Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-24-1986REGULAR MEETING - February 24, 1986 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, February 24, 1986 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Peter Snyder. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt, Vonheeder and Mayor Snyder. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alleg- iance to the flag. STORM DAMAGE Ms. Barbara Luna, 11530 of Padre Way, questioned the City's position and responsibility with regard to the creek that runs behind the homes on Padre Way. It took the City quite a while to respond and she questioned who owned the creek and what happens when and if an overflow problem occurs again. The culvert still had not been cleaned out. Mr. Fernando Uribe, 11553 Padre Way indicated there is an easement in his back yard, supposedly to allow the City to come in and maintain this culvert. Mr. Pat Dailey, Padre Way expressed concern regarding Hatfield Development's possible responsibility in this issue. The City inspects their development, and .they were warned at specific times that there was a possibility of damage to the yards along Padre Way. City Engineer Lee Thompson displayed information indicating that this tract was built prior to Dublin's incorporation. The storm drain facility and culvert were designed by Creegan & D'Angelo Engineering Firm and final approval was issued by Alameda County. The easements shown on the Final Map were offered for dedication, but rejected by the County, as is the practice in all areas where water originates'on private property. The creek, therefore, is the responsibility of the individual property owners. Mayor Snyder indicated there was a lot of documentation related to what had happened this last week. Mayor Snyder reported that he backed Staff entirely, in that anyone that would be out there the long hours and the dedication that was given to the problem that was not actually the City's. He felt the Staff had gone above and beyond the call of duty in responding to this situation. The property owners questioned what the City would do to ensure that this doesn't happen again. City Manager Ambrose clarified that the City went in on a goodwill basis to assist the home owners with this problem, b~t reiterated that the City is not responsible for this problem. The home *************************************************************************** CM-5-32 Regular Meeting February 24, 1986 owners have the ultimate responsibility since the problem is on their own private property. The City owns property adjacent to these sites which will be developed as a park site. City Attorney Nave gave a legal overview of the situation, and indicated the City had made quite an investigation, spending approximately 70-100 hours in trying to determine the potential causes of this problem. Cm. Jeffery indicated that when the plans originally were reviewed through DSRSD, it was argued that drainages should not be on private property, but the County went ahead and did it anyway. Mr. Luna questioned who will oversee the Hatfield construction and how long it would take to determine if the Hatfield Development was responsible for some of the problem. Staff responded that the City oversees the construction on an ongoing basis. If a lawsuit occurs, it may not be a simple matter to make a public disclosure. Mr. Nave stated that because the City is on notice that there is a problem, it is therefore incumbent upon the City to do what it can under the law to protect future problems from occuring. A lot of time will be spent in the review process of the plans & specifications of the different uphill developments to ensure that in the City's best expertise from an engineering standpoint that the drainage problems are handled. The developers are also on notice, and Hatfield did in fact send down equipment to help unplug the clog. They are aware that something has occurred upstream that is causing problems downstream. The law says that all reasonable steps must be taken to prevent this happening again in the future. Soil Engineering tests were discussed. Staff explained that each developer provides this information and the City then checks it. The City does not have the money or the Staff to obtain a second soils test. Mr. Dyer, a Bloomington Court resident indicated he had had problems in the past (November) that were not necessarily the City's problem. The City Staff, however, responded promptly and addressed the problem to which the Developer did not respond. Mr. Dyer commended the Engineering & Public Works Staff for their prompt and curteous response. Mr. Dyer indicated his concern regarding the stability of the created hill above Bloomington, and questioned what leverage the City has with the Developer. Mr. Thompson reported that Estate Homes did indeed respond and the heavy equipment used was theirs. Mr. Dyer questioned if damages caused by this storm was the ultimate responsibility of the Developer. Mr. Nave responded that it could possibly be determined as the Developer having partial responsibility, but also being partially an 'Act of God'. Mr. Hans Higon relayed a past experience he had while living in Devonshire Canyon in San Carlos. They had a similar flooding/erosion problem and the homeowners formed teams that would work around the clock to keep the CM-5-33 Regular Meeting February 24, 1986 drains clear every time a large storm occurred. An attempt was made to form an assessment district which would have cost the