�'�Nt'.. sx Ttrt�Lr a'E.z sa£-b.-0d.'•r�S+.J "�'z..Y_.'7ta?� .�%ti4'!�'S-....