HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 ParkingOversizeVehicles
CITY CLERK
File # D~l7l[{j]-[gJ[(j]
..
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 27, 1996
SUBJECT:
Parking of Oversize Vehicles
Report Prepared by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
1)
2)
3)
Copy of Ordinance 28-87 Relating to Yard Regulations
(Including Storage of Vehicles in Yards)
City Council and Planning Conunission Minutes Relating to
Adoption of Recreational Vehicle Ordinance
City Council Minutes Relating to Adoption of Two-Hour
Parking for Vehicles Over 10,000 Lbs.
RECOMMENDATION:r:; , Provide direction regarding future action
x:./ti~ J---
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
If the City Council wishes to pursue additional parking restrictions,
staff time and police enforcement expenses may be incurred, as well
as the cost of signage.
.-1
DESCRIPTION: As a result of discussions regarding parking issues on Donlon Way,
the City Council requested that Staff look into oversize vehicle parking in general throughout the City.
At the present time, the City has the following oversize vehicle restrictions:
1. Two-hour parking for commercially licensed vehicles over 10,000 lb. gross weight
2. Commercially licensed vehicles over 6,000 lb. gross weight are prohibited from using residential
streets except when making deliveries.
These restrictions are City-wide, and signs to this effect are posted at City entrances. The first restriction
was enacted as a result of trucks and/or trailers being stored on City streets. The second was a result of
complaints that large trucks were using residential streets as "short cuts" to avoid the more heavily traveled
arterials.
There is an additional restriction on some commercial streets which entirely prohibits parking of vehicles
over 20 feet in length, where large trucks tend to cause visibility problems or the street is too narrow for
truck parking. Examples of restrictions prohibiting vehicles over 20 feet in length may be found on
Regional Street, on Amador Plaza Road, and on Starward Drive near Amador Valley Boulevard. An
. alternative to the "over 20 feet in length" restriction is the "over six feet high" restriction, which is used
-------------------------------------------------------------------
'. -,.,' COPIES TO:
g:\agcnmisc\oversizc
ITEM NO..L.L-
near intersections where tall vehicles cause a sight distance problem but cars do not. An example of a
restriction prohibiting parking of vehicles over six feet high may be found on Sierra Lane just west of
Dougherty Road.
.--"
..-
There are presently no City-wide restrictions against on-street parking of campers, motor homes, trailers,
or other vehicles that are not commercially licensed, except for the California Vehicle Code (CVC)
regulations and Dublin Municipal Code (DMC) regulations that would also affect passenger cars. There
are zoning regulations that affect parking of vehicles on private property, including requirements that the
vehicles be currently licensed and parked on an all-weather surface. (See exhibit.) The City Council has
recently adopted a "no trailers" parking restriction for Donlon Way.
The City Attorney has researched the City's ability to restrict oversized vehicles throughout the City. The
CVC gives the City certain abilities to restrict vehicle parking by size or weight. The CVC allows the City
to enact the following types of regulations, by ordinance or resolution:
1. The City may prohibit or otherwise restrict the stopping, parking, or standing of vehicles on
certain streets or highways during all or certain, hours of the day (CVC ~ 22507).
For example, the City may enact an ordinance or resolution barring "oversized" vehicles from
parking in specific areas during certain times of the day (e.g., overnight in residential districts). The
City might then define "oversized" as vehicles in excess of seven (7) feet in height and/or vehicles
with a length greater than twenty (20) feet. There must be signs or curb markings that clearly
indicate the prohibitions.
.,--,
'--
2. The City may prohibit or restrict the stopping, parking, or standing of vehicles, including
trucks, which are six (6) feet or more in height, including any load, within one hundred (100) feet
of any intersection. (CVC 922507.)
3. The City may prohibit or restrict the parking of vehicles on certain streets or highways
between the hours of2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., and may provide for a permit system exempting
individuals. (CVC 9 22507.5.)
Once again, if such restrictions are enacted, they apply to restrict stopping, parking, or standing on
certain, designated streets. The restrictions cannot distinguish between different types of vehicles.
4. The City may prohibit or restrict the parking on certain residential streets of commercial
vehicles having a manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 lb. or more. (CVC ~
22507.5.)
The gross weight set forth by statute allows for the City to distinguish between different types of
vehicles based on this measurement. .
5. The City may establish special parking regulations for two-wheeled and three-wheeled
motor vehicles. (CVC 922503.5.)
e:;
If the City Council wishes to pursue certain restrictions, it would be appropriate to direct Staffas to the
type of vehicles that should be restricted and the extent of restriction desired. .Staffwould then prepare a
draft ordinance or resolution for consideration at a future meeting. It should be noted that previous
Page 2
.
.:
,.
hearings regarding on-site motor home parking restrictions and two-hour commercial truck parking
restrictions were lengthy and emotional processes.
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction regarding future action on this issue.
Page 3
(,
(~'.
..,
ORDINANCE NO. 28-87
.'
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING '11iE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE
RELATING TO SLEEPING IN VEHICLES YITHIN ANY ZONING DISTRICT
AND AMENDING SECTION 8-60.33 - YARD REGULATIONS
The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
Section 1. That Section 8-60.33 YARD REGUlATIONS of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
(as previously amended under City of Dublin Ordinance No. 3 - 86) is hereby
amended to read as follows: '
"8.60.33 YARD REGULATIONS. In order to secure ~inimum basic
provision for light, air, privacy, and safety fro~ fire
hazards, it is required that every building shall be upon a
building site of dimensions such as to provide for the yards
specified for the zoning 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 Sections 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)."
Section 2. That Section 8-60.33.1 STORAGE OF VEHICLES IN YARDS of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance is hereby added to read as follows:
.--
.-';
: .
"8-60.33.1 STORAGE OF VEHICLES IN YARDS. The following
provisions shall relate specifically to the parking or
storage of a mobileho~e, recreational vehicle, utility
trailer, unmounted camper top, boat, car, truck, or other
vehicle (referred to herein collectively as a .vehicle") in
any zoning district. Violation of the provisions of this
section shall constitute a misdemeanor.
:-
a)
A mobileho~e, 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 pre~ises upon which it is stored.
b)
At no time shall a stored vehicle be located on a corner
lot within thirty (30) feet of the intersection of the
street lot lines or projection of such lines.
c)
At no time shall a stored or parked vehicle encroach in,
over, across or upon the sidewalk.
d)
At no time shall a stored or parked vehicle be located
within twenty (20) feet of the corner common to a corner
lot and a key lot in any R District.
.:.:
_y~ ___ -yw__-.. ...~
"" ,,> '.' -',' ,,' ,-,....-'if- ,
' " ,:.. .. -' ~i I"
>--., .~' '" ': ~., ',: " ..,~
l:.;:...;,~... ",..~~.;.:j;:.,Ji.;_:;;.o..J .
OL:\'I ()3n~ 1,8 ~ ffi[ yC}m~"/)vd-atwYV? ")
-1.
(
(
e)
At no time shall a mobilehome, recreational vehicle,
utili~J trailer, unmounted camper top, boat, car, truck,
or other vehicle parked or ~tored on a lot in any zoning
district be occupied for living, sleeping, or any ocher
purpose except as legally allowed in a bona fide trailer
park, mobilehome park, or recreational vehicle park.
.
f) At no time shall a mobilehorne, recreational vehicle,
utili~J trailer, unmounted camper top, boat, car, truck,
or other vehicle parked upon any public right-of-way in
any zoning district be occupied for living or sleeping
purposes.
g) Figure 1 of Section 8-60.33.1 entitled "Areas On A
TyPical Residential Lot" is made a part of this
Ordinance and the numerical designations of areas of the
tyPical corner lot shall be used to define the areas for
storage of recreational vehicles as hereafter set forth.
1. Front: A mobilehome, recreational vehicle, utility
trailer, unmounted camper top, boat, car, truck or
other vehicle may be parked or stored in:
a. Areas 5, 5b or 6 - provided that:
1) the parking or storage is on a concrete
pad, or similar all weather surface; and
2) the parking,or storage is accessed by a
curb cut inconfoI)llance with the Standard
Plans of Alameda County as adopted and
established by the City Engineer; and
3) that the parked or stored item is validly
licensed and operable at all ti~es; and
4) only one item may be parked or stored in
the combined areas of 5, 5b or 6.
b.
Area 5a - provided that the parked or stored
item is validly licensed and operable at all
times.
e",
2. Rear or Side: A mobilehome, recreational vehicle,
utility trailer, unmounted camper top, boat, car,
truck, or other vehicle may be parked or stored in:
a. Areas I, 2 and 3 . provided that;
1) the parked or stored item is screened
from view from the street and adjoining
lots by a six foot high fence, wall,
hedge or equivalent screening; and
2) an access and curb cut is provided for
the parking or storage in confo~a~ce
with the Standard Plans of Alameda County
as adopted and established by the City
Engineer; and
3) there is one unobstructed sideyard at all
times.
.
-2-
( :-~
8-60.33.1
Figure 1
) 'I.~
e>
,-.
-
. (1) ,
.::1
. .... ~ ...... ~- 1..
1~ - .~@ . - --.10
G) -,,;,-:--:- - - -y;:r-~ I
'--1111 ,-
, I'
I -
,~
1
LI_ I
. II
-~-II~IlUI 1_\
11= . UI\J
C0~. @--I1:irii'
1'- - ~ ,.I - I I ~ "
'-;. ~. I I
,. ;'.. - -,_l:.~. .---'
-~.. I ~ - .
. ',' . .:(8:"1
\ .'. I Sb
I
J
f\
MAIN BUILDING
Q
~
l.
/1
.
.
.
o
1_
.
.
.~~
k-- 30'
. .
LC-f' -~
.-:
.3-
(0" ,
, '
1
AREAS ON A TYPICAL
RES.1DEN~I~~ ,~OT
1) Rear Yard
2) Area between Rear Yard-
and rear of "'.zin Buildi!l.g
3) Side Yard
. .4) Area. betwee!l. Side 'Yard
and adjacent side wall
5) Front, Ya:::-d
a) Fron~ Yard = driveway
b) Fron~ Yard = narrowe=
of two areas along
side of driveN2.Y
6) Area between Front Yard
and fro::t of Main
Euiiding ~
SIDEWALK
f--J_Tl
~'J_n
('
(-
Section 3. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause .,_
or phrase of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, is for any reason held to
be unconstitutional, the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance shall not be affected thereby.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days
from and after the date of its passage. ~e City Clerk of the City of
Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public
places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the
Government Code of the State of California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 27th
day of April, 1987, by the following votes:
AYES:
Councilmembers Hegarty, Moffatt, Snyder, Vonheeder and
Mayor Jeffery
NOES:
None
Jo..BS ENT :
None
~r~ /:11 {/>~
Mayor
ATTEST:
cJV:~-{ ~} .J.-!b /JJ.Lt'rf
Cl.ty lerk
e:
,..