homeowners' an estimated $2 million. Ms. Luna felt that Developers don't care what happens once they finish their projects. She indicated she would like the City to exert more control over the developers when they are building. City Staff explained the various checkpoints and approvals that developers must go through when building projects. Mayor Snyder indicated that in the midst of this storm, he got a telephone call from one of the residents. City Staff had already been working toward alleviating the situation and as far as was then known, the City has no easements for maintenance of drainage channels. The person then became very irate, and questioned why the City did not tell them that the easements are really not easements. Everyone who buys a home must exercise their responsibility to look very closely at what the deed says. In this case, it is very clear that the County did not accept the drainage system and it was probably for the obvious reason that they did not want the responsibility for it. Drainage for the uphill development was discussed. Lee Thompson explained that there were 3 different systems in operation which did prevent water from getting into any of the homes. Mr. Zev Kahn, 11708 Harlan Road, questioned if Hatfield could grade in smaller sections, in order to minimize damage. Mr. Gary Cox, Bloomington Way, indicated he had questioned drainage when he purchased his property. He wanted to know if he was in control or his neighbor. The story changed 3 times. His back fence is in front of the drain and if the people above him do not take care of the drain, he will be the one to suffer the consequences. Mayor Snyder summarized that the City has not waivered from its position of ~making sure that developers maintain an area of responsibility, and the night of the heavy storm, every developer had a crew out responding. Mr. Luna questioned if this issue could be agendized for one month in the future. The Council responded that he could obtain any desired information from City Offices. Mr. Luna stated he would rather have his questions answered at a Council meeting. Staff asked Mr. Luna exactly what his questions were. The City Attorney indicated that if there were new developments, Mr. Luna could be advised, but if litigation ensues, it would not be a proper item to be agendized. Mr. Luna indicated that he did not understand what the problem was with putting this on a future agenda. City Manager Ambrose advised Mr. Luna that at this point he could not determine whether it would be one week, one month or six months until Staff develops any additional information with respect to this particular problem. CM-5-34 Regular Meeting February 24, 1986 Stop Sign Request Mr. George Butler, Bloomington Court, asked the procedure for getting stop signs installed. City Manager Ambrose suggested that Mr. Butler submit a letter to City Offices and the City Traffic Engineer will then review the request, and a report will be made to the City Council. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the CoUncil took the following actions: Approved Financial Report for period ending January 31, 1986; Accepted improvements under Contract 85-5B, construction of office/storage building at City corporation yard on Scarlett Court and authorized, payment of retention in the amount of $4,.257.40 to Page Construction Company; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 18 - 86 ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE REPAIR OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS DEEMED TO BE PEDESTRIAN HAZARDS Authorized Staff to advertise Contract 86-3, Annual Sidewalk Program for bids; and authorized budget adjustment to reflect revised funding of Arroyo Vista sidewalk connection project; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 19 - 86 ACCEPTING FOR THE PUBLIC A GRANT DEED 5 ACRE PARK AT DOLAN SCHOOL SITE Accepted improvements under Contract 85-2, Landscaping & Irrigation of Dublin Boulevard, Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway; authorized payment of retention of $36,376.91 to Valley Crest Landscape, Inc.; and authorized appropriation from the Reserve for Authorized Projects in the amount of $30,200; Approved agreement with PG&E regarding Dublin Boulevard utility under- grounding and authorized payment of $262,433.00 to PG&E; Regarding the Shannon Center Building Improvement Plan, retained the firm of Hansen/Murakami/Eshima, Inc., to prepare plan at a cost not to exceed $14,660.00; and directed Staff to prepare the documents necessary to execute the contract agreement; Approved agreement for legal services and authorized-the Mayor to execute the agreement~ CM-5-35 Regular Meeting February 24, 1986 Approved an agreement with Alameda County to perform building inspection services for those portions of Tracts 5072, 5073 and 5074 (Hatfield Development) located in the unincorporated territory of Alameda County) and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $280,226.79. Cm. Vonheeder requested that the minutes be pulled from the consent calendar for a correction to be made on Page 27. The phrase "no less than" should be corrected to read "no more than". On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the corrected Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 10, 1986; Cm. Hegarty noted that Mr. John Nichandros was present in the audience and requested that the item related to his property be removed for discussion. Mr. Nichandros indicated he had been unable to submit completed plans for his property due to the uncertainty of where San Ramon Road was to be ultimately widened. Mr. Nichandros indicated he had been working with the City Attorney in order to comply with the request to remove materials in order that illegal buildings could be demolished by the June 15, 1986 deadline date. He stated that they will remove the contents and will demolish the buildings themselves. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, directed City Attorney to prepare a contract to remove materials and personal property from Nichandros buildings to be demolished at 7360 San Ramon Road; awarded contract to the low bidder; and authorized MCE Corporation to remove the buildings on-a time and material basis; If Mr. Nichandros completes the required work, this contract will be voided. ABAG DUES INCREASE The Association of Bay Area Governments is proposing an increase of approximately 4.4% in its annual membership dues. This would increase the City's present dues from $1,970 to $2,056 per year. Discussion was held with regard to the fact that ABAG is currently working toward some type of insurance pooling for cities. The City also works with ABAG in the provision of certain employee benefits. Following discussion, on motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to support the dues increase. CM-5-36 Regular Meeting February 24, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING RECREATIONAL 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 which 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 currently 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 prompted the change. Cm. Hegarty indicated that there was considerable input from the community related to this i.ssue. 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. Cm. 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 licensed and operable". CM-5-37 Regular Meeting February 24, 1986 On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and, as amended, INTRODUCED an ordinance amending certain 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. 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 a garbage services agreement and ordinance with Oakland Scavenger Company based on its proposal of December 2, 1985. City Staff and the Assistant City Attorney met with representatives of Oakland Scavenger Company and their Legal Counsel to develop an Ordinance and Proposed Agreements. Staff explained that the regulation of solid waste management is authorized through various sections of the California Government Code. The provisions of the Ordinance provide for the option of the City to enter into an exclusive franchise agreement for the collection and removal of solid waste within the City. The proposed Ordinance contains provisions regulating the operation of a recycling facility and a recycling transporter. The purpose of these provisions is to reduce the opportunity for a waste collection firm to operate under the guise of a recycling firm in violation of the ordinance. Currently, recycling facilities require a Land Use Permit in order to operate within the City. The information collected under the recycling facility permits would not be substantially different than information collected for the Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommended that these two functions be processed simultaneously. Staff also recommended that an amendment be prepared to the resolution which allows non-profit Dublin based organizations to a waiver of specific fees which would also exempt them from any fees for a recycling facility permit. The agreement reflects the specific responsibilities of both Oakland Scavenger Company and the City of Dublin in providing Solid Waste Refuse Collection. The agreement is an exclusive franchise for a period of ten years which will begin on the first day of April, 1986, and contains provisions for an extension beyond the ten year period. The agreement contains provisions for establishing rates through the Refuse Rate Review Committee, established with representatives of various public agencies currently serviced by Oakland Scavenger Company. Provisions are made (Page 13, Section 3.6) for the collection of the franchise fee. The. DSRSD agreement levies a 7.6% franchise fee. If the City maintains this franchise fee, Oakland Scavenger estimates the City's annual franchise fee would be $90,000. If the City continued to levy a 7.6% fee, it would be more than 1% below the average fee levied by other agencies currently serviced by Oakland Scavenger, and it would be able to continue to maintain rates consistent with those imposed by DSRSD. CM-5-38 Regular Meeting February 24, 1986 In July, 1985, a study conducted by the Joint Refuse Rate Review Committee indicated that a rate reduction was possible. It was recommended than an 11% decrease be provided on the commercial rate. DSRSD elected not to implement the 11% decrease as they were uncertain as to the direction the cities would be proceeding. Due to the DSRSD decision to refrain from implementing a rate decrease in July, 1985, additional funds will be flowing to Oakland Scavenger Co'mpany which would not have occurred had the rate reduction been implemented. Oakland Scavenger Company estimates that these additional funds will amount to approximately $77,000. This figure represents an estimate of the funds received by Oakland Scavenger Company betwe'en the period of July 1, 1985 and March 31, 1986, had the 11% rate reduction in commercial rates