HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/6/97 CC/PC Joint Study Session of Zoning Ordinance
CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
JOINT STUDY SESSION
ON THE ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
MEETING DATE: May 6,1997
SUBJECT: City Council/Planning Commission Joint Study Session
on the Zoning Ordinance Update
'it Prepared by: Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
RECOMMENDATION:
1.
2.
3.
4.
A.
B.
Parking areas on a typical comer lot.
Exhibit A of City Council Resolution 104-95
"Enforcement policy for zoning, building, housing,
construction of work without permit, zoning
ordinances, housing codes, and violations of the
Property Maintenance Ordinance".
Hear Staff presentation
Question Staff
Discuss Zoning Ordinance amendment issues
Give Staff comments and consensus on Zoning
Ordinance amendment issues
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Amendment options could have fiscal impacts if higher
staffing levels result.
DESCRIPTION:
The City Council has given the update of the Zoning Ordinance a high priority. On August 6,
1996, the Planning Commission established a "Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee" to assist
Staff in the update. The Committee, consisting of Vice Chairman Don Johnson, ex-
Commissioner George Zika, and Chamber of Commerce President Maureen Nokes, worked with
Staff to update the ordinance, section by section, through January of 1997. Several sections of
the Ordinance that needed revision were identified. Those that were revised by Staff and the
Planning Commission are:
. Permitted and conditional uses.
. Off-street parking and loading.
. Accessory structures and uses.
. Development regulations including setbacks and building heights.
. Home Occupations.
. Landscaping and fencing.
. Non-conformity.
. Planned Developments.
. Enforcement.
i\<:,--
.',
,---4\,
; i
. """ '-7
.......
.~
\.
.
~.( (c-<...
" li~"
"
1
Staff has prepared a Draft Zoning Ordinance Update based on the recommendations ofthe
Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee and the Planning Commission. Additional sections of the
Ordinance such as administration, permits, procedures, etc., have also been revised by Staff in
order to simplifY them and to bring them into consistlIDcy with current planning practice. Other
ordinances, including the Sign Ordinance, Density Bonus Ordinance, Development Agreement
Ordinance, and Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance are also being revised to be included
within the proposed Zoning Ordinance. In the process, Staff has encountered some potentially
controversial issues that could be of importance to the City Council, Planning Commission, and
the public. Staff is seeking the input of the City Council on these issues at this study session in
order to proceed with the preparation of a final draft of the Ordinance. Staff has prepared an
outline of these issues that addresses the history of the issue, potential Zoning Ordinance Update
alternatives, and Planning Commission recommendations on those issues.
Staff requests that the City Council and Planning Commission discuss each issue and provide
comments and a consensus on each issue.
POTENTIALLY CONTROVERSIAL REVISIONS TO ZONING ORDINANCE
DISCUSSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
L Parkin!!: of recreational vehicles CRY's) in front of residences.
History.
There have been many complaints over the years about recreational vehicles (motor homes, boats
on trailers, utility trailers, horse trailers, campers where the living area overhangs the cab, and
camper tops) parked or placed in front of residences. The most common complaints were that a
large RV blocked views from residences, blocked light to residences, obstructed sidewalks, and
were not kept up. A survey conducted in March 1997 by Staff of 1039 single family homes (out
of an estimated 5200 single family homes in Dublin) indicated that 56 RV's were parked off-
street, but in front of 52 residences, either in the driveway or in side yards. This equates to 5% of
the single family residences in the City having RV's parked off-street, but in front ofthe
residence.
Existing Ordinance.... .' . ~.'. ,1,.. .... ( " q (.
.~-- ). _ --. r' C. "......_\..r" I,l..,.. ',_ ,t.'."<-.....". ~ (,-v,J\ \..;...,,, -~-~-{ - .. ( . . '(
\. .... ._, _-"\.-"-.. 'T' \ .....,> ,<.,.;..., .,--- "', ~. .' -'. ',',. . i .
(6n~ ~obilehome: ~ecreational vehicle, tiliI'ity tralle , '1;;mb~red'tduri'erltop, boat, car, truck or
other vehicle may be parked or stored in areas 5, 5b, or 6.Gf.Attu~lllHt;ul A if the parking or
storage is on a concrete pad or similar all-weather surface, if the vehicle storage is accessed by a
curb cut, if the vehicle is validly licensed and operable, and if the vehicle does not encroach upon
a sidewalk (the last requirement is also a requirement of the Vehicle Code).
