Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-28-1986REGULAR MEETING - July 28, 1986 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, July 28, 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 alle- giance to the flag. Construction Problems - Silvergate Area Mr. Fred Yara, a resident of Silvergate Highlands, expressed concerns related to the change of the slopes, drainage, etc., caused by Far West Associates, the developers of the Dolan site, adjacent to his tract. Residents of his tract were upset because new homes were being constructed so high above the fence line that they obstruct views of those people who paid lot premiums for their view. The developers have gone into easements, torn down fences, put in a storm drain, and replaced ground that is now cracking, and the soil and the slopes have been changed, and the fence wasn't put back very well. Mr. Yara presented a petition demanding that the City immediately place a stop work order on building on the Dolan site. The petition stated they felt their property values and quality of living will be adversely affected by this development. Raised building sites and construction of two-story homes will impair views, noise and traffic problems will be increased, and drainage interference has occurred. Mayor Snyder requested that if specifics could be addressed, they could be handled by the right people. Lot configurations, etc., needed to be detailed. Mr. Yara indicated he would provide the necessary information to the City Engineer, Lee Thompson. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, (Cm. Moffatt abstained from the vote on the minutes only), the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 14, 1986 CM-5-159 Regular Meeting July 28, 1986 Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 67 - 86 APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA FOR ADDITIONAL LIBRARY SERVICES DURING FISCAL YEAR 1986-87 and authorized the Mayor to execute said agreement; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 68 - 86 DESIGNATING A NEW BANK (Hibernia Bank)· Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 69 - 86 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA AND THE CITY OF DUBLIN PROVIDING FOR AN EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES FOR THE PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA EAST OF THE CAMP PARKS, TASSAJARA PARK AND SANTA RITA PROPERTIES and RESOLUTION NO. 70 - 86 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA AND THE CITY OF DUBLIN REGARDING CAMP PARKS, TASSAJARA PARK AND SANTA RITA PROPERTIES AND APPROVING AN EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES THEREFOR and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement; and directed Staff to negotiate a fire service agreement with DSRSD for the annexation area; City Manager Ambrose introduced Jerry Burke from Alameda County who has worked very closely with the City for the past 6 months toward re~ching an agreement related to the annexation; Received a report related to the Recreation Department Spring Quarter Recreation Program; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 71 - 86 and AMENDING THE SALARY & BENEFJT PLAN (Clerk Typist/Receptionist) RESOLUTION NO. 72 - 86 AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN (Clerk Typist/Receptionist) Authorized the Mayor to execute a budget change form for $860 covering the purchase of lapel pins for volunteer recognition; CM-5-160 Regular Meeting July 28, 1986 The Warrant Register was removed from the Consent Calendar and the total corrected from $1,071,029.62 to $1,070,875.32. On .motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the Warrant Register in the amount of '$1,070,875.32. AMENDED ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN At the regular City Council meeting on July 14, 1986, the City Council approved the transportation expenditure plan contingent on successful negotiation between LAVTA and BART. Subsequent to that action, the Alameda Countywide Transportation Committee took action on an amended Transportation Plan. The amended plan includes an agreement worked out between BART and LAVTA representatives on the sponsorship of the Dublin Canyon Rail Extension project. In addition, an amendment was made to the distribution of local maintenance funds. Some of the North County cities felt that a disproportionate amount of the funds were being provided to projects in other parts of the County. The greatest unmet needs in the North County area were local streets. Therefore, the formula for the distribution of funds was modified. The revised formula will provide for the City of Dublin an estimated $99,788 per year for local streets and roads. The amended plan addresses the need for the inclusion of projects throughout the County in order to provide a consensus. Councilmember Jeffery was the City's representative on the Countywide Transportation Committee, and reported that if approved, there is a potential that the money could be obtained by selling bonds. This is just in the talk stages now with regard to the 15 year plan. Santa Clara County has used this approach with their measure. The details would have to be finalized after the election. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Cou~cil adopted RESOLUTION NO. 73 - 86 APPROVING THE TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN DATED JULY 18, 1986 AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 64-86 PUBLIC HEARING FORTUNETELLING ORDINANCE Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Staff explained that the City's existing Zoning Ordinance does not mention fortunetelling as either a conditional use or a permitted use and is therefore a prohibited use within the City. However, the California Supreme Court determined that an Ordinance similar to Dublin's was unconstitutional, prompting the need for the Amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance. CM-5-161 Regular Meeting July 28, 1986 The draft ordinance proposes to amend the C-1 District to permit fortunetelling, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The C-1 District is the most appropriate commercial district within the City for fortunetelling use, in that the majority of C-1 property in the City is located adjacent to other commercial property rather than to residential property. The CUP process provides