taken place. Representatives from OSC have indicated agreement with Staff that these funds should not accrue to the benefit of either the company or rate payers in their other franchise areas. Therefore, Staff proposed that OSC determine the precise amount of funds and present a proposal to the RRRC to protect these funds for use within the community in which they have been generated. Staff proposed that the funds be utilized to perform an additional 2 special residential clean-ups each year until such time as the funds are no longer available. Mayor Snyder questioned if 'the rates are reduced, would we still accrue the special back-up monies. Assistant to 'the City Managerr Paul Rankin explained that this money is already accrued and was a result of Dublin San Ramon Services District not implementing the 11% rate decrease. The reduction of rates would be achieved by a reduction in the franchise fee and would not affect these funds. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the fee can be adjusted through the years or if it were set for the entire 10 year period. The fee can be adjusted during the agreement. Mr. Dave McDonald, Director of Finance for Oakland Scavenger Company explained that at one time DSRSD had a 5% fee, then increased it to 10%~ and currently they have a 7.6% fee. Cm. Hegarty questioned if his understanding was correct 'that if the fee is dropped, then a lower rate will result to 'the customer. Staff explained that this was correct. Mr. McDonald introduced representatives from Oakland Scavenger; Peter Borghero, President, Bill Brandy, Manager and Steve McKay, Attorney. Carl Aaron, Ironwood Drive indicated that he felt that the free clean-ups offered were a big 'help in cleaning up the community. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the "Dollar Bags" would still be available. Representatives from OSC indicated that yes, the bags would be provided to the City. Cm. Jeffery suggested and Mayor Snyder agreed to looking at a lower franchise fee than the 6.8%. CM-'5-39 Regular Meeting February 24, 1986 Discussion was held related to various reduced rates. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote~ the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance regulating Solid Waste Management. The Council designated that a franchise fee be established that would create a rate of $4.90 per can pick up weekly (down from the current $5.05 per can rate). Staff was directed to prepare the necessary calculations and bring the Agreement and Resolution establishing charges back to the C~ty Council on March 10, 1986. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 20 - 86 and APPROVING THE AMENDED AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING JOINT SOLID WASTE COMMITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 21 - 86 APPROVING LETTER OF INTENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND OAKLAND SCAVENGER COMPANY OTHER BUSINESS Goals & Objectives Meeting City Manager Ambrose reported that a firm date had been set for conducting the City's annual Goals & Objectives session. The meeting will be held on Thursday, March 13, 1986 at 7~00 p.m., in the east room of Shannon Community Center. City/DSRSD Liaison Committee City Manager Ambrose relayed that a request had come in from DSRSD to have the liaison committee meet to discuss the park situation and land swap. Mayor Snyder and Cm. Vonheeder, who serve on this committee provided possible dates of when they would be available for a meeting to be set up. Senior Center Bond Financing City Manager Ambrose indicated that the City had .received word from the State that the Senior Center Bond Financing application has been apProved and has been submitted to the State Legislation for implementation. CM-5-40 Regular Meeting February 24, 1986 LAVTA - Bus Routes Cm. Moffatt posed questions related to the newly established bus routes. Cm. Jeffery indicated that a survey was done at the onset of this project and it was determined that the main users would be people who do not drive, i.e., senior citizens & school children. The next public meeting will be on March 3, 4:00 p.m., Pleasanton City Offices for public input. Animal Vaccination Mobile Clinics Cm. Vonheeder acknowledged receipt of a letter signed by several local Veterinarians requesting protection from outside street vendors that come in with mobile clinics. Reference was made to an ordinance adopted by the City of Los Angeles prohibiting mobile veterinary clinics from operating. Staff was directed to obtain a copy of the Los Angeles ordinance. Bingo Ordinance Cm. Vonheeder requested that a copy of San Jose's ordinance related to bingo be obtained in order to respond to a request made by Mr. Collins at a previous Council meeting. Library Funding Cm. Hegarty indicated that he had received a letter from Ginnie CoOper, Alameda County Librarian explaining why State monies received were used to fund .the main library in Fremont. She indicated that she understood Dublin's concern and reported that the full amount of money expected was not received from Sacramento. They looked very carefully to determine where the dollars would benefit the largest number of people and the decision was made to fund the Fremont Main Library. Cm. Hegarty indicated that he would make copies of the letter available to all Councilmembers. CM-5-41 Regular Meeting February 24~ 1986 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10'30 p.m. ATTEST' CM-5-42 Regular Meeting February 24, 1986