.
-4-
. roved Warr.ant Register in the amount of $234,343.42;
::)proved the City Treasurer's Investment Report for Period
1985 ;
Adopted
48 - 85
AMENDING RESOLUTION . 20-85 AND AMENDING MANDATORY DATES
FOR UNDERGROU NG OF UTILITIES IN THE.SAN RAMON ROAD
GROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NUMBER 1
RESOLUTION NO. 49 ~ 85
THE CITY MANAGER TO AUTHORIZE PG&E TO'PROCEED
THE CONVERSION PROGRAM FOR STREET LIGHTS
Arts Patron
Denied the claim of Ann Benner and directed Staff
insurance company;
Authorized the City's participation in the
Program in an amount not to exceed $400;
Adopted
* * * *
,7TTEN COfv1MUNICATION FROM CLIFFORD & ISABEL GONSALVES
,:>,.:jARDING 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 rv 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
every time someone objects. The ordinance is in effect, and should be
enforced.
Cm. Jeffery felt the City should look at this ordinance in light of the fact
that there is no storage space available in Dublin.
e> Hegartty felht the elndvironment ShfOUld bedsafe and. allesthetilcallY pleasing
. :..oJ. no ma ter w at wou come out 0 a stu y, you WJ. not p ease everyone.
.~~":'""'"
Regular Meeting
z
, '
&-:" ~wlC!J 'a.ttll15l(J,~~~\A.'
{W~ rR.tair.d --to QJ Orr~alJ\.tU
June 10, 1985
John Collins, 7011 Allegheny questioned if an ini tiati ve could change the ."_
isting 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.
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 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 con~inue the violations. Mr. Nave stated he
not feel that legally this could occur. During the study, the City must
,~-:,ntinue to enforce the ordinance.
did
.,-
~m. Moffatt withdrew his motion with the request that low priority be g~ven
to the complaints. Cm. Vonheeder withdrew her second to the motion.
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TO DENY CUP
WILDIS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION/ALL SEASONS RIDING ACADEMY
Mayor Snyder opened the pUblic hearing.
On June 6, 1985, Stel Papadopoulos, the applicant/ ellant, requested the
City Council to continue his appeal until , 1985 because of school
finals.
The two major proposed uses were center, for disabled, and non-
disabled athletes and 2) a place public gatheting, including cla~ses,
potluck dinners, meetings, an ingo.
The Planning Commissio nanimously denied the application, finding that 1)
the use would be de mental to the economic vitality of the existing
commercial tena and the center at large; 2) the use would be inconsistent
with the C-l strict intent to provide areas for comparison retail Shopping
and.offic ses; and 3) the use would be inconsistent with the General Plan.,
:.'11c ich calls for strengthening existing shopping centers. . _."
Regular Meeting
CM-4-117
June 10, 1985
.":
.-',
::" .:_~
.'
* * * *
SUBJECT:
7.2 PA 85-017 Kaufman and Broad of Northern
California, Inc. (Applicant and Owner) Planned
Develo ment (PD) Prezonin and Rezonin , Ann ation,
Tentative Map and Site Development Review plications
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 .
Cm. Alexander indicated that
received requesting the item
Meeting of October 21, 1985.
anyone had any problems with
the applicant had been
be conti ed to the Commission
xander asked the audience if
equest for continuance.
Jim Abreu (Amarillo
resultant drainage.
on the project's coverage and
Cm. Raley indicated
meeting of Novemb
to see the matter put over to the
., Kaufman and Broad, indicated a preference for the
985, meeting.
Cm. Mack, and seconded by Cm. Raley, and by
una mous vote, the Planning Commission voted to continue the
. ern to the meeting of November 4, 1985..
* * * *
1
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 description 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).
'YGMT,\, 1l:J17/es
PCM-5-l05
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
vicinity (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)i
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.
.
PCM-5-106
.
--, ",.
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
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.
.;
. _ 'I
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.
."
0".1
Speaker 11 - Robert Jeda (Oxbow Ct.):
1. Stated he's one with lots of vehicles and small side
yard.
2. Stated he couldn't afford fees for private storage
yards.
PCM-5-107
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 facilities 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-l08
.-
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 - Lar ry Horn (Tamarack Dr i ve) :
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 ~egarding R. V. unit
parking.
Speaker 27 - Beverly Linell:
1. Discussed enforcement process from her personal
experiences.
Speaker 28 - Johnson:
."
1. Questioned who was the nZoning Investigator" and what
that person's function/responsibility was.
2. Stated opinion that enforcement of standards now would
be unfair and arbitrary.
PCM-S-I09
Speaker 29 - Cindi Raymond (Amador Valley Blvd.):
e:
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 h72-hourh
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.
.
PCM-5-110
.'_:'
Cm. Raley:
1. Supports Ordinance similar to option #3 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. Mack:
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 sideyard or rear yard if
access was physically possible.
." Cm. Petty:
1. Stated San Ramon's Ordinance was not a cure-all in that
all it a~hieved was getting units off the street.
2. Stated desire to have units in sideyard 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 require 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
sideyard to the rear of the front of the residence.
PCM-5-111
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
Parks annexation at their next
uId consider the Camp
(second reading).
~'
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS'
None.
* * * *
ADJOURNMENT
There being
11:20 p. m.
her business, the meeting was adjourned at
Respectfully submitted,
~$-~
n Chairman
~~
Planning Director
* * * *
.
PCM-5-ll2
e':;,
, ,
e:,
"
.:
By a consensus opinion, the Comm'
earing.
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 I - 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
constitutes "accessibility" to rear and sideyards.
what
(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
previously submitted to the editor of a
points of the letter were as follows:
copy of her letter
local paper. The main
A. R.V.'s
congestion.
stored
in
residential
traffic
add
to
areas
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
concern.
in residential
areas are another
'PG ~ \\:?L'2-dSS
PCM-5-115
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)
A. 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
~n 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 II 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. .
PCM-5-116
e':'--
..-
.-:
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 the City'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
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. 4IIl~
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
backing their units into their lots and
safer exits back onto the public street.
owners are currently
thereby facilitating
C. Restated concern that Ordinance will impact private property
rights.
.
PCM-5-118
e.',
-',
e:.
:",
.
Speaker 16 - Bill Allen (Fredricksen Lane)
A. Stated he can't support the Draft Ordinance in its present
form.
B. 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 o.f 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 qu~stioned
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 the 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.
em. 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-S-119
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 wi thin 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 front yard 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 1055 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 City 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 driveway 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-S-120
e-
e:-
e:
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 lO-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."
i
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 folIo
question of requiring reflector'
temporarily on the street.
p steps taken on the
tape on dumpsters placed
* * * *
. Mack filed a complaint on an apparent abandoned vehicle along
Amador Valley Blvd. south of Ann Arbor Way.
PCM-5-l2l
* * * *
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the
12:15 a. m.
* * * *
PCM-5-122
Respectfully submitted,
~1lc;
Laurence L. Tong,
Planning Director
..
.:"
.-
.
Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration The County
undertaken an Environmental Initial Study and has determined t all of
the significant environmental impacts can adequately be miti ted.
These mitigation measures will occur through the various g mit
processes which Oakland Scavenger will. be required to g hrough.
in the City
Mayor Snyder indicated that the MOU is available for r
Manager's office.
Discussion was held with regard to the fact tha the disposal of hazardous
materials is becoming more and more of a con n.
Discussion was held relative to the cap
referred to a recent study conducted
the landfill. Mayor Snyder
& Karn.
Mayor Snyder indicated that this mendment relates only to San Francisco
import, however, this proposal ets a precident with reg~rd to the future of
the plan.
and directed the Council's representative on
forward their comments to the Authority.
The Council reviewed
the Authority, Mayor
* * * *
OTHER
:,-}
Mayors' Conference
:>.-::..y nager Ambrose reminded the Council that Dublin was hosting the Alameda
Cau y Mayors' Conference on the following evening at Stafford's Restaurant
~6:30 p.m.
/~ * * * *
Recreational Vehicle Survey
City Manager Ambrose reported that the second edition of the City's
Newsletter will be coming out soon and Staff suggested including a return
survey related to resident's feelings about the RV issue in Dublin.
The Council concurred regarding the inclusion of this item in the Newsletter.
* * * *
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before
adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
.:'
"-
ATTEST:
. :.
* * * *
CM-4-244
Regular Meeting
November 12, 1985
" ,ty Manager' Ambrose indicated he would be having a Staf eeting on the e
0~~110wing Monday, and after that meeting, he would pr de a status report to
the Council.
~
Cm. Jeffery indicated that since was recently announced that Central Bank
would be moving its Dublin ch Office to Pleasanton, the City should look
at changing its accounts.
Consensus of the C ncil was to have Staff determine which bank to deal with
when Central B is no longer located within Dublin.
* * * *
i ' Recreation Vehicle Ordinance - Moratorium on Enforcement
Cm. Hegarty indicated he would like to see a moratorium placed on' the
enforcement of the current recreation vehicle ordinance in order that
violators do not have to go to the District Attorney's Office in Oakland.
Planning Director Tong indicated that it is anticipated that the Planning
Commission will be making its recommendations to the City Council following
t,heir meeting of December 2nd. e:,
,b;:scussion was held related to the fact that the ordinance mayor may not be
'changed.
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote,
the Council agreed to place a moratorium on enforcement of the current
ordinance, until it is reviewed by the Council and a decision is made on the
ordinance. Cm. Jeffery and Mayor Snyder voted NO on this motion.
* * * *
* * * *
No Right Turn on Red Signs Ineffective
of
Mayor Snyder stated he felt that the No Right Turn Signs at
Amador Valley Boulevard and Donahue Drive
City Engineer Thompson indicated he would che nto this situation with
regard to the size and location/placemen the signs.