a mechanism whereby each individual fortunetelling operation can be reviewed on its own merits with appropriate ' conditions of approval applied on a case-by-case basis. The draft ordinance also prohibits fortunetelling as a home occupation, as this type of use typically requires customers to visit the site and is therefore inconsistent with the City's home occupation requirements and incompatible with residential uses. The draft ordinance includes a comprehensive definition~of fortunetelling provided by the City Attorney's office which addresses all related forms of fortunetelling. The entire draft ordinance has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office. In conjunction with this amendment, an amendment to the Municipal Code is also proposed which will establish regulations and procedures for issuance of a Police Services permit for fortunetelling operations in the City. These prOcedures will be presented at the next City Council meeting. Cm. Jeffery questioned if this action was made neCessary because of the Supreme Court ruling. Also, what would haPpen if we had no ordinance at all. Staff responded yes, and if we don't have an ordinance that regulates it, we run the risk of someone starting a fortunetelling business in their home, and the City not being able to stop it. The Council questioned the meaning of the word 'regulate' and also what could be done to discourage this type of activity. Also questioned was whether the City could regulate and restrict hours'of operation. Planning Director TOng explained that the City can, within reason, provide certain guidelines which would prohibit it. The City would review a request through a CUP process. Cm. Moffatt indicated that he had fundamental concerns regarding this topic and questioned whether people with newspaper routes could be construed as operating a home business. Since the newspapers carry horoscopes, and they could be construed as telling the future, he felt a legal ruling was required. Mayor Snyder felt this question should be addressed to the City Attorney, and discussion was therefore tabled until the City Attorney arrived at the meeting. City Attorney Nave arrived at the meeting at 8:35 p.m., and upon reviewing the question, advised that newspaper carriers did not come under this category. They are selling papers, not telling the future. CM-5-162 Regular Meeting July 28, 1986 Cm. Jeffery questioned if some kind of middle ground approach couldn't be taken. The City Attorney felt that middle ground could be achieved through judicious use of the CUP process. Guidelines will need to be established. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 74 - 86 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 86-035 FORTUNETELLING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT and waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance regarding fortunetelling. PUBLIC HEARING CITYWIDE STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 83-1 Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Staff explained that in 1983, the City Council formed a Citywide Street Lighting Assessment District .to replace the County of Alameda Lighting Service Area. The recommended District budget for Fiscal Year 1986-87 is $156,710, to be financed by a carryover of $17,710 from last year and assessments to property' owners in the amount of $139,000. This amounts to approximately a $1.00 per household increase over last year. No change is recommended with respect to the District Diagram or method of determining assessments, except that the area of the diagram shall be expanded to include the Kaufman & Broad annexation which came into the City in 1985. The actual assessments to property owners will be calculated when the City receives the tax rolls from the County Assessor's office. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 75 - 86 APPROVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT, AND ORDERING LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR CITY OF DUBLIN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT CM-5-163 Regular Meeting July 28, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1983-2 (Tract 4719) MaYor Snyder opened the public hearing. The City formed the Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District No. 1983-2 for maintenance of landscaping within Tract 4719 (Stagecoach Road and the Amador Lakes Mini-Park). The method of assessment spread is proposed to be revised this year to add the. maintenance of the Dougherty Hills Open Space and the Beck interior roadway slopes. The cost of the Dougherty Hills Open Space lot maintenance will be Spread 60% to the Beck development (150 single-family lots in Tract 4719) and 40% to the Amador Lakes development. All of the Beck interior slopes maintenance cost will be spread to the Beck lots. The District assessment this year is $24,100. This is less than last years assessment of $30,000, as there is a large carryover of unused funds from the previous year. Dr. Hector who lives in the Beck Development questioned if the perimeter fence is considered the one in back of the properties or the one around the park. There has already been many problems with offroad dirt bikes and a fence should help. He also questioned why all the other homeowners on Stagecoach Road were not included in the District. He also questioned the purpose of the open space behind the development. He felt that a vote on this assessment district should.be delayed until more than 1/4 of the development is occupied. City Engineer Thompson explained that it is the fence around the open space. The developer originally established the boundaries of the Assessment District. The District was formed as a condition of the development.The open space area was accepted by the City from the developer, and there is a park development plan which was adopted by the City Council several months ago. This area will be considered a passive park, but will have trails and some areas to'sit down. Dr. Hector questioned if the grading of the slopes would be part of the assessment district. Staff explained that the costs of grading within the tract will be part of the assessment, but outside will be part of the City!s costs. City Engineer Thompson explained that by statute, the City must have these hearings annually by the second week of August. Cm. Hegarty advised