Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-22-1987REGULAR MEETIN,G -,..june 22:198~7 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, June 22, 1987 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Mayor Linda Jeffery. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Jeffery. Councilmembers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council giance to the flag. Hegarty, Moffatt, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor , Staff and those present in the pledge of alle- Oakland Zoo Raffle Mr. Gordon Brandt, a 19 year Dublin resident, advised the Council that he is a Trustee of the Oakland Zoo. They are attempting to conduct a fund raiser, with a raffle being held on Saturday. When he questioned the City regarding the procedure for selling tickets, he was advised that he needs the property owners permission and was then told he must conduct his sales inside of a building rather than outside. City Manager Ambrose advised that this has been discussed with the City Attorney and the Police Chief. Mike Riback, Acting City Attorney advised that a raffle is prohibited by state law. This is defined as a lottery. Mr. Brandt advised that they have been advised by legal counsel that they are offering chances to win for a tax-deductible donation. The tickets do not have to be purchased. Attorney Riback advised that if the District Attorney says this is in compliance with the State Penal Code, then this activity would be allowable. If it were properly publicized that someone could get a ticket without purchasing it, and this was done to the satisfaction of the DA, then it would comply. Mr. Brandt advised that he will have his stand outside at Pak N Save on Thursday, so if the City feels it must, it can send an officer out to arrest him. Staff advised Mr. Brandt that it should be a fairly easy task to simply contact the District Attorney's Office. &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* & CM-6-191 Regular Meeting June 22, 1987 Meals...on Whee..!s p...rogram Funding Phil Flores, Chairman of the Dublin San Ramon Drop in Center, addressed the Council and indicated they are in trouble with~their sponsored Dial-A-Ride Meals on Wheels program. As of June 18th, theY are going to discontinue serving Dublin and San Ramon, however he had just learned that they will continue until the end of the month. They currently serve about 18 people. They must come up with $6,000 to keep the program going for another year. Cm. Snyder questioned how many Dublin residents are served, and if Dublin could consider a proportionate share of the funding. Mr. Flores responded that he believed that there were 5. He wasn't sure of how the fUnding Would work. Mayor Jeffery indicated that this could be added to the requests for consideration which would be discussed the following night at the Budget Hearing. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of RegUlar Meeting of June 8, 1987; Approved Financial Report for Period Ending May 31, 1987; Received a report on the Spring 1987 Recreation Program; Authorized Staff to advertise Contract 87-7, Phase I, Dolan Park Improvements for bid; Appropriated 1986-87 unappropriated revenues to each fund's reserve for authorized projects; Accepted improvements under Contract 86-4, Dublin Boulevard @ Sierra Court Street Reconstruction, Traffic Signal, Street Lighting and Landscaping; authorized retention payment to Steiny & co., Inc., in the amount of $20,918.80; and authorized a budget transfer of $3,757 for costs over budget for Fiscal Year 1986-87; Accepted improvements under Contract 87-3, Street SlUrry Seal Program and authorized payment to McReynolds Paving, Inc., in the amount of $24,402; Accepted improvements under Contract 87-2, Annual Street Overlay and authorized payment in the amount of $226,890.40 to Teichert Construction; Approved an option on the Senior Citizens Center which would provide for renovation of the entire building and bring it into compliance with applicable State codes; directed Staff to include an additional $46,650 from &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* & CM-6-192 Regular Meeting June 22, 1987 the General Reserve in the Update to the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program; and authorized the architect to prepare construction documents based on the approved design; Accepted improvements under Contract 86-7, Sierra Court Southerly Extension and released the letter of credit to Robert Quatman, Inc.; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $1,162,461.00. REQUEST FOR CLOSURE OF BURTON STREET FOR 4TH OF JULY BLOCK PARTY Residents of Burton Street have requested and received permission to close their street, which extends for approximately one block between Amador Valley Boulevard and Tamarack Drive for a 4th of July block party for the last several years. The City of Dublin, until March 1, 1986, had commercial insurance coverage. In the past, this closure was approved based on compliance with barricading provided and tended by residents of the block, alcoholic beverages restricted to adults and fireworks limited to approved "safe and sane" types and super- vised by adults. In 1986, the City requested that residents participating in the party provide the names of their insurance carriers and