CLOSED SESSION
At 10:35 p . the Council recessed to a closed executive session to discuss
proper negotiations: Imperial Freehold*s Site, Dolan School Site and Fall.__
01 site.
* * *
CM-4-253
November 25, 1985
Regular Meeting
.~":
.:--,
~
.-
Cm. Raley referred to two issues. 1) Any single family dwelli
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 hand' apped
and the other be the owner, the character of the units w' I be
maintained. He stated he felt the request was worthy
approval.
Cm. Petty stated he liked the proposed condition at would
require a new Conditional Use Permit be obtained if ownership of
the property changes.
On motion by Cm. Raley, and seconded by Cm.
to one vote, the Conditional Use Permit a Variance requests
were approved. Cm. Mack voted in opposi ion to the motion.
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF
OF THE
PANNING COMMISSION
OF DUBLIN
-----------------------------
-----------------------------------
APPROVING PA 85-087.1 and .2 GOMEZ (OWNER) WOODRUFF (APPLICANT)
CONDITIONAL USE PERM AND VARIANCE REQUESTS TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SECO DWELLING UNIT AT 8757 SHAMROCK PLACE AND
THE ELIMINATION F THE FRONTYARD SETBACK FOR THE THIRD
REQU ED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE.
Mr. Gailey advis Mr. King that there is an appeal period of 10
calendar days, uring which time a written appeal to the Planning
Department ma be submitted at 6500 Dublin Boulevard, Suite D.
res sed his continued dissatisfaction with the subject
proposal. Cm. Mack suggested Mr. King contact the owners
regardi g his dissatisfaction.
* * * *
SUBJECT: 8.2 PA 85-077 Zoninq 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 re~terated, 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
'Pc. M.~ 12.i'Lies
PCM-S-135
/
Mr. King indicated he was also concerned about the fact that he ._,,_
proposed dwelling unit could be turned into a rental unit. e
questioned what type of impact this might have on a future resale
of houses in the area. He also questioned whether the
stipulations stated in the Draft Resolution would hold
court.
Mr. Westphal, Shamrock Place, said the proposed addi ion to this
property may turn into a rental unit at a later dat. The rest
of the units in that area are single family dwell' gs, and
Mr. Westphal said he would like to have them rem n as such.
Mr. Bob Muerke, Shamrock Place, said there are only 12 houses
along the subject cuI de sac. He stated a co cern about the
additional parking space which would be requ red if this addition
was approved. He said the proposed unit m become a detriment
to the neighborhood and may negatively im ct property values in
the future.
Neither Mr. Woodruff nor Mr. Gomez' (ap licant and owner
respectively) were in attendance.
On motion by Cm. Raley, and second
unanimous vote, the public hearin
by Cm. Barnes, and by a
was closed.
Mr. Gailey said the applicant owners had been notified of the
meeting. He said the second it Ordinance requires that a
third, on-site parking space e made available to serve the
second dwelling unit. In c junction with the proposed
conditions for the Conditi nal Use Permit, Mr. Gailey advised
that_the owners would be equired to document that provision had
been made for two' cars t be parked in the garage; that a
concrete slab be insta ed for a third parking space; and that
provision be made for wo cars to park in the driveway. If the
City is advised that hese conditions were not being met,' the
owners would be in 'eopardy of having their Conditional Use
Permit revoked and required to make modifications to convert the
second dwelling p, ace back into a single-family unit.
Mr. Gailey sta that the intent of the second unit Ordinance is
to provide a of housing stock not currently available within
the City of ublin. It coincides with State Legislation, the
"Granny Uni " law, which requires that cities adopt ordinances
which prov de for affordable housing not otherwise available.
Mr. Gail y said one of the units could become a rental unit, but
the ~t ~r one must be occupied by the owner(s). The rental unit
would ave to be occupied by someone over 60 years old, or a
hand'capped person.
/
Cm~ Barnes said she was concerned that no response had been
l&ceived from the applicant. Mr. Gailey stated that the
applicant was aware of all of the changes in the Draft
Resolution.
PQ1-5-134
.'
.<
..
e::,
.-:
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
Comm~ssion 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. IS, 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.
PCM-S-l36
An unidentified speaker, Shamrock Place, said he thinks the
proposed Ordinance discriminates against owners of R. V. IS. He
said he pays more taxes than those who do not own R. V. IS, 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.
.
PCM-5-l37
.'
.':-
.-
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 Planning
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
did not have any problems during these past 25
had now arisen. Cm. Raley said the reason the
being held was because a majority of the people
in violation of the Alameda County Ordinance.
County of Alameda
years, this issue
meetings are
in the room were
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. .
PCM-5-l39
.'
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.
PCM-S-140
NEW BUSINESS
None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
* * * *
..
'-
* * * *
Cm. Petty asked if there had been any follow up information
prepared regarding the possibility of esta ishing School
District impact fees. Mr. Tong said in t e future additional
fees or possible dedication of a school ite may be considered
indicating that the the City Council w ld have to formally adopt
a fee schedule. The Planning Commisso n could ask the City
Council to consider implementation 0 such a fee schedule.
Mr. Tong said the second rea ng of the Ordinance regarding
vesting of tentative maps a discussion regarding the selection
an of economic consultant or the Downtown Improvement Study
Committee would be discus ed at the next City Council meeting.
Mr. Tong indicated that he Great Western appeal is also
scheduled for hearing.
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
e.,
There being no fu her business, on motion by Cm. Barnes, and
seconded by Cm. ack, and by a unanimous vote, the meeting was
adjourned at 9: 0 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~~1tzs
Laurence L. Tong,
Planning Director
* * * *
PQ1-S-l4l
.
RECESS
RESOLUTION NO. 5 - 86
AGREEING TO AN EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVEN ONCERNING
PA 85-017 KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF NORTHERN FORNIA, INC.,
PREZONING AND ANNEXATION ICATION
.~:,
w". ,-
waived the reading and INTRODUCED
permit the pre zoning of real pro
existing City limits.
inance amending Zoning Ordinance to
generally southwest of the
* * * *
was called. All Councilmembers were present when the meeting
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING
RECREATION VEHICLE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
'aff explained that the existing Zoning Ordinance prohibits parking or
~rage of recreational vehicles, boats, trailers and similar items in
~::;uired front yards and required side yards in residential districts.
"i'-he Planning Commission held public hearings on October 7, Oct'ober 21,
November 21 and December 2, 1985, at which times considerable testimony was
taken, both for and against the storage of RV's in residential areas.
During the Planning Commission review, three areas were considered: 1) in
the rear yard; 2) in the rear yard and side yards; 3) in the rear yard, side
yards and front yards.
A number of major issues were raised during the analysis of the three
alternative RV storage areas;
1) Storage in the front yard area - A basic issue raised was whether or not
it was appropriate to have RV'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 height 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) Safety and sight distance - A critical issue with parking in the front
yard involved potential safety and sight distance hazards. If an RV was
.~ked next to the driveway, there would be the potential for a driver
_::king out of the driveway to not see someone on the sidewalk, not see
.~:'~other vehicle in the street, 'or not be seen by a pedestrian or other
vehicle.
===========================================================================
CM-5-6
January 13, 1986
Regular Meeting
, Storage on the driveway - The front driveway of a house typically leads ~
~e 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 RV's and similar items should
be €pecifically limited to 72 hours parking in the driveway.
4) Potential City liability - The City Attorney indicated that if the City
allows an RV to be stored in a way that potentially blocks vision, the City
would potentially be liable. An RV 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 RV storage
alongside the driveway. This becomes more critical as the City faces the
prospect of being unable to obtain liability insurance in March, 1986.
Mayor Snyder indicated that he would call the names in a random order of
those people who completed cards indicating their desire to comment on'this
subject.
Ed Motsenbocker, 7712 Canterbury Lane, stated he was in favor of liberty and
justice for all. As an RV owner, he would not deny this priviledge to anyone
and felt they should be able to keep them anywhere they want.
1 Robinson, 11688 Amarillo Court, stated he has made provisions on his
p~cperty to accommodat~ his RV and boat. He was able to put in an extra
driveway through a variance issued by the County prior to Dublin's
incorporation. Since the majority of the lots in Dublin do not have the
necessary space to put in an extra driveway he felt that each situation
should therefore be individually considered.
Jim Cameron, 6876 Langmuir Lane stated he did not receive the recent survey
and further stated that he felt the survey did not hold water. He also spoke
against curb cuts for RV access.
.
John T. Collins, 7011 Allegheny Drive, indicated he had recently purchased a
boat. He felt that less law is better law and that the entire ordinance
should be thrown out. Very few properties have 6' of side yard available.
Sue Moore, 7637 Cardigan Street, indicated she felt that no specific
considerations had been given to the unique situations on cul-de-sacs.
Harry Short, P. O. Box 2357, stated he felt the City Council should represent
the masses. Of approximately 175 homes that he surveyed in his neighborhood,
there were approximately 14 RV's, or less than 10%. He stated he hardly felt
this was a majority. He considered RV's to be a nuisance, create safety
hazards and were eye sores. The City should offer some type of storage
alternatives.
':,~y Tuma, 11878 Dublin Green Drive, stated there was no way they could get.~
.t~eir RV into their side yard. They have emergency supplies stored in their
RV and she would be very upset if they were forced into off site storage.
===========================================================================
CM-5-7
January 13, 1986
Regular Meeting
. '
, ry West, 7682 Cardigan Street, felt they should be allowed to park their RV
\~ the area beside the driveway. The majority of people who have attended
the RV hearings are in favor of parking everywhere. He was opposed to the
ordinance and felt that people should be able to use their property as they
wish as long as it doesn't prove to be a hazard to others.
Gerald Abernathy, 6699 Maple Drive, questioned exactly where private property
begins and ends. No one seems to agree. He travels about 3 weeks of the
month and has a 7 passenger van that won't fit into his garage. Therefore,
he would be constantly cited for violation of the 72 hour parking regulation
in his driveway. Many homes have shrubs and plants that are more than 4 feet
high, thereby causing the same safety hazard as vehicles.
Ben Smith, 7414 Hansen Drive, felt that they should be allowed to park in
driveways, as long as the sidewalk is clear. The issue of side yards is
absurd, because if the space is not there, it is not there. The insurance
argument is rather naive as State Law requires owners to have automobile
insurance which covers their RV's, etc,. Everyone also has homeowner's
insurance. Someone who owns an RV is going' to be a responsible citizen, and
as such, will be adequately covered with insurance.