Other Cities.
Livermore. Does not allow parking ofRV's in front of a residence if they can be parked in the
rear yard or side yard behind a fence. Livermore allows only one RV to be parked in front of a
residence, and limits the length to 19 feet and the height to 10 feet.
2
Pleasanton. Does not allow RV's to be parked in the front yard setback or in the street side yard,
setback of a comer lot. An RV may be allowed behind a front yard setback if screened. An RV
may not be parked on a lot if over one ton in weight, or iflonger than 25 feet.
San Ramon. Does not limit the number ofRV's on a parcel. The only requirement is that RV's
be licensed and operable.
Zoning Ordinance Update Options.
A. Permit recreational vehicles to be parked in driveways and side yards without limitations.
B. Permit recreational vehicles to be parked in driveways and side yards but:
1. Limit the number of recreational vehicles to one per lot
2. Prohibit the recreational vehicle from overhanging the public right-of-way or
place a length limit of 19 feet.
3. Prohibit recreational vehicles from being more than 10 feet high excluding air
conditioners.
4. Require that side yards in front of residences be paved if used for parking. The
paving would be more attractive and avoid potential Property Maintenance
Ordinance issues such as overgrown weeds, trash, and vermin.
5. Prohibit additional curb cuts in front of paved side yards. This is recommended
because sidewalks are not built for carrying vehicle traffic and because additional
curb cuts would reduce on-street parking.
C. Prohibit recreational vehicles from being parked in driveways or side yards except those
used for daily transportation.
Planning Commission Recommendation.
Option B without a length limit of 19 feet.
2. Parkin!!: of motor vehicles in front of residences for repair. dismantlin!!:. or paintin!!:.
History.
One of the most common complaints is that an individual is parking motor vehicles in front of
their residence for repair (brake repair, engine or transmission repair, the replacement of parts
under the hood of the car (with the exception of replacement of fluids, batteries, and filters), or
the replacement of parts under the car itself), dismantling or painting. Neighbors complain that
these activities have impacts such as visual pollution, noise, odors, potential fires, and lowered
property values.
3
Existing Ordinance.
The Zoning Ordinance requires that vehicles parked in front of residences be validly licensed and
operable. The Home Occupations section of the Ordinance states that the use ofa Front Yard or
Side Yard for construction or repair in association with a home occupation is prohibited. The
Ordinance does not address repairing one's own vehicle in front of a residence.
Other Cities.
Livermore. Does not prohibit repair of vehicles in front of residence, but does prohibit repair in
front of a residence for an unreasonable period of time.
Pleasanton. Does not prohibit repair of vehicles in front of residence.
San Ramon. Does not prohibit repair of vehicles in front of residence, but all vehicles must be
operable.
Zoning Ordinance Update Options.
A. Permit motor vehicles to be parked in front of residences for repair, dismantling or
painting without limitations.
B. Permit motor vehicles to be parked in front of residences for repair, dismantling or
painting but:
1. Limit the number of vehicles to one per residence.
2. Require that the vehicle be licensed.
C. Prohibit motor vehicles from being parked in front of residences for repair, dismantling or
painting.
Planning Commission Recommendation
Option C.
3. Permit repair of motor vehicles within !!:ara!!:es in residential zonin!!: districts as an
accessory use if the vehicle is re!!:istered to an occupant of the residence but prohibit
paintin!!: of motor vehicles or the repair or maintenance of tractor trucks.
History.
Many complaints have been received about people painting motor vehicles (using a motorized
pump and spray mechanism and/or a spray booth or hood), running auto repair businesses out of
their home, or the repairing or maintaining tractor trucks within their garages. They are
primarily concerned about fires, neighborhood disruption, parking of vehicles being repaired,
and visual impacts. They feel that vehicle repair and painting are commercial activities that
belong in commercial zoning district.
4
Existing Ordinance.
The Home Occupations section of the Ordinance states that the use of a Front Yard or Side Yard
for construction or repair in association with a home occupation is prohibited. The Ordinance
does not address repair of vehicles belonging to people who are not occupants of the residence
where repair is occurring.
Other Cities.
Livermore. Does not prohibit painting of motor vehicles or repair or maintenance of tractor
trucks.
Pleasanton. Does not prohibit painting of motor vehicles. Motor vehicles over 1 ton and trailers
over 25 feet in length cannot be parked or stored in residential areas.
San Ramon. Does not prohibit painting of motor vehicles or repair or maintenance of tractor
trucks.
