Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-10-1985 Adopted CC MinREGULAR MEETING June 10, 1985 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, June 10, 1985 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7'33 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. COMPLAINT AGAINST KAUFMAN & BROAD DEVELOPMENT Ms. Rena Whitney, 11606 Amarillo Court addressed the Council and expressed concerns related to the Kaufman & Broad development behind her property. Ms. Whitney felt that K & B should somehow replace the beauty that has been destroyed. She also expressed concern regarding the drainage situation. City Manager Ambrose indicated the steps that have been taken with regard to drainage and explained that this development was approved prior to Dublin's incorporation. Ms. Whitney also felt that multi-family homes should not be placed next to single family homes. Mr. Wolfe, 11562 Estrella Court stated that the hill is still moving and pushing over fences. Mr. Gordon Bowen, 11574 Estrella Court, stated that his once nice neighbor- hood is being destroyed because of the problems with Kaufman & Broad. He requested a stop be put on the extremely early and late hours that construc- tion occurs. Mr. Bowen expressed displeasure with the City's Building Inspector and stated he felt that City employees should be required to live in the City. He stated he was tired of the buck being passed back and forth between, the County and the City. Ann Henderson questioned if there was any recourse that could be taken against Alameda County. ~ City. Attorney Nave clarified the situation from a legal standpoint and pointed out that Mr. Bowen's recourse is directly with Kaufman Broad and not with the City or the CoUnty. CM-4-114 Regular Meeting June 10, 1985 ARROYO VISTA Mr. Paul Puebla, a resident of Arroyo Vista addressed the Council and expressed concern with the City of Dublin taking over Arroyo Vista. ~City Attorney Nave gave a brief history and explained Dublin's legal obligation to take control the Arroyo Vista project. Cm. Moffatt stated that all of the various Councilmember's comments that have appeared in the newspaper are possible scenarios of what could happen. The City Council is looking at all options and no decisions have been made, nor can they be made until the City of Pleasanton makes their decision. Patricia Ali, Arroyo Vista resident, expressed opposition to a takeover by either City and.questioned why Arroyo Vista wasn't included in Dublin's Five-Year Plan. The City Attorney explained that the law says that Arroyo Vista shall have a resident on any controlling board. Mr. Nave asked who the current resident is on the Board. Ms. Ali reported that it is Debra Hunt. Various possibilities, including a Tri-Valley Housing Authority were discussed. Cm. Jeffery felt that residents of Arroyo Vista should be represented by the Council for which they voted instead of by a Council through which they have no say whatsoever. Mayor Snyder explained that the improvements that had been made along Dougherty'Road were funded by the City. Ms. Lisa Bradley, Arroyo Vista resident, stated ,residents would be very upset if the rents are raised. Mayor Snyder assured the.residents that the City Council is concerned that costs are kept down and if there is any way humanly possible, to reduce rates. This is the goal of the City. Cm. Moffatt explained that rents are controlled by HUD mandates. Jay Carlton, Arroyo Vista resident stated he had no problem with this change as long as it is taken with care. He stated he would object to a Tri-Valley Housing Authority, in that residents of one community have no business making decisions which affect another community. He felt the change could be for the better and was willing to give it a chance. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 28, 1985; Regular Meeting June 10, 1985 Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $234,343.42; Approved the City Treasurer's Investment Report for Period Ending May 31, 1955; Denied the claim of Ann Benner and directed Staff to notify claimant and insurance company; Authorized the City's participation in the Alameda County Fine Arts Patron Program in an amount not to exceed $400; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 48 - 85 Adopted AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 20-85 AND AMENDING MANDATORY DATES FOR UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES IN THE SAN RAMON ROAD UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NUMBER 1 RESOLUTION NO. 49 - 85 DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO AUTHORIZE PG&E TO PROCEED WITH THE CONVERSION PROGRAM FOR STREET LIGHTS WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FROM CLIFFORD & ISABEL GONSALVES REGARDING 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 everytime 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. Cm. Hegarty felt the environment should be safe and aesthetically pleasing and no matter what would come out of a study, you will not please everyone. CM-4-116 Regular Meeting June 10, 1985 John Collins, 7011 Allegheny questioned if an initiative could change the existing ordinance. It was repo~ted 