their policy numbers. The City Attorney's Office has advised that the City require the homeowners to provide a certificate of insurance showing a one-day rider that would cover the block party. Staff advised Ms. Landreth of the insurance requirement and upon contacting her insurance agent, Ms. Landreth was advised that the premium for a one-day event with $i million in coverage would be $600. Staff informed Ms. Landreth that she might wish to investigate a $500,000 policy, as tenants of Shannon Center are allowed t© provide. David Landreth questioned what the penalties would be if they withdrew their request and still conducted their party. Staff advised that there would be no problem if they held the party in their yards. Jeanne Landreth advised that this neighborhood has held this block party for the past 10 years and they show their young people that it is not necessary to spend a lot of money on -celebrations. Safety is of the utmost importance. She advised that they would be willing to sign a waiver to not hold the City responsible, but were advised that this could not be done. They feel this is unjust. The Police Department has referred to their group as a mob. She stated the City has no idea of what their block party actually is. City Manager Ambrose advised that if they have no encroachment permit, they would not be allowed to conduct any of their games in the street. The. problem is that the CitY has incurred more than a quarter million dollars in claims in the last year. When the City sanctions an event, we are put in a very precarious position. &*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*& CM-6-193 Regular Meeting JUne 22, 1987 Cm. Hegarty felt that when the street is blocked off, there is less chance of an accident and therefore the City's liability eXposure would be less. He relayed the instance of when Silvergate Drive was closed for about 2 weeks. Mr. Rankin advised that the contractor assumed liability for the closure of Silvergate Drive and posted an insurance certificate with the City. Ms. Landreth questioned where it is legal to do fireworks. Mr. Ambrose responded that. it is legal on private property only. Glen Forbes introduced himself as being somewhat familiar with this as he was a City Attorney for 21 years and is also familiar with the fireworks industry. He felt there may be available through the fireworks industry, some type of special coverage. He indicated that he could research this and that it would take approximately one week. Betty Heller reported that last year they submitted copies of their homeoWners policies. She felt that if the street is left open, and someone is hit by a car going down the street at 75 mph, then they could sue the City. People on the block could get hurt if the street isn't closed. Sue Hammons reported that she moved to Burton Street 2 years ago and has 4 young boys. She questioned if there wasn't some type of waiver that, the City could come up with. Acting Attorney Riback indicated that the problem with this is it doesn't cover someone who might drive through a barricade, plus this type of waiver cannot cover minors' rights. Cm. Moffatt suggested bringing together all of the homeowners policies to try to reach some kind of resolution to this situation. Mr. Ambrose indicated that what this actually boils down to is what kind of exposure is the Council willing to accept. It is up to the Council to decide. Mayor Jeffery questioned if the City got a rider, would this cover more than just Burton Street. Mr. Rankin reported that the coverage we checked on would be a separate cover issued under the Shannon Center tenants policy and it excludes alcoholic beverages. Cm. Vonheeder felt that it was no longer a matter of who is negligent, but rather who has the deepest pockets. This is a very discouraging position to be in because activities that go on on Burton Street are what we want to encourage in the City. It's especially difficult because the Council must sit on a fence and protect everyone from everyone else. She indicated that she would like to see the City accept the fact that they all have homeowners insurance. &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &*&* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* & CM-6-194 Regular Meeting June 22, 1987 Cm. Hegarty questioned the group as to how much of the $600 they would be willing to come up with. The group indicated that they would have to have a bench meeting to decide. They were informed that they could obtain $500,000 in coverage for $475. They did not ask about alcohol because this is not one of their priorities. They asked if the City could subsidize them in any way for the insurance. Attorney Riback stated that if the City wants to co-sponsor this activity, he did not believe that it would be a gift of public funds. However, it would be necessary for Burton Street to invite the entire community to the block party in this case. Or, you would have to make the same provision for anyone else that would request it. A1 Bell, a 12 year Dublin resident questioned the nature of the increase in claims. He wanted to know 'where does it stop?' Mr. Ambrose reported that the City incurred a loss of $40,000 from someone whO drove in a pothole. Betty Heller stated that either way, the City is going to be