Zoning Ordinance Update Options.
A. Permit the repair of motor vehicles within garages in residential zoning districts as an
accessory use without limitations.
B. Permit the repair of motor vehicles within garages in residential zoning districts as an
accessory use but:
1. Require the motor vehicle to be registered to an occupant of the residence.
2. Prohibit the painting of motor vehicles.
3. Prohibit the repair or maintenance of tractor trailers.
C. Prohibit any repair or painting of motor vehicles in residential zoning districts.
Planning Commission Recommendation.
Option B.
/
j'4.
History.
'.~/
I
I
This issue has arisen fr Staff concerns about accessory structures (sheds) which often
completely obstruct si./le ~ds. It is necessary for side yards to be unobstructed in order to
provide adequate em~rgenc~ccess to the sides and rear of residences. If the front of a residence
is on fire, the only wfay off a prQperty where both side yards are blocked is over a side or rear
fence. ' ",
5
Existing Ordinance.
The existing ordi~~e does not require that one or both side yards be ~9bstructed.
Other Cities. \ /
\ ;
\
Livermore. Suburban reg1\lations require 3 foot distance between <jii accessory structure and a
residence. This provides a3 foot clear side yard on both sides of i residence.
Pleasanton. Requires a 3 foot, minimum side yard setbacks fO.\i/all accessory structures from
fence on one side of the residence. "
San Ramon. Does not require a3 foot unobstructed side yard.
Zoning Ordinance Update Options.
A.
Do not regulate the degree to. which a Side Yard setback can be obstructed by accessory
, '
structures.
B.
Require that one side yard setbapk not b~;obstructed to a width of less than 36 inches.
C.
.,
Prohibit the obstruction ofa Side\yard.to no less than the required Side Yard setback
width. In this option, only residen~esM-ith side yards which are larger than the Side Yard
,
setback would be able to place a sM,~ between the house and the fence.
.
Planning Commission Recommendation'.
I
,
,
\
\
\
\
.....~0ption B.
\ ,
'---'
\
The Planning Commission became concerned about~' s issue during a field trip of residential
developments in the Tri-Valley ar a. The Planning Co ission was concerned about the visual
impacts of these structures in res' ential areas. A surve ,conducted by Staff of 1039 single
family homes (out of an estimat d 5200 single family ho~es in Dublin) indicated that 65
accessory structures (sheds) wefe present and adjacent to a fence (within 3 feet) on 62 properties.
This equates to 5.96% of the si gle family residences in the'c\ity having sheds appearing over V ",,0:1
fences. S -1;' J > .' \ '
. _,_ . I ~
~ .'"'" l""'>--_"' ,___("~^i'
Existing Ordinance. /~< " ,.:\..~" .,./ .:",
/ LC,
The existing Ordinance re uires that an accessory structure in a ~'dential district not be located
within 6 feet of a fence ong the front half of an adjacent 10VAn a cessory structure may not be
located in the front 1/2'pf a lot provided that it is not be required to b , more than 75 feet from a
street lot line. An accessory building cannot have a height of more th~ one story or 15 feet.
over the fence.
/ .
( 5. / Accesso
1,( ....:/
. --"'-.. ~/ /tlistory.
\
,
6
An accessory structure attached to a residence must meet main building setbacks.
Other Cities. . \
Livermore. Allows a~-ssory structures to be adjacent a fence ifitjs not more than 6 feet high.
If over 6 feet high, it '~~t be 3 feet from the property line plus one foot further back for every
foot over 9 feet in height\~ccessory structures are not allowed in the front 1/2 of the lot, and
must not be over 15 feet hi~.
Pleasanton. Allows accesso structures to be adjacent a fence if it is not more than 6 feet high.
If over 6 feet high, it must be 3 eet from a side fence or 5feet from a rear fence. Accessory
structures over 10 feet in height e subject to Site Development Review. Accessory structures
may not be more than 15 feet hig .
A.
Do not regulate the height of acces 0 Istructures adjacent to fences or restrict their
location on the property.
s than 6 feet hi,gh must be set back 3 feet from a fence. If
feet from a fence plus 1 foot for every foot over 6 feet.
San Ramon. Accessory structures I
over 6, feet high, it must be set back
Zoning Ordinance Update Options.
!
!
B.
!
!
Permit accessory structures adjacrt t a fence to appear over the fence but:
1.
2.
B.
c.
3.