Clifford Gonsalves, 11654 Amarillo Court, indicate4 he still wants to park
his RV on the slab where it has been parked for 17 years. It is his property
411J~ he has a right to park anywhere on it. Every RV owner has this right.
, ":j Money, 7650 Hillrose Drive, was called to speak, but had apparently left
th~ meeting.
Steve Heath, 8541 Wicklow Lane, stated it was physically impossible for him
to park his boat in the side yard or back. He recently spent $1,000 to put
in a slab on which to park his boat. He was against curb cuts. He indicated
that a farmer has outdoor storage space available at Vasco & Greenville Roads
in Livermore at $35 per month. You must, however, sign a waiver releasing
him from any responsibility. There are also outside storage spots available
in Tracy at $45 per month.
Ernie Strohmeier, 6415 Ebensburg Lane, stated he felt curb cutting is
necessary in order to assure access out of the parked area. He felt people
are better off parking in their front yard so they do not block their
neighbors view.
William Allen, 7696 Frederiksen Lane, indicated that he has cemented in the
area beside his driveway for parking his 23' Winnebego. The City of Coalinga
realizes the value of RV's. Were it not for RV's, they would have been in
real trouble. Most RV's are equipped with generators, CB radios, first aid
equipment, etc.
Fred Allen, 7054 Ann Arbor Way, stated this ordinance is not needed in his
4IJ-~a.
,_..~ Meadows, 6898 Mansfield Avenue, stated that he has rear yard access, but
. ~~mphathized with those who do not.
===========================================================================
CM-5-8
January 13, 1986
Regular Meeting
e Pletcher, 6923 Tyne Court, stated that RV's are very beneficial in case.
~~an emergency. He suggested that the allowed length of RV be changed from
20' to 40' and that a stipulation be inserted stating vehicle must be
currently registered. They are no more of a hazard than a van, pickup truck
or car, as far as being parked in the driveway. He handed out information
related to a U. S. Supreme Court and Court of Appeals case Euclid Ohio vs.
Fitzthur. You cannot discriminate against RV's over other vehicles.
Norbert Hudak, 6938 Mansfield Avenue, indicated he had recently purchased a
boat that had been kept in a storage area, and many items were missing. He
cannot park in his back yard. He felt the issue should be put to a vote or
that a new committee should be formed.
William Pennington, 7065 Portage Road, stated he felt it was unfair to put a
time restriction on this discussion. With regard to the insurance issue, the
City is liable for everything that happens anyway. Most people have plants
that are more than 5J high also. He also was very disturbed that they were
scheduled at the end of the meeting. Businesses are given all the
priviledges and the people are getting dumped on.
Jimmie Spickler, 7551 Calle Verde, felt that more thought should go into this
ordinance before it becomes a law. He felt that the issue of obstruction of
vision was not relevant, as this same situation could be caused by any
vehicle. Wording in the proposed ordinance stated that the owner shall be .
t''"'fallY respons~ ble so he questioned the City's concern. .
?,~jrie Petty, 7379 Shadow Place, felt that the City's liability should be
strongly considered if a child or pedestrian were to be injured. She would
not like to see the City's dollars going to a multi-million dollar law suit.
She urged the Council to adopt the Planning Commission's proposed ordinance.
City Attorney Nave stated several wording changes that should be made on the
drafted ordinance.
Cm. Vonheeder discussed procedure for obtaining variance to allow extra
driveway.
Cm. Moffatt questioned if a rounded curb could be the same as a curb cut.
Staff responded that the standards are developed by the City Engineer and he
would have the discretion to decide.
Cm. Jeffery questioned if the safety aspect had been researched, insofar as
accidents were concerned. Captain Shores indicated that his department
mainly receives complaints.
Discussion was held with regard to individual tracts of homes having CC&R's
which restrict RV parking. Planning Director Tong reported that Staff had
looked at the CC&R's for 3 tracts and only one addresses storage. Mayor
Snyder indicated that CC&R's could very well be more restrictive than the
proposed ordinance, and they would take precedence over the ordinance.
.~
===========================================================================
CM-5-9
January 13. 1986
Regular Meeting
4i'.:: Jeffery felt the term RV needs to be better defined. Planning Director
:':--:..::lg indicated Staff had used the State motor vehicle description. Vehicles
a:'~":e registered with a certain designation.
Cm. Vonheeder questioned if an RV was parked in a driveway for longer than 72
hours would it be in violation. Response was yes.
Cm.. Moffatt felt that the point of the ordinance is to get RV's off the
street and into an area where owners can control.
Mayor ,Snyder closed the public hearing.
Mayor Snyder indicated he felt a need to clarify several points that had been
brought up.
With regard to the survey mentioned at this meeting, this survey was included
in the City's Newsletter that was mailed to over 5,000 households in Dublin.
Mr. Cameron, Lang~uir Lane indicated he had never seen this Newsletter.
Mayor Snyder stated that with regard to the comment about this item being
placed last on the agenda, he invited the public to stay until the end of the
meeting as there were many more items that would be considered following the
close of this item.
"'~h regard to comments made about the City Attorney's opinions, Mayor Snyder
~;~rified that the City Attorney advised the Council in matters of potential
}(~bility and the Council takes his concerns and advice very seriously.
With regard to imposing time limits, Mayor Snyder indicated that it was his
priviledge as Mayor to impose time limits and he felt that everyone had been
given a fair chance to make comments.
Cm. Hegarty stated that when this issue first came up, comments were that
people wanted RV's off the streets. Cm. Hegarty stated he would tend to
allow parking in the area beside and in the driveway and would hope that
people would use common sense.
Cm. Vonheeder indicated she was anxious to get vehicles off the streets, but
felt that people should be able to park RV's, boats, etc., anywhere on their
own property, within reason.
Cm. Moffatt felt that the ordinance should be given back to the Planning
Staff to rewrite. Cm. Moffatt felt further that there should be restrictions
placed on people who rent or lease, as opposed to property owners. He also
felt that any non-motorized vehicles should be restricted from parking on the
streets between 2:00 - 6:00 a.m. Visitors should be given a permit to park
their RV's on the street for 7 - 14 days. There should be a limit of not
more than 3 vehicles or more than one non-motorized vehicle in front of any
house. Vehicles should be stored in such a way that they are safe and do not
~~late the freedoms of other individuals.
~-. Jeffery felt that the real issue of this ordinance relates to aesthetics
. and she is not sure the City is really ready to deal with this overall.
===========================================================================
Regular Meeting
CM-5-10
January 13, 1986
motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote,
v0uncil directed the City Attorney to rewrite the ordinance and bring it
before the Council in one month (February 10th Council meeting). The revised
ordinance would allow parking of at least one RV in the sections discussed as
5A or 5B. There should be no encroachment on pUblic property. If it is not
feasible to park an RV is sections 5A or 5B, then parking in area 6 would be
A allowed. Pads would need to be cemented. No visitor permits shall be
i issued.
1 .
.
the
* * * *
RECESS
* * * *
A short recess was called. 'All Councilmembers were
reconvened.
PUBLIC HEARING
IMPERIAL FREEHOLDS CALIFORNIA, INC.
APPEAL OF PLANNING ACTION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE PA 84-0
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
On September 23, 1985, the City Council granted Imp' ial Freeholds a second.
- ~tinuance on their appeal of the Planning Commi ion approval for Parcel
c ~ 3582 Extension. The appealed condition re red the developer to pay
~09,OOO toward the installation of traffic si als at Sierra Court and Dublin
Boulevard. Imperial Freeholds is requestin an additional continuance to
allow escrow to close on the sale of the operty. If escrow closes, the
matter becomes moot.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded b Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the
Council continued the public heari g until May 12, 1986.
MURRAY SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT
OF FALLON SCHOOL SITE AS
* * * *
E OF INTENT TO SELL PORTIONS
RPLUS REAL PROPERTY
The Murray School Dis rict is selling portions of the Fallon School site.
an calls for a 5 acre neighborhood park and single
family residentia uses on the site. The City has 60 days from the time of
e an interest in purchasing part or all of the site.
On motion 0 Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
the Counc. directed Staff to express to the Murray School District an
interes in the proposed park site as modified in Staff Alternative Layout,
expres interest in proposed City Recreation Center subject to parking
agre ent and directed Staff to work with the School District per the Staff.
ernative Layout and adopted ., '
==================~========================================================
CM-5-11
January 13, 1986
Regular Meeting
t!~c HEARING.
~~EATION VEHICLE ORDINANCE
~ayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
rhe draft ordinance prepared by Staff addresses the wishes expressed by the
~ouncil at the public hearing on January 13, 1986. The ordinance will
Jermit, if ce*.t?i~.conditions relating to curb cuts and concrete pads are
5atisfied, nod~'rfhan 3 recreational vehicles to be stored on the typical
Jublin lot. The ordinance permits the storage of a recreational vehicle for
in indefinite period in the driveway of a lot. In addition, the ordinance
Jermits the storage of a vehicle or boat in the rear yard and/or one of the
~wo side yards if the storage space can be accessed by a curb cut. The
)rdinance also permits storage of a recreational vehicle in the front areas
)f a lot if a concrete storage pad is in place and access is achieved
~hrough a curb cut.
rhe ordinance prohibits storage of a recreational vehicle in the public
~ight-of-way, and further prohibits living in or sleeping in a recreational
rehicle while said vehicle is parked in the public right-of-way. In
iddition, no recreational vehicle may be stored in such a fashion so as to
=ncroach into the sidewalk area.
JlNorman Cline, 7439 Hansen Drive, expressed concern regarding the curb
l He said he angles his vehicle out through his driveway, and in such a
:; ::,:---i wondered if it would be necessary to have the curb cut made. Mr. Nave
~)j~ in this instance no curb cut would be required.
4r. Christopher Young, 7754 Millbrook, asked what considerations have been
nade for residents living next door to recreational vehicle owners, and
=xpressed specific concern about their potential view being blocked by the
rehicles. Mr. Tong said that the ordinance does not address this issue.
~r. Bob Matheson, 8690 Wicklow Court, asked if it would be possible
JO place white, decorative rock in the space referred to as area 3.
5aid concrete pads are required only in areas 5 and 6, and the only
~equired of Mr. Matheson would be to have the curb cut made.
for him
Mr. Nave
thing
~r. Horner, 7154 Tamarack Drive, said he thought the proposed ordinance very
~enient, appreciated the efforts of the Councilmembers in developing it, and
loped recreational vehicle owners would not take advantage of it.