liable. Mike Pacer felt that the City is assuming that the liability exposure is greater by blocking off the street, when in fact, he felt that just the opposite is true. Mr. Rankin reported that the City basically becomes uninsured if it issues the permit. We are not trying to say one way or the other is best. Under California law, simply having a certificate is not enough. Dr. Jerry Kaplan advised the Burton Street residents that he will pay for 1/2 of the insurance policy if the homeowners will match it. Cm. Snyder advised that it is very uncomfortable for the Council to deal with issues such as this. They have a fiduciary responsibility and to blatently open themselves up to potentially damaging situations when they have been advised that it is not in the best interest of the City is very difficult. They do not'want' to create this type of a situation for the rest of the community. It is unfortunate that it is a litiguous society in which we live. He hoped that residents could understand the position of the Council. Mr. Forbes stated that in the event that there is no policy coverage avail- able, he will individually join with Dr. Kaplan to pay the other half of the amount. Attorney Riback clarified that the City would need to be named as an additional insured. Staff advised that everything would need to be taken care of no later than July 2nd, as City Offices will be closed on Friday, July 3rd. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to issue an encroachment permit upon receipt of proof of $500,000 insurance~ &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &*&* &* &*&* & CM-6-195 Regular Meeting June 22, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING i ENEA PLAZA - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RE ZONING · Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that Robert Enea, representing John & Sal Enea, is requesting that the City rezone approximately 5 acres located on the southeast and southwest corners of the intersection of Amador Plaza Road and Dublin Boulevard from a PD, Planned Development District allowing C-O, Administrative Office District uses and limited C-l, Retail Business District uses to a PD, Planned Development District permitting a range of retail shopper, office, personal service and financial uses. This approach parallels the approach used in the San. Ramon Road Specific Plan. Consistent with the General Plan and the Draft Downtown Specific Plan, Staff recommended that a condition be imposed with this project approval to require the Developer to provide for the future dedication and full improvement for that portion of the planned new street linking Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road. The Applicant has indicated that he feels the requirements related to the new street are premature. Staff prepared rough estimates of the costs of the land and physical improvements if the City were required to acquire and construct the new street. The new street would cost $1.4 million to $1.9 million. The Enea Plaza portion of the new street (approximately 330 ft of the 1,980 ft planned roadway) would range from $230,000 to $320,000. The BART portion of the new street would range from $315,000 to $435,000 and BART has indicated a willingness to dedicate and construct their portion of the new street as part of the BART Park & Ride Lot project. If the City Council grants the Enea Plaza's request for relief from their portion of the new street, a precedent may be set for the treatment of future planning applications located in the area. The effect of this action could be to shift some or all of the costs for the new street to the City. Planning Director Tong displayed slides of the area being discussed. Cm. Snyder questioned Staff as to what. timeline is being discussed for development of the street. Mr. Tong responded that no specific time was being discussed, that it would be necessary sometime after the rest of the roadway is built or when an applicant comes in for development of the other properties. Cm. Moffatt questioned where exactly the road would be. Mr. Tong responded that it was yet to be determined. Mr. Geoffrey Etnire, Attorney for the Applicants, indicated that this is a complicated issue. He felt that since he was just recently retained, he has the advantage of coming in to review this issue with a fresh look. A high- &*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*& CM-6-196 Regular Meeting June 22, 1987 quality retail center will be to the advantage of both the City and the Eneas. The question is really the timing of the dedication - why face this now instead of when the remaining 17 acres are developed. Their objections relate to the fairness of Condition #5. They do not feel it is fair at this particular time. The planned roadway may not be contiguous to the parcels being discussed. The rezoning makes sense and they felt their conclusion is simple as there is really no reason to face this issue at this time. They requested that Condition ~5 be deleted. Cm. Snyder questioned how they would propose the dedication be handled in the future. Mr. Etnire indicated that the Eneas expect that with the next development, the dedication would occur. City Manager Ambrose indicated that the project has existing zoning and the only real