that this assessment district was formed in lieu of a homeowners' association, and this should have been disclosed at the time of purchase of any of the property. Millie Wasek questioned if ~he homes being built on the other side of the hills are part of this assessment district. She felt they should be included, because they are enjoying the hills as much as the existing owners. CM-5-164 Regular Meeting July 28, 1986 City Manager Ambrose explained that the open space will remain a part of the assessment district only for 3 years. Maintenance of the open space is a minor part of the approximately $80 annual cost. Mayor Snyder explained that 90 acres will be open space for which the City will ultimately be responsible. Staff explained that only the actual dollars spent will be charged to the District. Maintenance will go on indefinitely. The Council felt that more and more they hear from the public regarding information that was not disclosed or was misleading, at the time they purchased property. Discussion was held regarding whether the City could do anything to ensure that buyers are made aware of everything. The conclusion was reached that this would not be the City's responsibility, but the City could contact the Board of Realtors and express concerns. Steve Houston questions if the slopes immediately behind the project are considered to be internal, and if they will be planted, and whether the maintenance responsibilities will be permanent or temporary. Staff explained that maintenance will be permanent and will go back to the natural look. Ron Nahas, one of the owners of Amador Lakes indicated he questioned originally if the assessment amount would be adequate. The reason for the assessment district is to make this street the nicest street in Dublin. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Jeffery suggested that someone from the City check with Beck and suggest that they be more open with buyers. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 76 - 86 APPROVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR CITY OF DUBLIN LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1983-2 (Tract 4719) PUBLIC HEARING SMOKING POLLUTION CONTROL ORDINANCE Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Staff reported that public hearings on.the proposed Smoking Pollution Control Ordinance were conducted on May 27th and July 14th. At the July 14th meeting, the Council continued the public hearing until this meeting due to the absence of Councilmember Moffatt. Zev Kahn queStioned Chamber of Commerce survey statistics. Joanne Castro indicated that of 368 members sent surveys, 114 responded. Of those responding, 2/3 were against adopting an ordinance. CM-5-165 Regular Meeting July 28, 1986 Sandy Wilhite indicated she is definitely in favor of the ordinance as she is tired of going intO places that are polluted with cigarette smoke. Mrs. Wilhite's 12 year old daughter addressed the Council and stated she too hates to go into public places where smoking is allowed. She would like to see the ordinance adopted. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Moffatt felt this ordinance could be likened to a non-smokers bill of rights. Cm. Jeffery questioned and discussion followed related to the section stating employers do not have to make strUctural changes. Cm. Hegarty expressed concern as to why this ordinance is before the Council. He agrees that smoking is dangerous, however, this isolates one dangerous item that is harmful. There currently are organizations established for safety such as OSHA, which could more effectively deal with this. He didn't feel that the City Council has a right to legislate what employers can and can't do. If someone doesn't like the way a business operates, they should not patronize them. Instead of the City making a law, he would like to see the City write a strongly worded resolution encouraging compliance. If a "NO SMOKING" sign is in place, encouragement should be given to obey. Mayor Snyder stated that under the public health and safety act, it is legal to enforce no smoking signs. Cm. Vonheeder felt they were trying to legislate morality. She checked with restaurants in town to determine how difficult it would be to enforce the percentage requirement. They indicated that they cater to the needs of their customers. Mayor Snyder felt this ordinance came about because non-smokers feel that there is no one to speak up for them. Cm. Hegarty felt that businesses in Dublin will provide both smoking and non-smoking places and will act responsibly on their own, and that he is opposed to writing laws everytime something comes up. Cm. Moffatt questioned who is going to accept liability for damage that smokers cause. Cm. Moffatt advised Cm. Hegarty that if a resolution were written, he would consider looking at it. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by majority vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance related to smoking pollution control. Cm. Vonheeder and Cm. Hegarty voted NO on this motion. The ordinance will be presented for a second reading at the meeting of August llth. CM-5-166 Regular Meeting July 28, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11-84 CONSOLIDATING THE CITY MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. , Government Code .Section 36503.5 requires that when a City normally holds municipal elections in April of an even numbered year and consolidates its election with a statewide general election, City officers "shall continue in their offices until no later than the fourth Tuesday after the day of the general municipal election and until their successors are elected and qualified". Section 17088 of the Election Code requires the Clerk to certify the results of the election and submit it to the governing body within 28 days of the election. Mayor Snyder Closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the CoUncil waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 11-84 Consolidating the City Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election. CLOSED SESSION At 8-52 p.m., the Council recessed to a closed executive session to discuss property negotiations (Amador Valley Joint Union High School District re Valley High School Site). ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ATTE S T: Mayor City ~ CM-5-167 Regular Meeting July 28, 1986