~r. Bill Pennington thanked Councilmembers for the way in which they handled
Jhe development of this ordinance.
~ayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
)n motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the
.~o ncil waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance amending certain
, isions of Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance regarding
~_~ational vehicles. Councilmember Jeffery suggested that this Ordinance
l;j~be enforced until June 1, 1986; this timeline will be discussed further
l~-'the next City Council meeting.
* * * *
CM-5-27
February 10, 1986
legular Meeting
',-:'}'UBLIC HEARING
'~:~ECREATIONAL VEHICLE ORDINANCE
.+:: - '-----------------------------
.:-
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
On February 10, 1986, the City Council introduced an Ordinance regarding
recreational vehicles (RV's), boats, and similar items. The Ordinance
establishes requirements for storing RV's in the front, side and rear yards
of residential properties. Only one RV could be stored in the yard area in
front of a house. There would be no limit to the number of RV's stored in
the rear and side yards.
As the City Council previously directed, Staff is not enforcing the existing
RV regulations whic~ prohibit parking in the front and side yards.
George Butler, Bloomington Court felt that side yard storage would be quite
adequate. If RV's are allowed to be placed in front yards, they should be
c~rrently licensed & should be useable/operable.
Planning Director Tong indicated that if the Council desired this
stipulation, it would need to be added to the Ordinance.
Carl Aaron, Ironwood Drive, indicated he had followed in the newspapers, the
Planning Commission & City Council hearings related to this ordinance. He
felt that the Planning Commission's recommendation to allow parking in side
:':."',yards was a bit liberal, and was then very disappointed to learn that the .":
-'___~'.,>':Council had been even more liberal. Mr. Aaron questioned what had prompte ..:
':::-::';-.the change. ' '
Cm. Hegarty indicated that there was considerable input from the community
related to this issue. The majority of side yards in Dublin simply are not
wide enough to accommodate an RV.
Cm. Jeffery also indicated that ,there is a lack of proper storage areas
available in this area.
em. Moffatt indicated he was concerned with getting the RV's off the streets
and onto private property.
William Dyer, Bloomington Court, questioned if this meant that inoperable
vehicles could be stored in the front yard. Discussion followed related to
whether or not camper shells could be stored in the front yard.
Cm. Moffatt felt that vehicles stored behind a fence do not necessarily need
to be operable and/or licensed.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
Additional wording was discussed and agreed upon. The following wording is
to be added to the end of Section E. a) & b) and to the end of the last
.__ paragraph in Section E, ... "provided that it is at all times validly lice.'l.,_
_>:-::,:and operable".
***************************************************************************
CM-5-37
February 24, 1986
Regular Meeting
.'\n motion or Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the
:ouncil wa{ved the reading and, as amended, INTRODUCED an ordinance amending
ertain provisions of Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
regarding recreational vehicles. The ordinance will be revised and brought
back for adoption at the City Council meeting of March 10, 1986, with an
effective date of June 10, 1986.
~'( ,,;'( ~Ir ~I;
PUBLIC HEARING
GARBAGE FRANCHISE, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
ORDINANCE & AGREEMENT FOR COLLECTION/DISPOSAL SERVICES
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
On December 9, 1985" the City Council directed Staff to negotiate garbage
services agreement and ordinance with Oakland Scavenger Company ased on its
proposal of December 2, 1985. City Staff and the Assistant Ci Attorney
met with representatives of Oakland Scavenger Company and the'r Legal
Counsel to develop an Ordinance and Proposed Agreements.
Staff explained that the regulation of solid waste manag ent is authorized
through various sections of the California Government de. The provisions
of the Ordinance.provide for the option of the City t enter into an
exclusive franchise agreement for the collection an removal of solid waste
within the City. The proposed Ordinance contains rovisions regulating the
.~peration of ~ :ecyc~ing facility ~nd a recyc~in transporter. The ~urpo~e
}f these prov1s10ns 1S to reduce tne opportun1 for a waste collect1on f1rm
.;0 operate under the guise of a recycling fir in violation of the ordinance.
"Currently, recycling- facilities require a L d Use Permit in order to operate
within the City. The information collecte under the recycling facility
permits would not be substantially diffe nt than information collected for
the Conditional Use Permit. Staff rec mended that these two functions be
processed simultaneously. Staff also recommended that an amendment be
prepared to the resolution which al ws non-profit Dublin based organizations
to a waiver of specific fees whic would also exempt them from any fees for a
recycling facility permit.
The agreement reflects the sp cific responsibilities of both Oakland
Scavenger Company and the C' y of Dublin in providing Solid Waste Refuse
Collection. The agreement is an exclusive franchise for a period of ten
years which will begin 0 the first day of April, 1986, and contains
provisions for an exte ion beyond the ten year period.
provisions for establishing rates through the Refuse
Rate Review Commit ee, established with representatives of various public
agencies current ~ serviced by Oakland Scavenger Company.
Provisions ar made (Page 13, Section 3.6) for the collection of the
franchise fe. The DSRSD agreement levies a 7.6% franchise fee. If the City
maintains is franchise fee, Oakland Scavenger estimates the City's annual
.~anchis fee would be $90,000. If the City continued to levy a 7.6% fee, it
_0uld b more than 1% below the average fee levied by other agencies
.urre ly serviced by Oakland Scavenger, and it would be able to continue to
'~ain ain rates consistent with those imposed by DSRSD.
**~~:***********************************************************************
egular Meeting
CM-S-38
February 24, 1985
/" i..\t3LIC HEARING
ti~CREATIONAL VEHICLE ORDINANCE
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
.
On February 24, 1986, the City,Council amended and introduced an ordinance
regarding recreational vehicles, boats and similar items. The ordinance
establishes requirements for storing RV's in the front, side and rear yards
of residential properties. Only one RV could be stored in the front yard
area. The number of RV's stored in the rear and side yards and in the front
dri veway would be unlimited:' Any RV stored in the front yard area would need
to be validly licensed and operable. The ordinance will take effect 90 days
after its passage, or June 8, 1986.
Mr. Zev Kahn, 11708 Harlan Road questioned if this ordinance will be enforced
on a complaint only basis. Staff responded that illegal street parking is
continually enforced by the Police Department, and that 99% is in response to
a complaint. Mr. Kahn requested that thought be given to some other kind of
mechanism for enforcement.
Cm. Moffatt requested elaboration as to what Mr. Kahn had in mind. Mr. Kahn
indicated he had no particular ideas in ~ind but felt that strict enforcement
may be the only way to get some of the vehicles off the street. _'.
:~:,,',ff clarified that enforcement on private property would continue to be on.:'~
;\~~omplaint basis only.
.....
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by em. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the
Council waived the reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 3 - 86
r
,
AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 2 OF TITLE 8
OF THE DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES
* * * *
PUBL;IC HEARING
AMENDMENT TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRACT
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
At the regular City Council meeting on Februar , 1986, the Council
adopted a Resolution of Intention to Appr an Amendment to the PERS
Contract and introduced the uthorizing the Amendment.
..-
~rate Law regulating the 20 day waiting period
. _,:' ween the adoption the resolution and the adoption of the ordinance.
~ri~ ordinance r ves the exclusion of public officials from membership in
~~~~C~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c~~~~~~~c~~~c~~~ccccccccccccccc~c~C9CC~~
CM-5-46
March 10, 1986
ejLIN SPORTS GROUNDS SITE IMPROVEMENTS
The Dublin San Ramon Services District is undertaking a $350,000 renov- ~on
of the Dublin Sports Grounds. The project, divided into three phase, is
scheduled to 'start in the Fall of 1985. Phase I consists of 1) a tness
court with stations located around the perimeter of the park; 2) sunken
picnic area with tables, benches and turf amphitheatre seatin djacent to
the existing tot lot; 3) additional trees; 4) additional pic c tables
located around the perimeter of the park.
The Park & Recreation Commission reviewed the plan at meeting of
June 11, 1985. The Commission indicated their supp t of the improvements
and expressed concerns of 1) will there be water d barbeques at the group
picnic area? 2) is there a possibility of putti another restroom facility
at the back of the park, adjacent to the free y? 3) the satellite picnic
tables are too far to walk from the parkin ot.
Council consensus was that the
acceptable.
picnic tables was
Discussion was held related to t possible realignment of the
Freeholds property and what th affects of a property exchange
the layout of the Sports Gro ds. Cm. Vonheeder reported that
would mean the eliminatio of one baseball diamond.
.,::J Jeffery expressed oncern with a sunken area because of past problems
\,::>iLb Park. Captain ores indicated that even though he had not reviewed
VToposed sunken a a plans, the police department would not be favorable
toward the deve pment of sunken areas because of the obvious policing
problems.
Imperial
would have on
an exchange
at
the
felt that when you dig 3 to 4 feet down, you'll run-into mush
might not even be feasible.
---
Co cil consensus was that Staff forward comments to the Dublin San Ramon
rvices District.
"* "* "* *
RESTRICTION OF COMMERCIAL TRUCK PARKING
The City Traffic Engineer has conducted a study as a result of complaints
relating to long term truck parking on public streets. The report outlines
the potential problems associated with the parking of commercial trucks. A
suggested method of dealing with the problem is to restrict the parking of
commercial trucks to no more than 2 hours unless they are loading or
unloading.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote (Cm.
1.~fatt absent), the Council directed the City Attorney to develop an
~~~inance as appropriate, and established a public hearing for July 8, 1985.
Regular Meeting
~''''. ";'':>l """ -'~......~ 3
:', ';' ~' ., T'~'~
" , ~.. . ~ ~
. . ~. ," , ,
... : ", . - . ~~ ~
(\-.n~."irl_'~~ 4 ~ ",..".' J j ,
LU'1 L-eW'\,<!,d) HA Mle) - -rfU.~ ~~-
June 24, 1985
I::'<.:LIC HEARING
AuJPTION OF THE 1984 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE
.-
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
Mr. Vic Taugher presented the Staff Report. Mr. Tau
should be adopting the National,Electrical Code 0
Dublin.
that the City
City of
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearin
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, se ded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote
(Cm. Moffatt absent), the ncil waived the reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 13 - 85
AMEND I HAPTER 3, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 31.2 OF ORDINANCE NO. 02-84,
ELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING
RESTRICTION OF CO~lliRCIAL TRUCK PARKING
~~ror Snyder opened the public hearing. .