use permit that the City would process would be a Site Development Review and he felt that this is a weak tool for requesting a dedication. He suggested having the Eneas commit to a date in this document. Clarification was made that the dedication would have to be tied to an event rather than a date. Mayor Jeffery closed the. public hearing. Cm. Hegarty suggested that we require the dedication when this land is developed in phases. Cm. Vonheeder questioned what if Bedford and BART development occurs first. Staff advised that there would be no problem tying dedication and improve- ments to the same point in time. Mayor Jeffery had questions related to the tax responsibility once dedication is made to the City. Attorney Riback indicated that in order for there to be a dedication, there must be a definition of the property line. Cm. Moffatt indicated he would agree to the dedication of land when the Eneas develop their other parcel. He questioned if they would dedicate the road when the other sections of the road are to be built. Mr. Etnire indicated that all along the Eneas have assumed that a dedication will be made. They prefer to discuss this when the remaining 17 acres come in for an application for development. Rich Enea indicated they want to avoid a floating line in their 4 acre parcel and expressed concern that they feel they would be building a road that will go nowhere for possibly 5 years. Cm. Hegarty indicated he wanted it somewhere on the record that someday a road will gO in there with lands being dedicated by the property owners. &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* & CM-6-197 Regular Meeting June 22, 1987 City Manager Ambrose felt that the City has no guarantee that the baCk property will ever be developed. Mr. Ambrose asked how long the study would take to approve the plan line for the location of the road. City Engineer Lee Thompson felt that the study could be done within the next 6 months. Mr. Etnire reiterated his concern that the Eneas do not feel that this request for dedication is proper for consideration of the application before the City. Planning Director Tong indicated that the back parcel could be sold to someone else, and it would put the City in a very awkward situation in trying to get the dedication of the street. Attorney Riback suggested revised language with regard to the timing of the dedication and improvements. A short recess was called to allow Staff to prepare precise wording for the change in the resolution. Ail Councilmembers were present when the meeting was reconvened. Attorney Riback advised that page 2, section 5, sub-paragraphs a) and b) of the resolution approving and establishing findings and general provisions for a PD rezoning, should be changed as follows: "a) At such time as the future development of any portion of the southerly portion of the parcel through which this road is proposed to pass is approved by the City, the developer shall dedicate the right-of-way and construct the road improvements; or in the alternative the developer shall dedicate the right-of-way and provide to the City security in an amount and form approved by the City guaranteeing such construction at such time as the remainder of the proposed street is to be constructed by others, b) If prior to the future development of any portion of the southerly portion of the parcel through which this road is proposed to pass, the remainder of the proposed street is to be constructed by others, the developer shall at that time dedicate the right-of-way and construct the road improvements." Mayor Jeffery questioned if the applicants would approve the proposed change in verbage. Mr. Etnire indicated that the Eneas had not had a chance to respond to the new propOsal. Mayor Jeffery reopened the public hearing in order to give the applicants a chance to respond. Mr. Etnire indicated they still had some problems with the new language. Mayor Jeffery again closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote, the Council adopted &*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&,&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*& CM-6-198 Regular Meeting June 22, 1987 RESOLUTIONiNO. 40 - 87 and A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING PA 87-018, ENEA PLAZA PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING APPLICATION RESOLUTION NO. 41 - 87 APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONCERNING PA 87-018, ENEA PLAZA APPLICATION and waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to permit the rezoning of real property located at the southeast and southwest corners of the intersection of Amador Plaza Road and Dublin Boulevard. Cm. Moffatt.voted against this motion. PUBLIC HEARING KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN - SIGN VARIANCE APPEAL Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. This appeal, which was heard at the City CounCil meeting on June 8, 1987 was continued in order to allow the City Attorney time to review the issue of amortization of an illegal sign. The Applicant's Variance request was to allow a 17 foot tall freestanding sign within the front setback and not within the middle one-third of the lot. The City's Sign Ordinance revisions adopted on May 12, 1986, did not result in changes affecting the