Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.01 Draft Minutes 05-23-1994 ~ - -- REGULAR MEETING - May 23. 1994 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, May 23, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m., by Mayor snyder. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Houston, Howard and Mayor Snyder. Councilmember Moffatt arrived at the meeting at 7:35 p.m. ABSENT: None. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Snyder led the Council, staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * CUSTOMER SERVICE AWARD FOR MONTH OF JUNE (150-90) City Manager Ambrose presented the June CUstomer Service Award to Stephanie Mein, Recreation Coordinator. Mr. Ambrose announced that this program has been in place for 3 years and this will be the last award of this type that will be made. Another program has been developed beginning next month. * * * * CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 9, 1994; Received the Finance Report for Period Ending April 30, 1994 (330-50); Received an update report on the East County Area Plan (ECAP) (420-50); Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $1,109,579.61 (300-40); Received a report related to the sale of remnant parcels as a result of the Dublin Boulevard Extension project (670-80). * * * * AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT TRI-VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING (140-80) City Manager Ambrose advised that the City of Livermore will be hosting the next meeting of the Tri-Valley City Councils on Thursday, _u.:r~ly 21, 1994 and they have requested that we notify them of any items the Council may wish placed on the agenda. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 141 Reqular Meeting May 23, 1994 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. ~~ COPIES TO: 1;1 e e Cm. Burton stated he thought there were enough committees and groups meeting that subjects will come up. Cm. Moffatt asked if there is a time limit. Mr. Ambrose stated since the next meeting isn't until July 21st, if something comes up in the next month, we can communicate it. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SECTION 2516(m) OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (440-40) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Building Official Taugher presented the Staff Report and advised that a public hearing had been held on this item on May 9th and by a majority vote of the Council, staff was directed to prepare a resolution granting a variance to Section 2516(m) of the Uniform Building Code. This variance, requested by the heirs of the Estate of John Young, would allow the posts supporting the floor of the dwelling at 7852 Starward Drive to remain without a connection to the foundation piers. Mr. Taugher stated in accordance with Council direction, a resolution had been prepared which would grant the variance based on the fact that testimony was entered which stated several other homes in the immediate vicinity which were built by the same developer also have vertical posts which are not fastened to the concrete piers. It appears that the house was originally constructed without any fastening between the vertical posts and the concrete piers. No testimony was given by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Moffatt stated the Building Officials did an excellent job in bringing this to the Council's attention. Unfortunately, the Council cannot provide safety for certain types of unknown situations. He hoped this information would be passed on to future buyers. Cm. Houston voiced his agreement with Cm. Moffatt's statement. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by majority vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 39 - 94 GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE @ 7852 STARWARD DRIVE Mayor Snyder voted against this motion. , * * * * *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 142 Regular Meeting May 23, 1994 e e PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PROVISIONS (450-20) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Cirelli presented the Staff Report and advised that an amendment is being proposed to the Planned Development (PD) District provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify that prezoning or rezoning of property to the PD District may take place independent of the approval of a Land Use and Development Plan and that PD Districts can be applied to any residential or non-residential districts. Ms. Cirelli explained that implementing the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan requires numerous time consuming stages of project approval and analysis before development can begin in the area such as annexation, tentative map, development agreements, habitat preservation studies, scenic viewshed studies, etc. One of the initial steps is annexation to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Prezoning of the area must be accomplished in conjunction with the annexations so that the city of Dublin zoning will be in place for the property at the time it becomes part of the city. Ms. Cirelli discussed the details of the Staff Report. Cm. Moffatt asked if this impinged on the recommendation that the General Plan would be changed. Is this leading to a change in the General Plan? Ms. Cirelli stated it would basically be a change in the City'S Zoning Ordinance. Cm. Moffatt asked if these areas were annexed and no development occurred, would the City be obligated to provide fire and other services at that time. Ms. Cirelli stated the provlslon of services would be considered with the annexation application, but the actual provision and financing would not need to occur until after the initial PD district zoning for areas in eastern Dublin. Mr. Ambrose stated the real issue is that it is a little unclear under our current Zoning Ordinance whether you have to have a project for an annexation proposal. On a case-by-case basis, the City will still have the ability to analyze each proposal. Cm. Moffatt stated he was concerned that someone might come in and want to develop and the City annexes the parcel and then they find out they can't finance it. Mr. Ambrose stated this is a little different than what this amendment addresses. It allows someone to come in and request annexation and prezoning without a project. If we have concerns, we could address those concerns as part of tpe conditions of the PD. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 143 Regular Meeting May 23, 1994 e e Cm. Moffatt asked who sits on the project review committee. Ms. Cirelli advised that if it is just a Site Development Review, it would be done at Staff level and it's not required to go before the Planning Commission unless the decision gets appealed. Cm. Burton 'asked if there had been any feedback from the landowners in eastern Dublin and their perspective on this. Ms. Cirelli stated the feedback received from some indicates they are in favor of it. Mr. Ambrose advised that it provides a degree of certainty. Cm. Burton stated it opens the door without a landowner' getting to involved. Under the circumstances of today's political climate, this is a safety factor. Bob Harris, a member of the development team representing the Lin Family stated they are strongly in favor of the introduction of this ordinance. The Specific Plan requires that a PD overlay be placed on property in the eastern Dublin area. There are a number of very large properties in eastern Dublin, so it is probable that they will develop in phases. As it is currently written, the Zoning Ordinance is not clear and the proposed amendment would clarify this. This is a common approach. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Burton questioned how the annexation of eastern Dublin will be approached. Are we going to go for it all at once or in bits and pieces? He asked if this is the phasing that was talked about. Do we have a plan? Ms. Cirelli stated the impetus would be coming from the landowners. If they want to be annexed to the City, we would consider the request from our eastern boundary. We would look at annexations of properties that are contiguous to each other. We don't want to create islands and the City is not going to undertake a project for the entire area at once. Cm. Burton asked if we have to go before LAFCO for every little piece of annexation? Mr. Ambrose advised that what we have to have is a plan for services. It doesn't require a great level of detail for annexation. There are some logical demarcation lines. Cm. Burton asked if taxes would be changed if they are annexed to the City. Mr. Ambrose stated in terms of assessments, depending on the nature of improvements, they could be subject to the same assessments as any other property owner in the, City. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 144 Reqular Meeting May 23, 1994 e e Cm. Burton voiced his concern that LAFCO could cause some problems and a lot of people will chew on us every time we go before LAFCO. Mayor Snyder stated LAFCO would not look favorably on a huge annexation. We have to have a purpose to annex the land. Ninety-nine percent of all the annexations in Alameda County are in the Fremont area. These are small parcels. Cm. Moffatt questioned if time lines on when development will occur could be added as conditions when a prezoning is done. Mr. Ambrose advised that it would have to come back before the Council to review. Ms. Cirelli stated the initial PD district zoning sets the general land use designations as specified in the General Plan amendment and Specific Plan, but not to the level of detail of looking at setbacks or where buildings will go, but just land use and densities. They would then come back with a more detailed rezoning that would include the actual development plan. This would require another Zoning Ordinance amendment and would require City Council approval. Cm. Moffatt stated he doesn't want to get caught like Pleasanton and wants to make sure nobody holds the city of Dublin hostage with regard to land use. The community and the market should dictate changes. Mr. Ambrose advised that this is what this amendment would allow. It provides the City Council with exactly what Cm. Moffatt is asking for. Cm. Moffatt commented that he has believed Mr. Ambrose for 12 years, so he will continue. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Houston, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED the Ordinance. * * * * CITY COUNCIL PARTICIPATION IN PLEASANTON'S 100TH ANNIVERSARY PARADE (610-85) City Clerk Kay Keck advised that after the City Council determined that it would enjoy participating in Pleasanton's 100th Anniversary parade, Cm. Burton suggested that a theme be used, "NO DIRT IN DUBLIN". The Council requested Cm. Burton to obtain price information for sign/banners. Cm. Burton stated he got a good price of $82 for the 2 signs from Signpro. The size is 5' x 30". Stan Smalley, Vice President of MCE agreed to drive an 18' flatbed truck with railings. The Chamber of Commerce has also offered the use of their Leprechauns. It will be a lot of fun. Cm. Moffatt stated he had no problems with this and felt it was a great idea. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 145 Regular Meeting May 23, 1994 e e Cm. Houston asked if tuxedos would still be appropriate attire and indicated he would be a butler. Cm. Moffatt suggested that the theme, "NO DIRT IN DUBLIN" has a negative connotation and asked if something else might be more appropriate. Cm. Burton stated it was strictly tongue in cheek and something they , could have fun with. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Houston, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the purchase of the signs. Cm. Houston suggested that the City Council split the cost and put in $18 each rather than have the City pay. * * * * CITY COUNCIL POLICY REGARDING eODE COMPLIANCE SURVEYS (440-10) Building Official Taugher advised that Staff was directed by the Council to 'bring before the Council the issue of whether the City should continue to provide code compliance surveys. Concerns were raised at the May 9th Council meeting that such inspections increase the City'S liability exposure. The City Attorney reviewed the liability exposure issue and has rendered an opinion that failure to make an inspection, or to make an inadequate inspection does not place the City in a position of liability for damage that might result. Cm. Moffatt stated in view of the City Attorney's comments, he felt this type of a survey is a service that a lot of people would like to have done. It brings in a small amount of revenue to the City. He felt the caveat should be, however, that the property owner must approve it in writing and understand any and all conditions involved with the survey. He would like to see the City continue the inspections providing the owner approves and we have no liability. Cm. Burton stated he accepted the fact that the City Attorney sees no liability. The problem is that a code inspection is not a building inspection. There is an implication that hiring somebody for $200 that they will be inspecting everything. It creates a situation where we will have to defend ourselves. He asked how much it costs to do a survey. Mr. Taugher stated a 3 hour inspection would be $174. Cm. Burton stated he was very much against the City getting involved in this. The courts are full of people that have been sued for undisclosed damage. Cm. Moffatt stated this inspection is a survey and if the homeowner has full knowledge of what the survey is, it is up to them whether *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 146 Regular Meeting May 23, 1994 e e they want it or not. This is another service that the City can offer to our citizens that no other inspector can offer. Cm. Houston stated if we continue to do this and come up with a document for the seller, he would guarantee that there is not a single seller that will comply, so it will take care of itself. We get sued anyway, like we do on the sidewalks. The private industry takes care of this type of service, so the City should not get involved because of potential lawsuits. Mayor Snyder stated unfortunately this has become a real estate discussion when this is not really what it is. It is a service that some people would like to see provided. He did not feel anyone is as qualified as the City to do this. It has to do with the health and safety of the community. Cm. Houston asked how many times this inspection had been requested. Mr. Taugher responded that in the last 10 years, they had probably done about 5 code compliance surveys. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by majority vote, the Council agreed to maintain the policy of allowing City inspectors to provide code compliance surveys. Homeowners should indicate, in writing, that they have a full understanding of what's to be done and what's expected. Cm.'s Burton and Houston voted against this motion. * * * * REOUEST FOR AMICUS PARTICIPATION (640-80) City Attorney Silver presented the Staff Report and advised that in the case Devita vs. County of Napa, voters amended the general plan to protect Napa County's agricultural lands. Superior Court held that the challenged initiative was valid. The Court of Appeal found that although a general plan has traditionally been regarded as a matter of local concern, it affects a mixture of statewide and local concerns, with a core of local concerns in certain areas and dominant statewide concerns in others. An amicus brief is being prepared to argue that general plans are a matter of local, not statewide, concern. Cm. Moffatt asked who will develop the brief. Ms. Silver responded that it will be Katherine Stone. Ms. Silver advised that she gets a number of these requests every month, but they are not all brought to the City Council. This case involves a General Plan issue which she felt would be of interest to the City. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the City's participation in this amicus brief. , * * * * *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 147 Regular Meeting May 23, 1994 e e MTC'S REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND THE ALAMEDA COUNTY CHA'S TRANSPORTATION PLAN (1060-80) Public Works Director Thompson presented the Staff Report and advised that the Alameda County Congestion Management Authority has been working for several years to prepare a Countywide transportation plan which would identify transportation needs and project methods of funding to the year 2010. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission has been pursuing a similar goal for the entire Bay Area and is seeking comments on their draft plan. Mr. Thompson discussed the report which described the differences between the 2 plans and which made recommendations to MTC on their proposed plan. The major differences between the two Plans are: 1) The MTC Plan has designated substantially less monies to the Tri-Valley area than the CMA Plan; and 2) the CMA has shown the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station in the Tier 1 funding, while MTC has included it in the MTC Track 2 project list. Mayor Snyder stated it is not an easy thing to convince people that our priorities have not changed. Cm. Moffatt asked about the $5 million for enhanced bus service in the Tri-Valley Area. Mayor snyder stated there was concurrence from supervisor Campbell that this amount be retained. The difficulty in doing this is other operators that apply to MTC want operational funds. We generally have matching money. Cm. Moffatt stated he understood that a shell or pad will be built for a future BART station in west Dublin. Mayor Snyder stated there has to be some kind of semblance of a 2 station project as part of our settlement agreement. , Mr. Ambrose stated the key is the timing of the funding. Mayor Snyder discussed the MTC resolution that identifies that no future monies will be spent in this area until the Warm Springs station develops. Warm Springs must be recognized as a hurdle and we need to make sure that Measure B dollars that we have been paying in since 1986 stay in the Valley. By identifying that we can go forward with a project, it makes sense to put our money there. Our second station will be a shell which can come back and be retrofitted. He received a copy of federal legislation this morning that approves expenditure of $4 million on the 1-680 interchange and Highway 84. We have a priority of 3 difference projects and we should keep our focus on these and strive to find funding for all three. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 148 Regular Meeting May 23, 1994 e e Cm. Moffatt discussed the high number of accidents which occur on Highway 84. This is probably one of the worst killer roads in California; it, has a 4 to 6 times higher accident rate. Cm. Burton stated he found it interesting that in the last year or so, 84 has reared its head again and the toll road has ground to a halt. with the overpass and interchange discussions, it sound like we are solving a problem with 84 that we are not. He liked the idea of private enterprise putting in a toll road and giving it back to the public in 30 years. He is a strong believer that the people who use it should pay for it. He understood that Mayor Ben Tarver is now talking about a public toll road and stated he didn't understand his position. He asked if Mayor Snyder had spoken with Mayor Tarver about this. Mayor Snyder stated he usually doesn't understand his position 90% of the time. He has had no conversations with him related to this topic. By a consensus and in accordance with the Staff Report, Staff was directed to transmit a letter to MTC: 1) recommending that funding be increased in the Tri-Valley area to an amount based on the propor- tionate share of the Bay Area population for Track 1 and Tract 2; and 2) stating Dublin supports the need for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station but requests that the additional monies above be assigned to the Route 84 project subject to the improvements being designated to be part of a future highway or expressway between 1-580 and 1-680. * * * * OTHER BUSINESS AB 13 Smokinq Initiative (660-40) Cm. Moffatt reported that the League of California cities is once again in support of AB 13 since the hostile amendments have been removed. He asked if the City should send a letter of support. Following discussion, no conclusion was reached and no direction was provided. * * * * Leqislation for Librarv User Fees (660-40) Cm. Moffatt brought up the subject of user fees ora special tax for library se~vices. Cm. Houston who serves on the Library Commission, stated a report on this issue was recommended to go to the Board of Supervisors and there is a whole variety of formulas on how much everyone has to pay. There was a proposal to have apartment and mobile home owners/dwellers pay a reduced rate. He sees this as being similar to the half cent sales tax in that there is no base service. It will make it to the ballot. He feels this will pass and then the base service will be taken away. This is not good. It requires a 2/3 vote. Mobile homes would pay *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 149 Regular Meeting May 23, 1994 e e $10; apartments would pay $15; and single family homes and condominiums would pay $30. Even though he didn't know where the money is coming from, they are anticipating spending about $80,000 to run a campaign. He felt, personally, that it will pass because people will think they are voting for library service. He felt this is something that will be ultimately taken away out the back door and he is very skeptical. Cm. Burton 'stated he had read somewhere that a base amount would be locked in. Cm. Moffatt asked for thoughts about instituting a library JPA which encompasses the valley cities and uses all the resources to develop a library system. Mr. Ambrose stated we do not own our library and Livermore has their own library, so we would all be approaching this from a different playing field. He reported that he will be meeting with the County Librarian on Tuesday and stated Staff can bring this issue back to the next City Council meeting. * * * * TVTC (1060-40) Cm. Moffatt advised he will be closing the Barton Aschman contract sometime in June or July. with regard to the concept of collecting fees, if a regional fee is collected, there needs to be discussion on who collects it, how it's collected, and how this will be handled. The TVTC is a joint agreement at this point and has no legal identity, so if any money is collected, does it go to all the cities, to the JPA, or who? One suggestion was that it go into an escrow account and each city would own the amount that it contributed to the escrow. * * * . Business Develo?ment Task Force (470-50) Cm. Houston asked about the Business Development Task Force and when this group would be coming before the City Council with their recommendations. Mr. Ambrose stated they hope to make their June meeting their last meeting and wrap things up. They have provided information to have a draft report put together. They will do some fine~tuning and it will probably be brought before the Council in late June. Cm. Houston asked if formal minutes had been taken and if so, he would like a copy. Mr. Ambrose stated the minutes will be provided as part of the report so the Council can see how the task force arrived at their conclusions. * * . * *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 150 Reqular Heeting May 23, 1994 e e 1994-95 Budqet Hearinq Date Chanqe (330-20) Mayor Snyder stated he was asked to participate in 2 graduation ceremonies and the dates (June 15th and 16th) conflict with the dates which have been scheduled for the budget hearings. He requested that when future hearings are scheduled that an effort be made to determine any graduation conflicts. Following discussion, the Council agreed to change the date of the budget hearings to Tuesday, June 21st beginning at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers and if additional time is needed, continue to Wednesday evening June 22nd beginning at 7:00 p.m. * * * * CLOSED SESSION At 9:05 p.m., the Council recessed to a closed session to confer with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation: Dublin vs. Pleasanton Case No. C93-05746 in accordance with Government Code section 54956.9(a) . * * * * REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTION Ms. Silver reported that the closed session was a status report only and no action was taken. * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. * * * * Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk * * * * , *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 151 Reqular Meeting Hay 23, 1994