MJi Ambrose presented the Staff Report. It was stated that the proposed
ordinance would limit the' parking of commercial trucks over 10,000 pounds and
any commercially licensed auxilIary dollies or trailers. The existing
ordinances apply a restriction of two hour parking to commercial vehicles in
residential areas only. The proposed ordinance would extend these provisions
to all city streets.
During pickup and deliveries, the trucks would be allowed to park. It was
recommended that the City Council conduct a formal public hearing and
deliberate.
Mr. Kinzel, Traffic Engineer for the City of Dublin, reviewed the practices
of the other cities. Trucks are known to block the view of many
intersections if they are allowed to park on the streets.
Trucks do severe damage to the streets and pavements.
Mr. Fred Lotze, Sunwood Drive, stated that only van lines were allowed to
park at American City Truck Stop. Where are all the other truckers that live
in the City of Dublin suppose to park their rigs?
Ms. Anna Vargas, Hansen Drive resident, expressed concern about parking her
rig in Manteca. She said her time spent on the freeway getting to and from ,
~/~~ rig would be senseless. Can't something be. done for the Dublin truckerS?
M::;,.... Carl Keller, Dublin Green Drive, leased with West Coast stated they were
parking on Golden Gate Drive. They would like to have some alternative.
CM-4-146
Regular Meeting
July 8, 1985
.-"
, .
. .....
;~; Beverly Lognell, Calle Verde Road, stated she looked for a covered area
~O park her tractor-trailer and was quoted $800 a month for such an area.
Nhy can't something be acquired for these individuals. They are willing to
?ay.
~ayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
Jm. Hegarty expressed a concern that Viking Lines was abusing the streets by
~arking along the streets.
Mr. Lotze asked if a special permit could be given to the Dublin residents
that had tractor-trailer rigs.
Cm. Jeffery asked if Staff could investigate this issue a little further.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by em. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote
(em. Moffatt absent), the Council agreed to delay this issue for another
month so that information could be sought from other cities.
* * * *
~IC HEARING
./~AMON ROAD SPECIFIC
;,:,/:'}or Snyder opened the
PLAN IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
Staff
public hearing.
On May 28, 1985, the City Council held a public hearing and
and public input on the preliminary Engineer's Report.
In response to the resolution calling for sealed pr osals, the City received
a total of three bids for this project. The low dder was Redgwick
Construction Company with a bid of $171,743. aff has reviewed the low
bidder's proposal, and found it to be in or
Mr. Robert Haight, legal bond counsel
meeting and explained legal details
from the City Clerk that no writt
r the District was present at the
the proceedings. Mr. Haight confirmed
protests had been received.
John Richardson, First Calif nia Regional Securities, Inc., was present in
the audience, representin he Company that has made the bid for the bonds.
Mayor Snyder
Cm effery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote
sent), the Council adopted
.,.
RESOLUTION NO. 65 - 85
OVERRULING PROTESTS ON RESOLUTION OF INTENTION
TO ACQUIRE AND CONSTRUCT IMPROVEI~NTS
:.. . ;,..-
ci'-nd
CM-4-147
July 8, 1985
Regular Meeting
,,.It
:-:::-:'~-VALLEY COMMuNITY FUND
'~:<:",/:UEST TO WAIVE RENTAL RATES
The Tri-Valley Community Fund has requested the use 0 annon Center on
September 19, 1985 for their annual fundraising c aign kickoff reception
and is requesting that the rental charge be w . ed. The Tri-Valley Community
Fund is a non-profit, tax exempt charitab und established to provide a
stable source of funding for agencie ich provide educational, cultural,
health, recreational and human c services in the communities of the Tri-
Valley area.
..
em. Jeffery indicate at rather than the event being a fund-raiser, ~t is
to say thank you all the committee members. Ms. Jeffery felt this was an
appropriate uest.
on of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the
ncil agreed to waive the fees for the use of Shannon Center on
September 19, 1985 by the Tri-Valley Community Fund.
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING
TWO-HOUR TRUCK PARKING ORDINANCE
AND REPORT REGARDING TRUCK STORAGE
M~yor Snyder opened the public hearing.
."!
}:.',--:" the regular City Council meeting on June 24, 1985, the City Council
airected the City Attorney to develop an ordinance to restrict the extended
parking of commercial vehicles.
A public hearing was conducted at the regular meeting on July 8, 1985. The
City Council continued the hearing until August 12, 1985 to allow Staff to
gather additional information and to give independent owner operators an
opportunity to evaluate alternative parking arrangements. .'
Staff contacted the surrounding cities to determine their experience and
steps they have taken to address similar situations.
Staff also contacted former Alameda County Supervisor Valerie Raymond re-
garding the evaluation qf truck facilities conducted during her term. Ms.
Raymond indicated that a formal report was never completed and that the
initial efforts involved discussions with some of the individuals involved.
One site which was looked at was the old hospital site adjacent to Santa
Rita. The property is located adjacent to Tassajara Road and had some
paving. However, the County has now begun future planning,for its property
and this use may not fit into their overall plan. Ms. Raymond indicated
that her recollection was that the review showed that the long-term problem
would be addressed most appropriately at such time as a facility were
developed. This would either occur through operators purchasing and
developing a storage facility, or if private development reached a point
~~:-:re they determined that it was economically feasible to respond to the
fl' >'-:ket demand.
.
Regular Meeting
CM-4-163
August 12, 1985
"'"
~;ff contacted Ms. Carol Keller who testified at the public hearing on
':: JiAJy 8, 1985 and has actively pursued a search for potential sites.
Staff also reviewed the availability of space at American City Truck Stop in
Dublin. ,The Manager has indicated that at the present time, they are only
providing storage facilities for Admiral Van Lines. This company is plan-
ning to submit an application in the near future to construct a warehouse
and parking area for their operations. It is anticipated that once that
construction is complete, American City will have spaces available for truck
parking.
The proposed ordinance was developed to respond to complaints received from
areas where long term parking is occurring. Also, the review by the City
Traffic Engineer cited five specific concerns which support the need for
restricting the parking of commercial truck parking. The areas discussed in
the report include: safety, congestion, decreased pavement life and
aesthetics.
The proposed Ordinance would allow for two-hour parking in order for
operators to avail themselves of adjacent services. The current Ordinance
already places a two-hour restriction on the parking of these vehicles in
residential areas. This Ordinance would extend these provisions to
commercial and industrial areas. The Traffic Engineer has recommended
_sting advisory signs at key entry points to the City.
~
~_:~: Jeffery questioned the time line for the Admiral Van Lines application.
,:':-9~,. Planner Gailey indicated that the application had just been received last
week and it would take approximately 8-12 weeks to get to the public hearing
process.
Ms. Carol Keller addressed the Council and indicated that she has taken many
steps to try to find alternative parking. The group she represents requested
that the City Council either consider putting a moratorium on the ,proposed
ordinance until they receive word regarding public lands; or allow Dublin
truckers only to park in Dublin through some type of a permit.
Fred Lotsie, Sunwood Drive, addressed the Council and indicated that he has
been a trucker since 1964. Mr. Lotsie referred to a petition on which they
had gathered 600-700 signatures, all of whom they assumed were registered
voters. Mr. Lotsie reported that a l~ acre site of the Pleasanton
Fairgrounds, located at the corner of Valley and Bernal Avenues has been
iden~ified as a possible parking location. This site would contain
approximately 20 parking spaces.
Mayor Snyder felt that Dublin should seek the cooperation of Livermore and
Pleasanton, as truck parking is not a problem unique to Dublin.
Cm. Hegarty asked if the majority of the truckers work through brokers and
~o if they felt that $150 per month was reasonable for a parking space.
w) response was that they felt $150 per month to be outrageous.
. : -: -. . ~
CM-4-164
Regular Meeting
August 12, 1985
,..#
r:.~~: ,:gy Weaver, . Milbrook Avenue, representing Super Chief Trucking felt that .
;~~) problem exists only in California. The truckers represent small
~~dinesses that bring revenue into Dublin, and as such, she felt they deserve
consideration.
Rich Enea, representing Enea Plaza, 'questioned if Amador Plaza Road is
considered an industrial area. Trucks are parking there and it is a
imposition to have these trucks use their parking lot to turn around. Mr.
Enea passed pictures around showing damage that trucks have done to Amador
Plaza Road.
When Bedford Properties prohibited the commuters from using their l'ot, the
commuters moved to Golden Gate Drive, and the truckers had to move toCAmador
Plaza Road.
Beth Grant DeRoos, Deervale Road, stated that this is certainly not a recent
problem, but one that goes back a long time. Indentations on her street are
stjll evident from past parking of large trucks. Truck parking creates a
dangerous situation in that cars must pullout into the street before they
can see. Ms. DeRoos felt the City should be looking 5 years down the road
when thousands of houses will be built. A long term solution should be
sought rather thana short term remedy.
Cm. Moffatt questioned how many individual truckers reside in Dublin. Ms.
Keller responded that there are approximately 15 of which she is aware. A .
~~~ of the truckers that use Dublin streets for parking are from San Ramon. .
. . . . ~ i
:~or Snyder felt the group should write to Supervisor Campbell and ask to be
allowed to park at the fairgrounds site at whatever fee they feel to be
appropriate.
Rich Enea questioned what would happen if the fairgrounds committee says no.
Mayor Snyder indicated that the Council could not speculate, but a date could
be set at which time the issue could be brought back.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
Cm. Vonheeder felt that this group had done a tremendous amount of work on
their own in trying to resolve this situation. She felt the City should give
them more time to try to arrange for Federal or County land.
Cm. Jeffery felt that in addition to the fairgrounds property, consideration
should also be given to other properties owned by Alameda County that is just
sitting. In the event that space 'cannot be found, Cm. Jeffery felt that
perhaps we should look at allowing parking during non-business hours only.
Cm. Jeffery felt that if the City adopts a law, we should at least know that
there are options available to these people.
,On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote,
Lthe Council agreed to continue discussion of this item until the regular .
. ~j~ting of Oc~ober ~4, 1985. Mayor Snyder also indicated he would bring thi .'
.:: ,:-:::m up for d~scuss~on at a future Alameda County Mayor I S Conference. ,.'