Applicant's Variance request. Staff advised that in order for the Applicant to retain the existing sign in its present location, the Council would need to overturn the County Zoning Administrator's denial by adopting a resolution making the following affirmative findings based on fact: 1) the Variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity; 2) special conditions and extraordinary circumstances apply to the property and do not apply to other properties in the vicinity, so that the strict application of this Chapter deprives the property of rights enjoyed by other properties; 3) the VAriance authorized meets the intent and purpose sought to be achieved by the regulations in this Chapter; and 4) the Variance authorized does not adversely affect the orderly development of property and the preservation of property values in the vicinity. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the appeal and determined that the 17 foot freestanding sign is an illegal sign. As an illegal sign, the Applicant's sign is not subject to the removal provision specified for a non-conforming sign. &* &* &* &* &* &* &*&* &* &* &* &* &* &*&* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &*&* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* & CM-6-199 Regular Meeting June 22, 1987 Staff recommended that the Council uphold the 'Zoning Administrator's action denying the Variance request. The resolution includes a blank space for Council to designate a specific date f~r the Applicant to comply with the City's Sign Ordinance. Keith Holmes felt that since the sign was put up with approval, and then it was found to be illegal, he requested 3 years in which to deal with replacing it. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Snyder indicated he would like to allow a reasonable time to amortize the sign and requested the advice of the City Attorney. Attorney Riback indicated that this is not actually an amortization period, but rather a question of what the Council feels is a reasonable period of time in which an illegal sign must be removed. Cm. Snyder felt that an injustice has been created and now the Council must deal with it Cm. Hegarty stated that everyone recognizes that an error was made by Alameda County. However, the law doesn't bend ........... Attorney Riback advised the Council that it would not be setting a legal precedent. Cm. Vonheeder felt that 10 years for the life of a sign is a reasonable period. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majority vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 42 - 87 UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION DENYING V-8422 KEITH HOLMES SIGN VARIANCE FOR KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN (with a date of June 22, 1990 for compliance) Cm. Moffatt voted against this motion. PUBLIC HEARING - SPARK ARRESTORS Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. On April 27, 1987, a public hearing was held in connection with the adoption of the Fire Safe Roof Ordinance and installation of spark arrestors. The City Council directed Staff to investigate the feasibility of requiring spark arrestors to be installed within a specified time and to review the standards for spark arrestors. &* &* &* &*&* &*&* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &*&* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &*&* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* & CM-6-200 Regular Meeting June 22, 1987 The Building Official estimates that there are 2,800 homes in Dublin with fireplaces that are not equipped with spark arrestors. Costs for the installation of spark arrestors, in the event the Council adopted thc ordinance were discussed. The Planning Commission recommended that the ordinance require spark arrestors be installed at the time of sale or when alterations costing over $1,000 are done. Staff also presented an ordinance requiring spark arrestors to be installed within 6 months. The Council may, however, wish to consider an alternate date for compliance. A Resolution was presented which would'establish that the City Council finds that the ordinance and requirement for spark arrestors is necessary because of climatic and topographical conditions. State law requires the findings to be made whenever local building regulations are adopted that differ from the regulations adopted by the State Department of Community Development. Cm. Moffatt asked questions related to the permit process. Mr. Taugher indicated that we would need some kind of an accounting system and the cost of a permit would have to be determined. The minimum fee in the current schedule is $20. Mayor Jeffery questioned if this applied to all units in Dublin, not just single family homes. She questioned apartments and businesses. Mr. Taugher advised that as a practical matter, multiple family units already have spark arrestors. Cm. Moffatt questioned business such as restaurants with fireplaces. Mr. Taugher indicated he would need to check into this. Greg Smith, a Dublin resident felt that if you have to spend $25 for the spark arrestor, and then have to pay $20 for a permit, this seems steep to cover the bureaucracy. Susan Hurl, Southern Alameda County Board of Realtors felt that if the real concern of the Council is to fireproof homes in Dublin, it