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 Nave 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 continue the violations. Mr. Nave stated he did not feel that legally this could occur. During the study, the City must continue to enforce the ordinance. Cm. Moffatt withdrew his motion with the request that low priority be given 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/appellant, requested the City Council tO continue his appeal until June 2~, 1985 because of school finals. The two major proposed uses were 1) therapy center for disabled and non- disabled athletes and 2) a place for public gathering., including classes, potluck dinners, meetings, and bingo. The Planning Commission unanimously denied the application, finding that 1) the use would be detrimental to the economic vitality of the existing commercial tenants and the center at large; 2) the use would be inconsistent with the C-1 District intent to provide areas for comparison retail shopping and office uses; and 3) the use would be inconsistent with the General Plan policy which calls for strengthening existing shopping centers. Regular Meeting June 10, 1985 Jeannie Wold, representing a Livermore boys soccer group consisting of 1,~50 boys stated she felt that if this group is allowed in the Valley, it will compete with other non-profit groups. Paul Boughman, Livermore Soccer Club, indicated he has been told that bingo is a gambling operation and can be done by non-profit groups only. Billie Rawlings expressed concern about the group and questioned that if the funds were used for the disabled, what groups and how much goes to profit, etc? Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council continued the public hearing until the June 2~, 1985 City Council meeting. SCHOOL SAFETY AND CROSSING GUARD STUDY Mayor~Snyder opened the public hearing. At its regular meeting on December 10, 198g, the City Council approved a scope of study for a comprehensive school safety and crossing guard report to be prepared by the Traffic Engineer. This report was presented at the regular City Council meeting on May 28, 1985, and again discussed at a joint meeting with the Murray School District Board of Trustees on May 30, 1985. As a result of the Traffic Engineer's review, specific recommendations have been made regarding the establishment of warrants for placing adult crossing guards. The formal adoption of warrants will allow future requests to be examined in an objective manner. The proposed 1985-86 Murray School District boundaries will be adjusted in a manner in which students will not be required to cross Village Parkway, provided that they adhere to the established boundaries. The one exception to this would be the students living in the housing adjacent to Wineberry Way which are currently crossing at Davona Drive. The Traffic Engineer has conducted further review of this intersection and recommends that a crosswalk be added to the north leg of the intersection at Village Parkway and Davona Drive. The Traffic Engineer's review indicates that the number of children crossing at this intersection does not meet the recommended warrants for the placement of an adult crossing guard. The study recommends the adult crossing guard at Village Parkway and Brighton Drive be relocated to a location at Amador Valley Boulevard and Burton Street. The current location at this time is funded by the City of Dublin through a contract with Alameda County Public Works Department. Staff recommended that the City Council authorize the City to continue funding the crossing guard at the new location. The study recommends the City of Dublin encourage the Murray School District to establish a school safety patrol in the vicinity of Lucania and Davona 0M-4-118 Regular Meeting June 10, 1985 Drive. The Traffic Engineer has recommended that the precise location of a school safety patrol be determined through further discussions between the Traffic Engineer, Murray School District representatives, and Dublin Police Services. Education Code Section 49300 through 49307 establishes the criteria in which a school board has the authority to establish a school safety patrol. Section 49301 indicates that "the members of the patrol shall be under the supervision and control of a qualified employee of the District designated by the Board..." The Police Services would act as a liaison and be capable of providing training materials for the school personnel in charge of the daily supervision of the safety patrol program. .. Staff has contacted Ms. Anita Eckhart who is a Safety Consultant with the California State Automobile Association. This organization works in conjunction with municipalities in establishing school safety patrols and has offered their services to meet with representatives of the police services and school district to develop a program at the Murray School. Their organization will provide many of the training materials at no cost to the agency. The City of Dublin could provide the initial materials for the establishment of the school safety patrol. This would include a supply of 12 complete uniforms, including rain gear. The total cost to the City would be approximately $550, and would