* * * *
CM-4-165
August 12, 1985
Regular Meeting
.-~
;~~SENT CALENDAR
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 93 - 85
, the
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous
Council took the following actions:
Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 26, 1985;
Approved Investment Report for 'Period Ending August 31,
ACCEPTING FOR THE PUBLIC A GRAN DEED FOR
OPEN SPACE PARKS AND RECRE ON USES
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 9
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 69- , A RESOLUTION AWARDING
SALE OF BONDS, A PTED JULY 8, 1985 .
NO. 95 - 85
Adopted
.:]
PAID ASSESSMENTS AND PROVIDING
FOR THE I UANCE OF BONDS PURSUANT TO THE
PROVEMENT BOND ACT OF 191511
SAN RAMON PECIFIC PLAN IMPROVEMENT ASSESMENT DISTRICT
advertise Contract 85-6 for bid, Annual Slurry Seal
" '
--
Authorized
Program;
Awarded bid r Contract 85-4, Annual Street Overlay Program to Bay Cities
Paving; Au orized Mayor to execute Agreement; Authorized City Engineer to
negotiat additional work at the bid unit price; Authorized a budget transfer
from t Annual Street Overlay Program in the amount of $60,000 to the street
Main nance Repair Account;
A proved Warrant Register in the amount of $314,662.93.
* * * *
( TRUCK PARKING AT ALAMEDA COUNTY FAIR GROUNDS
In accordance with City Council direction, a letter was sent ,to the Alameda
County Fair Association requesting the Association's consideration to allow
truck parking at the Alameda County Fair Grounds.
t'The City has received a letter indicating that the Board of Directors of the
Fair Association will consider the City's suggestion at its next regularly
'4IIfedUled meeting in September. * * * *
CM-4-194
,:Regular Meeting
September 9, 1985
:',:'.,: .:fER BUSINESS
.
Truck parkinq
City Manager Ambrose reported that the City had been officially notified that
the Alameda County Fair Board had denied the request for truck parking. This
item is scheduled for the October 14th agenda.
* * * *
ABAG General Assembly
* * * *
Cm. Moffatt queried the Council with regard to three issues needing decisio
at the upcoming ABAG General Assembly. Council consensus was that Cm.
Moffatt, as the City's delegate, should vote on the issues involved.
AIDS Task Force
Cm. Moffatt
that in the
p.f'ohibiting
r. "..
.... ....
'.-, ,j
'.-':--- '~I
......
~ . '..
reported that he had attended an AIDS Task For e meeting, and
future, we will be asked to look at the Los geles Ordinance
discrimination against anyone who has a me lcal problem.
* * * *
e:
"
Cm. Moffatt indicated that he had receiv calls from people
indicating they were unhappy with the w BART bus schedule. It seems that
the connecting buses are leaving jus prior to the arrival of the buses in
need of making the connection. Ci Manager Ambrose indicated he would
contact BART regarding their sch ule.
fqr Robert Allen to address the Council
Cm. Jeffery felt it is
with an update related
City Manager Ambrose
to provide
icated he would contact Mr. Allen with an invitation
Council meeting.
* * * *
Mail
Cm. Je ery requested that Staff, in the future, open mail addressed to her
t!1at omes through Ci ty-'Offices in order that time dated material can be .--'__.'
onded to in a more timely manner.
* * * *
CM-4-210
Regular Meeting
September 23, 1985
* * * *
.', .
<:-,', motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous
','\:''-iInci 1 waived the reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 25 - 85
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE PREZONING OF REAL
LOCATED TO THE EAST OF THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS
PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TO DENY CUP & SDR
GREAT WESTERN SAVINGS/HAGMAN ASSOCIATES
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
On September 3, 1985, the Planning Commission h d a public hearing on the
Great Western Savings application to use a gat a, attendant controlled
parking lot for the office project being con ructed at Dublin Boulevard and
Golden Gate Drive. The Great Western Savi s ,office building will have
approximately 67,550 square feet of spac in a 3 story structure on an
approximately 3.1 acre site. The park' g lot will have 230 spaces. The
Planning Commission denied the applic ion because of 1) potential traffic
.:k up on Golden Gate Drive from c s waiting to get past the attendant
~th and gate~ 2) restricted acc s to required parking would conflict with
:<:::>;e zoning Ordinance requiremen that the parking spaces be continuously
,;>:::,}cessible to any and all vis' ors to the si te ~ 3) potential shift of
project-related parking onto he public street created by the restricted
access to the off-street P king spaces.
On September 12, 1985, r. Gilbert R. Reyes, Construction Manager for Great
Western Savings, app ed the Planning Commision action and on October 7,
1985, Ms. Maria pra er, legal representative for Great Western Savings,
requested that th item be continued for one month to allow her to review the
situation.
No public
made.
Mayor
closed the public heailng.
On m ion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
th ,Council continued this item until the November 12, 1985 City Council
meting.
* * * *
I PUBLIC HEARING
TWO-HOUR COMMERCIAL TRUCK PARKING ORDINANCE
411Jyor Snyder opened the public hearing.
:,:-::-:'=- the regular City Council meeting on August 12, 1985, the City Council
''-i.;''ontinued the public hearing on the proposed restriction of long term
commercial truck parking. The Traffic Engineer has identified five areas
CM-4-214
October 14, 1985
Regular Meeting
:ch support the need to restrict commercial vehicle parking. These inclu~
'2ety, congestion, decreased pavement life, aesthetics and noise & fumes
created by parked trucks.
The City has also received complaints from property owners who object to the
long term parking of large vehicles on City streets.
Staff has been in contact with Ms. Carol Keller, a local owner/operator who
has been attempting to procure suitable parking areas. Ms. Keller has been
in contact with several of the property owners of vacant parcels in the City,
however, they have been unable to find anyone at this time who is willing to
develop their property in this manner. Ms~ Keller has also contacted the
United States Army and is awaiting a response regarding the potential use of
Camp Parks.
The proposed ordinance is consistent with the manner in which the other
cities have addressed this issue. In addition, it will address the long
term storage of commercial vehicles on public streets in a comprehensive
manner. If an ordinance affecting all streets is not adopted, Staff
anticipates that some of the commercial property owners may approach the
City Council and request restriction adjacent to their properties to
vehicles which are no more than 20 feet in length. This will require
additional signing and approach the matter in a random fashion. The proposed
ordinance as presented by the Traffic Engineer recommends the posting of
advisory signs at key entry points to the City. This would involve the e'.-
--"'-'sting of no more than six locations.
l\'l'S. Carol Keller, 11856 Dublin Green Drive addressed the Council and spoke on
behalf of approximately 15 independent truckers who reside in Dublin. Ms.
Keller asked for a time extension until April, when American City Truck stop
has advised her that they will have space available.
Mr. Fred Lotse indicated that the Fair Board has not used the property at
Valley Avenue/Bernal for anything other than growing weeds for 15 months.
Mr. Lotse also addressed the drastic increases in all the various fees and
licensing charged to truckers, in addition to the insurance situation. Mr.
Lotse requested that truckers who live in Dublin be issued permits.
Mr. Ken Gray, Galindo Drive, felt there was more to this issue than simply
truck parking. Mr. Gray expressed concerned regarding the safety of children
when large trucks park in residential areas.
Mr. 'Ken Crisman, 8650 Galindo Drive indicated he has a problem when truckers
come down residential streets, fully loaded, traveling in excess of 35 mph.
Mr. Crisman felt that residential areas are no place for large trucks, but
industrially zoned areas are okay.
Ms. Laurie Petty, Shadow Place, representing the ponderosa Homeowner's
Association indicated that the CC&R's for the Ponderosa Homes allow no
parking of commercial vehicles in that residential area. Ms. Petty urged
?ncil to adopt the ordinance restricting the large truck parking.
th.
CM-4-215
Regular Meeting
october 14, 1985
~. Baysul Parker, California Trucking Association addressed the Council.
'-', _:. Parker stated he represented approximately 2,500 members in California,
ranging from 1 truck owner~ to those that have thousands of trucks in a
fleet. Mr. Parker urged the Council to look at the impact of this ordinance,
both from the standpoint of the City as well as to resident truckers. Mr.
Parker requested that more time be allowed the truckers to resolve this
situation.
Ms. Ann Vargas, 7296 Hansen Drive, felt the truckers should be declared an
endangered species. Many people will go broke before this situation is over.
'Mayor Snyder questioned what American City Truck Stop will be doing.
Mr. Michael Davis, Dublin Green Court felt that many truckers are going out
of business. Mr. Davis stated that if the Dublin ,truckers stop hauling,
Dublin will stop eating.
Mr. Frank Soares, 8374 Cypress Court, agreed that large trucks parking in
residential areas is wrong, but questioned why they could not park by permit
in commercial areas.
Mr. Rich Enea, 6670 Amador Plaza Road, reminded the Council that they have a
problem in their commercial area with damage to the streets from trucks. Mr.
Enea presented several pictures showing various areas of damage.
4It~ Kathy Stymans, 11745 Casa Linda Court reported that they had started a
~~~cking business last year in September. Prior to starting their business,
";:;ney contacted an attorney regarding the laws of this area. They were told
there was no problem with them parking their truck in their own driveway.
Ms. Stymans felt that most truckers try to follow the rules.
Mr. Greg Erickson, Bedford Properties indicated his support of the ordinance
and felt that large trucks and all the problems associated with them hamper
an area.
Ms. Ann Vargas questioned why Bedford Properties wouldn't give them space to
park.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hea~ing.
Mayor Snyder indicated that since the last meeting in August, he has twice
addressed the Alameda County Mayors' Conference regarding the issue of truck
parking. This issue is not unique to Dublin. Several cities are very
concerned regarding the proliferation of truck parking in their cities. Ten
cities have fairly strict ordinances related to truck parking. One member of
the Board of Supervisors saw the possibility of gaining some extra revenue by
allowing parking on County property. Mayor Snyder indicated that the major
oil companies will be contacted to see what can be worked out. Supervisor
Campbell indicated at last Wednesday's Mayors' Conference meeting that
.liminary plans are underway for the development of a full-service facility
st of the Altamont. A shuttle service to the west would be a part of the
'.':<,)plica tion.
CM-4-216
October 14, 1985
Regular Meeting
,,-. Moffatt reported that Mr. Rich Nelson from Chevron had advised him that .-
'".;-'::,.en though he was opposed to trucks parking at their facility, he would be
willing to allow more time for Dublin truckers to work out the problem.