should not be done at resale. Ms. Hurl presented statistics that indicated that in a good year, only about 10% of the homes turn over. Ray Tem, a Dublin resident indicated that he is not planning on selling for a long time. He just bought and installed spark arrestors. He would like to see the permit fee reduced. Mr. Taugher reported that Staff could bring back a fee modification at the second reading of the ordinance if this is what the Council desires. &*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*& CM-6-201 Regular Meeting June 22, 1987 Lyn Dinelli, a Dublin resident reported that two years ago, she had her chimney cleaned and a spark arrestor installed and the total cost was $45 for cleaning and $10 for the spark arrestor. Bill Burnham questioned who would go down to City Hall to buy a permit to put on a $25 spark arrestor. He also reported that there is no State or U L approved spark arrestor. Captain Hathcox, DSRSD Fire Department indicated that major fire codes provide specifications for spark arrestors. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Vonheeder indicated that they had put on a spark arrestor in the past and it had messed up the draw of the fireplace. Cm. Vonheeder expressed concern regarding the permit fee. Cm. Moffatt suggested requiring a permit, but without a fee. Cm. Vonheeder felt this would be acceptable as long as City offices are open in the evenings so people who work out of Dublin can get one. Cm. Hegarty felt we should modify the fee schedule. The City is merely trying to help keep houses from burning down. Cm. Hegarty made a motion to introduce an ordinance which would require that spark arrestors be installed on all existing chimneys within 6 months and that the Council review the fee schedule. This motion died for lack of a second to the motion. Cm. Moffatt then indicated he would like to pass the same motion, but require no permit. He then referred to the Staff Report, and revised his motion. Cm. Moffatt made a motion to introduce an ordinance which would require spark arrestors to be installed on existing chimneys whenever work exceeding $1,000 in value is done and without a permit. This motion died for lack of a second to the motion. Cm. Vonheeder felt that in this case you would be covered because you would need to get a permit for the building work. Mayor Jeffery clarified the motion made by cm. Moffatt that spark arrestors be installed on existing chimneys whenever work exceeding $1,000 in value is done and without a permit, and when the property is sold. Mayor Jeffery indicated she was not clear on what he meant by no permit required. Cm. Moffatt stated he meant at the time of sale. Cm. Snyder felt this would be very confusing and questioned if Cm. Moffatt's intention was to adopt Exhibits 1 and 2. Cm. Moffatt responded that he wanted to introduce the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. Cm. Snyder felt that in this case, someone has to justify during a sale that &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* & CM-6-202 Regular Meeting June 22, 1987 there is a spark arrestor on the home. Someone has to go out and inspect it or certify it. We are then justified in accepting a fee. Cm. Moffatt stated that he is basically trying to get away from the $20 permit. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm.'Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and.INTRODUCED an ordinance requiring spark arrestors to be installed on existing chimneys whenever work exceeding $1,000 in value is done and that spark arrestors be installed on an existing chimney whenever the house is sold. Every time a house is sold it is to be inspected. Cm. Hegarty felt that the City will potentially have to wait 20 years to make it safe, and even then it's not assured. Cm. Snyder felt that this ordinance is better than having nothing at all. He did not feel that the 20 year figure is reasonable. Council discussion was held related to the fact that many homes in Dublin are reaching the potential lifetime of their original roof and everytime someone reroofs their house, they must get a permit and thereby would have to install a spark arrestor at that time. Cm. Vonheeder questioned why not let the City pay instead of repairing sidewalks. Mr. Taugher reported that a date contained in the ordinance related to the sale or exchange of property would need to be changed. PUBLIC HEARING FIREWORKS - ORDINANCE REGULATING SALE AND USE Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. At the May 11, 1987, Council meeting, the Council directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance which would prohibit the use of fireworks in the City of Dublin. Additional information was also requested on the regulation of fireworks by surrounding communities. Staff determined that the Cities of San Leandro, Union City and Dublin are the only municipalities in Alameda County which allow the sale and use of fireworks. Alameda County took action in April to prohibit the sale of fireworks in the unincorporated areas following the 4th of JulY celebration this year. The City Attorney has included the term "regulated fireworks'' in the proposed ordinance. There is currently'legislation pending in Sacramento which would remove the reference to "safe and sane fireworks" and