4. Limit th~ number of accessory structures on a lot to 2 s~tures.
/
C. Prohibit any a/cessory structures adjacent to a fence from appearing over the fence.
!
I
r
t.
7
Planning Commission Recommendation
I. Prohibit accessory structures in the front 1/2 ofthe lot.
2. Require that accessory structures adjacent to a fence not be over 6 feet in height.
3. Require that accessory structures over 6 feet in height be set back 3 feet from a
side fence and 5 feet from a rear fence.
4. Require that accessory structures have a maximum height of 15 feet.
5. Limit the number of accessory structures on a lot to 2 structures.
U 6.
,
Chain link fencin!!:.
History.
Staff and the Planning Commission are concerned about the appearance of chain link fencing in
residential zoning districts. This type of fencing does not provide for adequate privacy, and can
become unattractive over time. Other types of fencing, when constructed well, can have a much
better appearance and enhance property values.
Existing Ordinance.
The existing Ordinance does not address this issue.
Other Cities.
Livermore. Chain link fencing is discouraged during design review.
Pleasanton. Planned Development plans require fencing plans which do not allow chain link
fences.
San Ramon. Does not regulate chain link fences.
Zoning Ordinance Update Options.
A. Do not prohibit chain link fencing in residential zoning district.
B. Permit chain link fencing in residential zoning district ifit is planted with vegetation of
sufficient density and height to screen the fence from adjacent parcels and public areas.
C. Permit chain link fencing along side lot lines if behind the front yard setback, and along
the rear lot line, in the C-2, M-P, M-l, and M-2 zoning districts ifit is planted with
vegetation of sufficient density and height to screen the fence from adjacent parcels and
public areas.
8
Planning Commission Recommendation.
Option C.
/
(..-- ,! 7.
Distances between sin!!:le familv detached residences.
History.
The Planning Commission became concerned about this issue during a field trip of residential
developments in the Tri- Valley area. Subdivisions having side yard setbacks of 5 feet have
residences that are 10 feet apart. The standard for residential development has been changing
over the years. Side yards have become wider to allow more light into residences, provide
privacy, allow more locations for accessory structures, provide parking for recreational vehicles,
and to provide garden space.
Existing Ordinance.
The existing Ordinance requires that side yards be 5 feet wide plus one foot for every full 10 feet
the lot is wider than 50 feet. Lots in newer areas with a 70 foot frontage would have 7 foot side
yard setbacks, resulting in houses that are 14 feet apart. Fifty foot wide lots would have 5 foot
side yard setbacks, resulting in houses that are 10 feet apart.
Other Cities.
Livermore. Requires side yard setbacks of 10 and 14 feet with a total of24 feet between
residences.
Pleasanton. Requires side yard setbacks of 5 feet and 7 feet with a total of 12 feet between
residences.
San Ramon. Requires 10 foot aggregate separation between residences in areas with 3,500
square foot lots, 15 foot aggregate separation between residences in areas with 6,000 and 7,000
square foot lots, and 20 foot aggregate separation in areas with 10,000 square foot lots.
Zoning Ordinance Update Options.
A. Retain the existing provisions of the Ordinance.
B. Require 5 feet setbacks with a total of 10 feet between residences.
C. Require 10 feet of separation between two residences when non-habitable spaces
(garages) are adjacent to each other, and require 15 feet of separation between habitable
spaces of residences. Side yard setbacks would range between 5 and 10 feet to ensure
that the minimum distance between residences is maintained. This option would provide
more separation between residences on narrow lots than the current Ordinance provides.
D. Require other more restrictive side yard setbacks.
9
Planning Commission Recommendation.
/
Option V
8. Enforcement
,_/
History.
The Planning Commission has long been concerned about enforcement of the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code. At the present time, the Zoning Ordinance and
Municipal Code are generally enforced on a complaint basis according to Exhibit A of
Resolution 104-95 of the City Council (Attachment B). Certain items of concern, such as
banners, are addressed proactively at City Council direction. When the Ordinance is enforced
primarily on a complaint basis, many violations are not addressed.
Other Cities.
Livermore. Enforcement is on a complaint basis, but can enforce in extreme cases. City Council
does occasionally direct selective enforcement in problem areas.
Pleasanton. Enforcement is based on complaints for recreational vehicles, and property
maintenance. Enforcement is at the discretion of the enforcement officer in the cases of signs,
construction activity before hours, and auto repair businesses in residential district.