Cm. Moffatt questioned the legality of registering truckers just from Dublin.
City Attorney Nave indicated that he would have to do some research to
determine if Dublin could designate certain industrial streets for Dublin
truckers only.
Mr. Parker pointed out that Section 22507 of the California Vehicle Code
states that preferential parking can be granted to residents.
Cm. Jeffery questioned if the City issued permits and a fee is required,
could this fee be designated toward any damage caused to the streets by the
trucks. City Attorney Nave indicated that the fees could go into the street
fund for repairs, etc.
Cm. Vonheeder admitted that the entire Council had anguished over this
situation and she didn't want to close the door on Dublin truckers. Cm.
Vonheeder indicated she would like to see parking by permit for the next 6
months as a compromise.
City Attorney Nave indicated that the Council could adopt the ordinance with
~n effective date 6 months in the future, and this would obviate the need fOe..
,~~~mits. After reviewing the Vehicle Code further, Mr. Nave stated he felt '
-,:,.":'-O::at permits could be issued to Dublin truckers on a specific street only if .
trtey owned a business on that particular street.
Cm. Hegarty indicated he did not feel it appropriate to adopt the ordinance
with a 6 month future effective date. The Council should wait and adopt the
ordinance at that time. The answer needs further study.
City Attorney Nave stated that if the ordinance is adopted on an urgency
basis, it will require a 4/5 vote. If the urgency clause is removed, it can
be adopted by a simple majority.
Cm. Jeffery felt there were several ~hings under consideration. Nothing
official has been submitted by the American City Truck Stop, and an ordinance
is needed.
Cm. ~effery questioned the status of any application submitted by American
City. Planning Director Tong indicated that their application is being
reviewed through the site development review process. American City's
application has expired and an application for a new CUP has been submitted
but is incomplete.
Cm. Jeffery questioned if a condition could be added that a certain number of
slots be allocated to Dublin residents.
.-
........
CM-4-217
Regular Meeting
October 14, 1985
.'"
!.' motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
~~~~ Council deleted the urgency clause, agreed to an effective date of
April 15, 1986, waived the reading and introduced an ordinance providing for
limited parking of certain commercially licensed vehicles.
The Council also reiterated that enforcement should be toughened so as to not
allow any truck parking in residential areas.
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING
LOADING ZONE (YELLOW CURB) AND NO PARKING ZONE (RED CURB)
ON GOLDEN GATE DRIVE
Crown Chevrolet has requested a loading zone to allow auto
to unload without double parking on Golden Gate Drive just
Boulevard.
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
Crown's requested loading zone would be across the street fro
front of Great Western Savings on the west side of Golden G e Drive, where a
driveway and an adjacent red zone (for a fire hydrant) wo a allow the trucks
to pull into the unloading zone.
.:."a.t Western Savings has indicated they would obj,ec to a loading zone on
',:-,::,'.:her side of the street at this time. Crown Che olet has a five hundred
~~~t plus frontage on the east side of Golden Ga Drive. A total of 6 on-
street parking spaces would be removed as a res of this loading zone.
PUBLIC HE
~PARKI (RED CURB) ON REGIONAL STREET
.-' ..10 Snyder opened the public hearing.
Staff recommended a loading zone at the sou
of Crown's southerly driveway on the east
twenty foot red zone would be establish
loading zone.
of the frontage just north
Golden Gate Drive. A
the driveway and the
No public comments were made.
Mayor Snyder closed the
:-"
On motion of Cm. Jeffery,
Council waived the readi
conded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the
and adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 26 - 85
ESTABLISHING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
ZONES & NO PARKING ZONES ON GOLDEN GATE DRIVE)
* * * *
has requested red curbing adjacent to their driveway
CM-4-218
October 14, 1985
Regular Meeting
l,. ,':'!lotion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by ,
t~~ Council directed Staff to point out that this par ' a ternative is
one of several that the Consultant is st' ~ng. Therefore, it is
important that the Distric e the necessa~y information in order that
the Cities m ely evaluate the various fire service options
e to each City.
.
* * * *
[PUBLIC HEARING
TWO-HOUR TRUCK PARKING ORDINANCE-SECOND READING
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
At the regular City Council meeting on October 14, 1985, the City Council
conducted its third public hearing on a proposed ordinance restricting the
long-term parking of large commercial vehicles.
The ordinance provides .for a maximum of two-hour parking for vehicles
weighing more than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. Specific exemptions
are provided for vehicles involved with loading and unloading activities.
The ordinance is proposed to address concerns related to the long term
storage of commercial vehicles on public streets. A two-hour restriction
will allow the operators time to avail themselves of adjacent services. The
City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the existing conditions and recommended .
th~ ordinance based on concerns related to safety, congestion, decreased
j->_;.::ement life and aesthetics.
At the public hearing on October 14, 1985, the proposed ordinance was
amended. The original ordinance was proposed as an urgency measure. The
amendment provided for an effective date of April 15, 1986.
Subsequent to the October 14, 1985 meeting, Staff has contacted a repre-
sentative of American City Truck stop. They have indicated that they
anticipate having space available once Admiral Moving & Storage develops a
new warehouse on the rear parcel, located along Houston Place. This project
is now undergoing a site development review by the Planning Department.
Representatives of Admiral storage have indicated that they are planning to
obtain building permits and proceed with construction once the Planning
Department approvals are granted. The time frame for construction will be
dependent on whether and other impacts on the construction process. The
American City representative indicated tha~ they now have a waiting list.
They'anticipate that nearly all of the available spaces would be obtained by
individuals on the waiting list.
Cm. Jeffery questioned how many spaces would be available.
Assistant to the City Manager Rankin responded that he believed approximately
.13 spaces would be available, and the waiting list consists of 10.
r~~~l Keller stated she felt the truckers had lost their fight and big 1 .
-.~~~~ness had won, but thanked the City Council for giving them until Apri ,
1~86 to find alternate parking. Ms. Keller indicated she was 4th on the list
for space at American City Truck Stop, but was told there was no guarantee.
CM-4-225
Regular Meeting
October 28, 1985
~J Snyder reported that he
-:,:-::)ntions with regard to t~e
had written to Union Oil asking their
development of any facility in the Bay Area.
red Lotse, representing Baker Transportation Company indicated he had been
n Dublin 24 years and stated that what worries him is what truckers who want
o move into the area will do about parking. Mr. Lotse requested that the
ruckers who live in Dublin be allowed to park on a couple of the streets in
own. Because no definite alternatives have been worked out, the truckers
re left hanging.
ayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
'n motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the
:ouncil waived the reading and adopted (effective April 15, 1986),
ORDINANCE NO. 28 - 85
PROVIDING FOR LIMITED PARKING OF CERTAIN
COMMERCIALLY LICENSED VEHICLES
* * * *
>UBLIC HEARING
IIELSEN SCHOOL BUS LOADING ZONE (RED CURB)
.:::.. Snyder openeQ. the public hearing.
~j0Principal of Nielsen School has requested that a bus loading
j.:.-:.-:_::~ided south of the school's south driveway on Amarillo Road.
~he purpose of this red curb would be to provide a place for tw
:0 load and unload students. At the present time, the buses tempt to park
it the curb in the school's loop driveway, however, it is equently not
Jossible due to parents picking up or dropping off chil en. Currently, the
;urb fronting the school is signed as a loading zone The proposed ordinance
iould revise the existing ordinance and set aside 0 feet of red curb marked
is a bus loading zone.
:ro. Hegarty questioned the affect of this rking restriction during non-
school months and if something could eve loped that would allow other
?arking during non-school hours.
3eth Grant DeRoos stated that t City of Piedmont has bus loading zones
narked "no parking, bus load' g zone 8 a.m:'-4 p.m., Monday - Friday". Ms.
JeRoos felt the council s Id consider adopting an across-the-board
~rdinance regarding all chool loading zones in Dublin.
~s. Diane Griffit , Nielsen School Principal, indicated she would be happy
with a posting ating that parking is prohibited during school hours only.
.~ation. cm..Hegarty~ secon~ed by ~m. Von~eeder, and ~y unan~mous vote,
, ".--Cou ~l cont~nued th~s publ~c hear~ng unt~l the Counc~l meet~ng of
~__<:'-,,::~ er 12, 1985, i:n order that Staff may incorporate language into the
d:;' nance that would permit parking when school is not in session.
* * * *
CM-4-226
October 28, 1985
Regular Meeting
,.- ,
.'
:>>-:~ Moffatt questioned if there were already existing trees along the route
~hat would happen to these trees. City Engineer Lee Thompson explained at
if a certain area appears too crowded, a tree can be left out here and
there.
stated
allow
~ayor Snyder questioned the timeline for the project. Lee
he anticipated it would be after- the first of the year, in
time to obtain the necessary easements.
Cm. Hegarty stated he felt that trees that turn colors
would be a nice touch to incorporate into the
Cm. Jeffery indicated she was very upset with so of the statements made by
Zone 7 and questioned what some of the avenues ere _that Dublin could
pursue. Cm. Jeffery felt that the fence alo Village Parkway was in
disrepair and that the City should indica to Zone 7 that even though
Dublin does not have a resident on thei oard, we would like equal
consideration. Some of the money gen ated in Dublin should be put back,
into the community.
ed by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote,
solicit easements from the property owners
the north end of the project, and further
to Zone 7 asking for their cooperation and
.~
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seco
the Council authorized Staff
adjacent to the precast wa at
directed Staff to send a etter
r:,-:-::::ticipation in the 12 oj ect
.." ',I
<:.-:1
.". '.
OTHER
* * * *
Leaque Leqislative Briefinq
Assist t to the City Manager Paul Rankin reminded the Council that on
Nove er 8th, the League of CA Cities is holding a legislative update meeting
in akland and those wishing to attend needed to advise Staff so that
eservations could be made.
* * * *
Truck Parking Ordinance Discussion at Mayors' Conference
Mayor Snyder reported that questionnaires_will be distributed at an upcoming
Alameda Couny Mayors' Conference meeting which is being hosted by Dublin on
November 13th. The questionnaire will ask if truck parking is a major
problem in their community; if there should be involvement on the part of the
Mayors' Conference and if yes, what action is suggested.
em. Jeffery felt that the various cities could ban together to come up with a
solution.
* * * *
.
'-. - .:
CM-4-232
Regular Meeting
October 28, 1985