impose the term "regulated fireworks". Both terms are used in the proposed ordinance in order to avoid the need for an amendment, if the State Law changes. &* &* &* &* &*&* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* & CM-6-203 Regular Meeting June 22, 1987 The proposed ordinance would prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, purchase and use of fireworks. An exemption has been provided whereby the City could conduct a public display of fireworks at an approved site, pursuant to the rules and regulations of the State Fire Marshall. Gordon Swanson, Assistant Fire Chief indicated that his department definitely supports this issue and would like to see a total banning of all fireworks. Cm. Moffatt questioned how many fires occurred last year. Fire Department personnel responded that there were 8 fires last year that caused some damage due to fireworks. The approximate amount of damage was about $10,000. Lyn Dinelli, a Dublin resident, indicated that she appreciated what the City Council must go through. She stated she realizes the dangers, but still feels regret at the thought of not being able to share the pleasures of fireworks with her children. She felt the real issue is management and this issue shOuld be put into perspective. Greg Smith, representing Dublin Little League indicated that groups sell fireworks to raise money and they are a tremendous fund raiser. As a parent. resident, and individual, he indicated that he appreciates the Fire ~ ~ Department's position, but safe and sane fireworks are a cornerstone of our country. Mr. Smith felt that $10,000 damage caused by fireworks is a fairly insignificant amount - until it happens to his house. Cm. Snyder commented that he felt Mr. Smith's last statement was very profound. Fire Captain Hathcox indicated that it is sometimes difficult to put a dollar loss on a fire. Two years ago, a fireman fell from a 2-story roof while fighting a fire, and he is still suffering from this injury. Harvey Scudder, a Dublin resident, spoke in support of a banning ordinance. He felt this would remove the cover for illegal fireworks. He felt it is a matter of cutting down an unnecessary risk. A1 Bell, a Dublin resident, felt that since last time the City voted on this issue, it should again be put back to the people. He is involved with sports groups and the sale of fireworks helps the groups. Mayor Jeffery pointed out that the last eleCtion was advisory only, and was not binding on the City Council. Glen Kaplan felt that fireworks loOk neat, but they are kind of dangerous. He watches older kids lighting them, and they do cause litter. Cindy Cobb-Adams, Newport Court resident, indicated that she agreed that the issue should go back to the people to decide. Bill Burnham felt the issue Should be voted on by the people and questioned the recourse of people if it goes through. Staff advised that it could go to a referendum. &*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*& CM-6-204 Regular Meeting June 22, 1987 Doris Felton, Betlen Drive resident indicated that people come from out of this area to use fireworks. Ms. Felton relayed instances of damage for the last 3 years. She felt it was irritating year after year to have to stay home to protect her property from potential fire damage as a result of fireworks. She felt that if fireworks are allowed, there should be a policeman and fire trucks at the end of the street. She indicated that she works for a non-profit organization and there are many ways to raise funds. Glen Forbes, representing the fireworks industry indicated that there are different elements in Dublin than other jurisdictions. Newark and Livermore also allOw safe and sane fireworks. Mr. Forbes gave a brief history of how the advisory election came about. If the Council now overturns this decision,.they are overturning the vote of the people. If the Council bans safe and sane fireworks, they will be increasing the useage of illegal fireworks. Mr. Forbes advised that in Los Angeles, 99.1% of damage caused by fireworks was done by dangerous and illegal fireworks. Cm. Snyder advised Mr. Forbes that the 1982 election was advisory only and only 3 Councilmembers voted for the ordinance to allow fireworks. The ordinance was then amended to make it illegal for anyone under 18 years of age. Dr. Kaplan, a Danville resident who practices in the burn unit at Alta Bates Hospital in Berkeley indicated that he makes his living taking care of burn victims. He has a keen interest in burn prevention and anything that he can do to prevent a single burn injury, he will do. The basic problem is that fireworks operate by burning. Sparklers reach temperatures of 1800 degrees. He is a Cub Scout leader and has kids in Little League. Fireworks are banned in all of Contra Costa County and somehow the programs have survived. The Council must make a decision regarding risks versus benefits. The City could potentially be liable for someone getting burned by fireworks because they have allowed their sale. Glen Forbes requested the City Attorney's opinion regarding the City's liability. He stated that the fireworks industry is just as concerned with safety as is Dr. Kaplan. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Hegarty felt that everything sound the same as it did 5 years ago - nothing has changed. He questioned why not have another advisory election. Cm. Moffatt questioned if this could be onto the School Board election in November. Cm. Vonheeder indicated that she was not a member of the Council in 1982, but felt that the Council abrogated their responsibility by putting it to the voters then and does not feel that the process is proper unless we go back to the people. Mayor Jeffery did not. feel it necessary to go to a vOte. It is contradictory for adults to sell fireworks to children when they can hurt them. She felt that feelings have changed considerably in the community. There are other &*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*& CM-6-205 Regular Meeting June 22, 1987 ways to enjoy fireworks other than on the public streets. Dollars played very heavily in the last election. Red Devil was very generous with their money. Mayor Jeffery felt that if the citizens do not want a ban, they can Pursue a referendum and it would be much stronger in this case. Cm. Hegarty stated he did not feel that any fireworks are safe and sane, however,.it should be put on the ballot as a Council initiative. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote, the Council agreed that the issue of whether or not to ban the sale, use and possession of fireworks should be put on the ballot as a Council initative. Cm. Snyder and Mayor Jeffery voted against this motion. PUBLIC HEARING BUS STOPS ON DUBLIN BOULEVARD @ SIERRA COURT Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. This ordinance was introduced at the City Council meeting of June 8, 1987 and would provide for bus stops to be installed on an experimental basis for up to one year. They may or may not become permanent, depending upon the number of persons using the stop. No comments were made by members of the public. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 33 - 87 ESTABLISHING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS (Bus Stops on Dublin Boulevard @ Sierra Court) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE RELATING TO OPERATION OF TAXICABS Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that this ordinance relates to the operation of taxicabs within the incorporated limits of the City. The ordinance sets forth the minimum insurance coverage as required by state law, use of a taximeter, schedule of rates, permit application procedures for both owners and operators, and the City recommended insurance coverage which is higher than the minimum state requirement. Mayor Jeffery questioned if this included limos. Chief Severini responded that it did. &*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*& & & & & & & & & & & & CM-6-206 Regular Meeting June 22, 1987 Cm. Moffatt questioned if limos would have to have a meter. Chief Severini stated he believed there would be set fees established. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance relating to the operation of taxicabs. PUBLIC HEARING REVENUE SHARING BUDGET AMENDMENT Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that during the preparation of the 1986-87 Budget, the receipt of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds were not anticipated. This was due to a termination of the program. Subsequent to the adoption of the Budget, the City received one payment. In addition to the funds received, the City has interest earnings which have accrued to the fund. A public hearing is required to Obtain input on the appropriation of Revenue Sharing Funds. Staff recommended that the appropriation be made to fund costs associated with the provision of Police Services. Staff recommended that this budget be amended to fund $51,825 of the 1986-87 total of $1,139,940 with Revenue Sharing Funds. No comments were made by members of the public. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm.~Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 43 - 87 AMENDING THE 1986-87 BUDGET FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATING FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS OTHER BUSINESS __ ~!ameda ...g9unty Fa,ir. City Manager Ambrose advised the Council that fair tickets are available in City Offices. Anyone needing them should contact Kay. &*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*&*& CM-6-207 Regular Meeting June 22, 1987 Tri-Valley Joint Council Meeting Cm. Vonheeder indicated that at the Tri-Valley Joint Council meeting, it appears that all cities are headed toward a joint transportation plan. They would like to try to coordinate construction of roads. There was a feeling expressed that the Counties need to be players in this effort, but the cities need to be the leaders. By Council consensus, Staff was directed to place this issue on a future agenda. Lib~rary Support Cm. Hegarty requested that Staff write a thank you letter to Assemblyman Baker for his support with regard to Library services. CLOSED SESSION At 11:44 pom., the Council recessed to a closed executive session to discuss pending litigation, City of Dublin vs. BART and personnel related matters. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m. &* &* &* &* &* &*&* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &*&* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* &* & CM-6-208 Regular Meeting June 22, 1987