assure that the School District had the ability to implement the program without being hindered by a concern over funding the initial establishment. The study also noted several required changes in the markings adjacent to school facilities. The report rec'ommends the removal of the white crosswalk at Silvergate Drive and Peppertree Road and the crosswalks at York Drive and Amador Valley Boulevard. Also, removal of the crosswalk on the north leg of the intersection of Tamarack Drive and Village Parkway is desirable. As noted above, during the subsequent review of the Davona Drive and Village Parkway intersection, the Traffic Engineer has recommended the addition of a crosswalk on the north leg of that T-intersection. Additional crosswalks are recommended for the southern, western and eastern legs of the intersection of Village Parkway and Tamarack Drive. A yellow crosswalk will be necessary at the proposed new location for an adult crossing guard at Burton Street and Amador Valley Boulevard. It should be noted that if the Murray Elementary School District approves the establishment of a safety patrol, further changes in the school markings may be recommended for that area to improve the visibility of the patrol. The Traffic Engineer examined the congestion problem at Nielsen Elementary School and recommended that the curb be painted to reflect the passenger loading zone. Currently, signs are posted to designate the area. Additional signs have been recommended by the Engineer to instruct parents to proceed to the front of the loading zone in order to provide sufficient use of the curb space. The responsibility for providing adult crossing guards is currently shared between the Murray Elementary School District and the City of Dublin. Prior CM-4-119 Regular Meeting June 10, 1985 to the 195~-85 school year, both agencies provided two adult crossing guards. At the present time, the City provides for two adult crossing guards and the School District provides one adult crossing guard. The study notes that with buildout traffi'c volumes, two additional intersections may warrant adult orossing guards. This would assume no change in school attendance boundaries. Michelle DeRobertas, representing TJKM, gave an overview of the report. Ann Henderson expressed concern regarding the fact that at the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and San Ramon Road, which has a stop light and a crossing guard, right turns by motorists onto San Ramon Road jeopardize people in the crosswalk. She also suggested the City consider picking up the cost of the crossing guard. Staff indicated that the right turn issue is already being considered by the Traffic Engineer. Stan Maleski, Murray School District Business Manager, stated he appreciated the City's efforts to quantify in a reasonable way where crossing guardS are needed. He did, how~ever, have concerns regarding the student crossing guard program, based on past research. He requested that the Traffic Engineer review the research. The School District did not feel the use of students as crossing guards was a good idea due partially to the disruption of the educational process. Mr. Maleski also asked that the City consider picking up the cost for the crossing guard at Amador Valley Boulevard~and San Ramon Road. Mark Stot, Principal of Murray School indicated that many years ago, when he was principal of a Pleasanton school, a ~study was done which indicated the rate of accidents was higher when utilizing students as crossing guards and created a disruption to the educational system. Cm. Hegarty stated he felt using students could work, and would like to see them dressed in smart uniforms. Ann Henderson expressed concern with using students from a liability standpoint if an accident occurs. She felt~that 6th graders are unequipped to handle a potentially dangerous situation. Joyce Waite felt that the student school safety program would be nice and perhaps parents could get involved in helping it to get off the ground. Staff clarified that the Traffic Engineer in his report simply pointed out that this ~.s a possibility that could be considered and if the program were to be implemented, the City would support it. Judy Olson stated that what looks good on paper is not always the best solution. If the School District staff d.oesn't support the student safety patrols, the program will go nowhere. The ideal would be for the City to pay for an adult crossing guard at the Lucania Street/Davona DriVe intersection. CM-~-120 Regular Meeting June 10, 1985 Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Jeffery indicated that since it appears that the School District does not want students as crossing guards, maybe the City should leave it open for future consideration. She felt it is a good program for building responsibility and that 6th graders were mature enough to handle this responsibility. Ann Henderson resported that the School District Board of Trustees as a whole has not discussed this issue. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 50 - 85 and ESTABLISHING CROSSING GUARD WARRANTS FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN RESOLUTION NO. 51 - 85 and SUPPORTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SCHOOL SAFETY PATROL FOR THE MURRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 52 - 85 AUTHORIZING SPECIFIC CHANGES TO SCHOOL MARKINGS ON PUBLIC STREETS AND THE ASSIGNMENT OF ADULT CROSSING GUARD LOCATIONS DURING SCHOOL HOURS RECESS A short recess was called. Ail Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened. DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT'STUDY PROPOSAL Representatives from the Dublin City Council and the San Ramon City Council have met to consider proposals to conduct a study of the Dublin San Ramon Services Distri. ct services. The subcommittees recommended t'he selection of Hughes, Heiss & Associates. The scope of services would undertake the review of park and ~recreation, garbage, water and sewer services.. The results of this study will be coordinated with the current study being conducted related to fire services. Cm. Vonheeder questioned what would happen if DSRSD did not cooperate with the extraction of information. Mayor Snyder indicated that the Government Reorganization Act provides that the information is needed in order to conclude whether or not to reorganize. City Attorney Nave stated he wasn't sure if the City could legally require cooperation. CM- -121 Regular Meeting June 10, 1985 On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved Hughes, Heiss & Associates as consulting firm to conduct evaluation; approved the scope of services; approved the addition of a DSRSD staff member to the study steering committee; authorized the City Manager, upon review of the City Attorney, to execute a contract with Hughes, Heiss & Associates in the amount of $59,010; and authorized a budget transfer from reserves in the amount of $12,000 to cover those costs incurred prior to the end of Fiscal Year 195~-$5. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION NEGATIVE DECLARATION Cm. Hegarty reported a conflict of interest and removed himself from discussion and consideration of this item. Alamed~ County is proposing to acquire Southern Pacific Right-of-Way in Dublin. The acquisition is for future consideration of a Light Rail Transit System. Such a system would clearly have potentially significant environ- mental effects such as noise and safety impacts. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote, the Council directed Staff to indicate to Alameda County that the City of Dublin feels it is appropriate for the County to prepare an Environmental Impact Report to address potential effects of the Light Rail Transit System. Cm. Hegarty abstained from this vote. OTHER BUSINESS Meeting with Alameda County City Manager Ambrose indicated he had met with Steve Hammell, Assistant CAO for Alameda County regarding a meeting with the County regarding issues affecting both the City and the County. The Board of Supervisors would like to appoint 2 representatives to meet in an informal situation. Cm. Moffatt indicated he had no problem with 2 people on the Council + the City Manager meeting with representatives from the County, and. felt that Mayor~Snyder and Vice Mayor Hegarty would be well qualified to represent the City at the meeting. On motion of Cm, Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council appointed MaYor Snyder and Vice MayOr Hegarty as the City's representatives along with City Manager Ambrose, to meet with the County. Meeting with DSRSD Park Committee City Manager Ambrose asked Mayor Snyder and Cm. Vonheeder for dates that would be convenient for them to meet with the DSRSD Park Committee. The possible dates of July 1st, 3rd and 10th were suggested. CM-~-122 Regular Meeting June 10, 1985 Fire Study City Manager Ambrose indicated that a very technical document had been distributed to the Council related to the fire study. League Revenue & Taxation Committee Meeting Cm. Jeffery reported that she would be attending a League of California Cities Revenue & Taxation Committee meeting on June 28th and would pass on any information necessary. Transit Meeting Cm. Jeffery reported that at the transit meeting, there was a motion to extend the contract of DKS & Associates for 60 days, subject to creating a technical advisory committee. Mayor Snyder indicated he was against this. Weed Abatement Cm. Hegarty reported that he had been contacted by Dr. Harvey Scudder who was concerned regarding weed abatement on the Hansen property, since this property is not within the District's boundaries. He wished the City could apply some pressure and do something about the fire hazard situation. Alameda County Housing Board Cm. Hegarty indicated that he would be attending an Alameda County Housing Board meeting and would be reporting on the comments received by Arroyo Vista residents at tonight's meeting. CLOSED SESSION At 10'~1 p.m., the Council recessed to a closed executive session to discuss potential litigation (Gov't Code Section 59956.9(c), and pending litigation (Gov't Code Section 5~956.9(a), City of Dublin vs. the Sawmill and City of Dublin vs. Nichandros. CM-~-123 Regular Meeting June 10, 1985 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11'/+5 p.m. ATTEST' -' City Cler~K~ Regular Meeting CM-/+-12/+ June 10, 1985