San Ramon. Enforcement is on a complaint basis.
Zoning Ordinance Implementation Options.
A. Continue enforcement procedures as outlined in Resolution 104-95.
B. Enforce the Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code on a more proactive basis. The
Council could direct that certain requirements of the Ordinance be enforced proactively
as is currently being done with banners.
1. These items would receive priority staff attention:
a. Banners.
b. A-frame signs.
c. Outdoor display of merchandise.
d. Off-street vehicle and recreational vehicle parking on private property.
e. Property Maintenance Ordinance, such as garbage and solid waste.
10
2. These items would be enforced on a complaint basis only:
a. Home Occupations.
b. Sheds visible over fences in violation ofthe Zoning Ordinance.
c. Signs (in general).
d. Repair of automobiles which are not registered to the occupants of a
residence.
C. Enforce the Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code proactively. If a violation is seen, it
would be enforced at that time.
D. Enforcement methods. Retain the existing system of progressive enforcement with a
series of warning letters and eventual citation without fees or shorten the enforcement
procedure to one verbal and written warning and a series of citations with fees.
Planning Commission Recommendation.
The Planning Commission has expressed a desire for more/proactive rnforcement in the past and
wishes to discuss this issue with the City Council. / <"Ie. " c, V
(r /
/1 9. Corner landscapin!!:. .....~._.._ ,/ //
History.
Staff and the Planning Commission are concerned about what the quality of landscaping will be
at major intersections in Eastern Dublin. When comers at major intersections are required to be
landscaped, the City is made more attractive, and property values are enhanced.
Existing Ordinance.
The existing Ordinance does not address this issue.
Other Cities.
Livermore. Corner landscaping is not specifically required because 5 feet oflandscaping is
required for all frontages, including corners, on major and collector streets.
Pleasanton. Corner landscaping is not specifically required because full landscaping is required
for all frontages in planned developments.
San Ramon. Generally not required. The Crow Canyon Redevelopment Area does have
streetscape guidelines which requires landscaping of corners.
11
Zoning Ordinance Update Options.
A. Encourage comer landscaping at major intersections as part of the Planned Development
process.
B. Do not require corner landscaping at major intersections in future planned developments.
C. Require corner landscaping at:
1. All corners of intersections of commercial developments which will be
maintained by the property owner.
2. All comers of intersections of residential developments where both streets have a
design ADT (average daily traffic) of 4,000 or more which will be maintained by
the property owner.
Planning Commission Recommendation.
Require corner landscaping at:
1. All comers of intersections of commercial developments which will be
maintained by the property owner.
2. All corners of intersections of residential developments where both streets have a
design ADT (average daily traffic) of 4,000 or more which will be maintained by
the homeowners association.
U'-
( ,
10. Removal or replacement oftrees in parkin!!: lots in multi-familv. commercial. office.
or industrial develilPments. .
History.
Property owners have removed, or proposed to remove, large numbers of mature and specimen
trees in parking lots to enhance visibility of businesses in the past. This has created much public
controversy. Regulations could be proposed to require that removal of the majority of the trees
in parking lots be subject to public review in order to prevent removal of mature trees which are
a public resource.
Existing Ordinance.
The existing Ordinance does not address this issue.
Other Cities.
Livermore. Prohibits removal of trees over 50 years old. Can be removed if arborist determines
to be in poor health.
12
Pleasanton. All trees over 17 1/2 inches in diameter measured 4 feet 6 inches above natural
grade, trees over 35 feet in height, unique trees, and trees on historic sites must be preserved.
San Ramon. Oak trees over 15 inches in diameter measured 4 feet 6 inches above natural grade
and all other trees over 30 inches in diameter measured 4 feet 6 inches above natural grade must
be preserved.
Zoning Ordinance Update Options.
A. Do not regulate the removal or replacement of trees in existing or proposed parking lots.
B. Where the majority of trees in a parking lot (or proposed parking lot) in a multi-family,
commercial, office, or industrial development area are proposed to be removed for
aesthetic reasons or for the purpose of increasing visibility for signage, that removal or
replacement shall be pursuant to Site Development Review. Removal of trees in phases
would not relieve the property owner of this obligation.
C. Require preservation of existing mature Oak, Cypress, Pine, and Redwood trees over 24
inches in diameter measured 4 feet 6 inches above natural grade, and their integration into
landscaping plans. Permit removal of such trees on a limited basis under extenuating
circumstances with the approval of the Director of Community Development.
Planning Commission Recommendation.
Option B.
g:pa95027/ccpcss
13
PARKING AREAS ON A TYPICAL CORNER LOT
r=~
II .' 'CD'
. t -r- -~~.- - -~.~~
I CD 'r-~~ ~__~~1.10
. j ~ ~ ,., 11"11) Rez= r<-~
I ~ " l' I 2) ~i.z-ez. bet"tie"'" ~".-- 7--=.
-...... ... -- :- ..:-<<:'_--':":":.
c:.....;..;.C, _ e~ a!. M=""" ':1.:.;.':"~:"'::'f
3) Side Ia:-:: '.
. "l;.J Az-ea. be~.-'e"" ~':""e "-.----=
J .. -- ...-- -'-'---
I I . ~d. c.c..i,ce!l~ si:ie ...~
I I. L.:_ I'
,1 I
. . '~ul -11.\
j @ I @--~~~'ll ~
r~ 1. ---IUt r- - Ji!
',.'@'!"I .
"" 0 . '1"~H" \~.
. . I I,'.
. l ,
~~ 11 f\ \\IDEW ALK .
of
~
AREAS ON A TYPICAL
RES)DENTIAL LOT
5) :r-o~-.:. !L-d.
,) 7~~~~ YL~ = C:-~7eway
b} F~or.~ y~~ = ~~:-~we:-
of ~~O ~reG~ ~C~~
side of d=i ....e~1'C.:-.
6} A=ec. be:~.....ee~ :;-oc:. Ya:-:: .
. c.:=.d. fron~ of fA..c...i.,;.-:.
Eclc.i.!:{;
o
t<'
1
I, -0'
~"
l-J Tl
L. k-T}
l J. -
f f f-J
A~It:~.MM<NJ A
. ,~--:r;j--' ."'~-- ..~. '." .: .
,; ~ ...~ , .E,",;' " .
; "ti l nrJ!ni~st~ " ',..
EA'HIBlT ''A''
"., .;.
ENFORCEMENT POLICY FOR ZONING, BUILDING, HOUSING,
CONSTRUCTION OF WORK WIlliOUT PERMIT, AND
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS
This procedure is to be followed in investigating complaints regarding possible violations of building regulations,
construction work without permit, zoning ordinances, housing codes, and violations of the Property Maintenance Ordinance.
GENERAL POLICY - Il'NESTIGA TION ON COMPLAINT BASIS
These ordinances generally will be enforced on a complaint basis except that:
I. Building work actually observed to be under construction without permits will be investigated without a complaint
2. Violations observed on property where the inspector has a legitimate reason to be OIl property, such as a routine
follow-up inspection on a Variance or Conditional Use Permit, or when inspecting construction under a permit,
\iolations observed on the property will be investigated without a complaint.
3, Conditions brought to the attention of the City in any manner which involves public health and safety.
COMPLAINT INFORMA,TION
Any person making a complaint shall give their name, address, and telephone number. This is necessary so that the
complainant can be contacted and advised of the status of the investigation. It may also be necessary to contact the
complainant to secure additional information regarding the problem.
'.'::,:;':3ection 6254, of the Government Code, provides that records of investigations of complaints are not public records.
Therefore, investigations of complaints will be kept confidential. and information will not be disclosed except as required by a
court order.
EXCEPTIONS TO COMPLAINT INFORMA nON
In establishing this policy, the City Council recognizes that a person whose property is being investigated may point out
several similar violations in the immediate area. It may be inequitable to require abatement of a violation when the same
violation may exist in the immediate vicinity and are not investigated because a complaint is not received.
4. Therefore, whenever the situation discussed above occurs, any violation in the immediate vicinity which is similar in
nature and readily visible or which is pointed out to the investigator "ill be processed as though a complaint had
been registered.
5. In addition, violations of the Zoning Ordinance relating to outdoor sales and activilies by non-Dublin businesses
will be processed as though a complaint hod been registered. A non-Dublin business refers to one that is not an on.
sire, established Dublin business with all necessary business licenses and permits.
ANO~~~OUSCOMPLAINTS
All anonymous complaints will be investigated, However, no action will be taken on anonymous complaints where the City
Manager, Planning Director or Building Official determines the malter does not warrant further action. These cases would be
closed following the investigation and a determination by the City Manager, Planning Director or Building Official.
". . .
. . '~:agenda\c:::ags:tmt
A TI ACHMENJ:2 6