Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.01 Draft Minutes 8-8-94 . . . REGULAR MEETING - AUqyst 8. 1994 A regular meeting of the City Council o~the city of Dublin was held on Monday, August 8, 1994, in the council Chambers of the Dublin civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m., by Mayor Snyder. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Houston, Howard, Moffatt and Mayor snyder. ABSENT: None. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Snyder led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * 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 July 25, 1994; Received a preliminary Financial Report for the Period Ending June, 1994 (330-50); Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 78 - 94 AWARDING CONTRACT 94-05 ANNUAL STREET REPAIR AND OVERLAY/STREET MONUMENTS TO EAST BAY EXCAVATING CO., INC. $235,684.90 (600-30) and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement and directed staff to reduce the scope of work to bring project within budget; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 79 - 94 AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR GRANTS FROM FEDERAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) AND CONGESTION MITIGATION/AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) PROGRAM AND COMMITMENT OF LOCAL MATCH (1060-90) ISTEA GRANT PROJECTS Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $643,393.01 (300-40). Cm. Burton requested that the agreement with Economics Research Associates be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion as there was some negative press and he thought it would be appropriate for Staff to explain why we are not going out for competitive bid on this contract. He asked if there was anyone that wanted to bid that didn't get a chance. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 214 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. COPIES TO: r!J 1~ ~ . . Mr. Ambrose explained that there is a provision in the Specific Plan that requires a fiscal review. We need to do some kind of analysis to ensure that current residents are not impacted by the service costs associated with the annexation. We did not have any other firms requesting to be notified of this service and the City is not required to go out to bid on a service contract of this nature. ERA has already developed a substantial data base and a new consultant would have to do a lot of ground work. ERA will be able to get the information together much faster. Cm. Burton stated the timing was a little confusing in the Staff Report and he interpreted it as saying the report would be ready by the end of August. Mr. Ambrose stated this is correct. We hope to get to a point that the Planning Commission and City Council will have a fiscal analysis that can at least support the annexation. The study is more independent and not under the control of an applicant. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Houston, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 80 - 94 AWARDING A CONTRACT (600-30) FOR THE FISCAL ANALYSIS FOR EASTERN DUBLIN ANNEXATION/DETACHMENT AND PREZONE #1 TO ECONOMICS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES NOT TO EXCEED $15,000 and authorized the City Manager to execute the contract (600-30). * * * * REQUEST FROM VALLEY VOLUNTEER CENTER FOR USE OF REGIONAL MEETING ROOM (200-10) Recreation Director Lowart advised that the Valley Volunteer Center has requested free use of the Dublin Civic Center Regional Meeting Room for their management assistance workshop series for non-profit organizations. They anticipate holding a maximum of 21 separate workshops between September 1994 and June 1995. If the City were to charge for use of the room as requested, the revenue generated would be approximately $1,250. By waiving these fees, the City would become a major donor for the Valley Volunteer Center and be listed as such on the major donor list. Christine Lafferty thanked the Council for the last 4 years which they have had use of the facility. This has been a real asset for their program and they appreciate Dublin's support. Cm. Burton questioned the comment that other agencies are losing their enrollment and they are going to consolidate. Ms. Lafferty advised that technical assistance in the area has gone down but they have been able to maintain enrollment in their programs. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 215 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 ~ . . The facility has become a constant for them and they are therefore able to draw from allover. Cm. Moffatt felt the Valley Volunteer Center is an outstanding organization and they bring a lot of prestige to Dublin. He likened the situation to the analogy about giving someone a fish and feeding them once, as opposed to giving them a fishing pole and the benefit is ongoing. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to waive the fees for use of the Regional Meeting Room by the Valley Volunteer Center. * * * * REQUEST TO FORMALIZE RELATIONSHIP WITH DUBLIN'S SISTER CITY. BRAY. COUNTY WICKLOW. IRELAND (140-50) City Clerk Kay Keck advised that Bill Foster, President of the Dublin sister City Association had received a request from the Secretary of the Bray Sister City group stating they would like to formally twin the two cities. They wish to know if the City Council is interested, and if so, they would propose the necessary Council Resolutions to their Urban Council. The City of Dublin has been a non-profit member of the Dublin sister City Association since its formation and incorporation in May of 1987. Mayor Snyder pointed out that in European countries, this is a fairly serious matter and they do very specific things between the 2 communities. Perhaps we should ask the Bray Urban District Council what exactly this means. Cm. Moffatt stated he had no problems with pursuing this. On motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed that a letter be sent requesting further information. * * * * DUBLIN UNITED SOCCER LEAGUE PARADE (950-40) Police Lt. Gomes advised that the Dublin United Soccer League (DUSL) would like to hold a parade on Saturday, August 27th to kick off their 1994 season and to celebrate World Cup Soccer being played in the Bay Area for the first time. The parade would stage in the parking lot and start on Amador Plaza Road south of Dublin Boulevard, proceed east on Dublin Boulevard and conclude at the Dublin Sports Grounds. Staging would begin at 8:00 a.m., and the parade would conclude by 10:00 a.m. The children participating in the parade will range from 5 to 19 years old, and will be in their soccer uniforms, grouped according to teams. The total costs to the City are estimated at $1,600; including Police Services costs of $500 charged to the existing overtime account. ' *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 216 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 . . Cm. Burton asked if traffic would be impacted only on the south side of Dublin Boulevard. Lt. Gomes advised that this was correct. Traffic would be rerouted in the same manner and handled the way they do the st. Patrick's Day parade. Cm. Moffatt asked if there will be an impact by groups of outside people. will it draw people into the area? Lt. Gomes stated they do not anticipate people coming in as it is mostly local people. Beth Lezcano stated the soccer league is starting to build back up in Dublin. Their registration is up by over 100 kids compared to last year. They are growing and trying to get their registration back up to 1,700. They really look forward to this parade. Cm. Burton stated the Council has a nice banner that could be carried in the parade which says, "No Dirt in Dublin". Ms. Lezcano stated Cm. Burton could come and carry the banner in the parade. Their Board members will also be in the parade. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Houston, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the parade route; authorized issuance of and waived the permit fee; and approved an additional $1,100 appropriation. * * * * DUBLIN FINE ARTS FOUNDATION LOANED ARTS PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR PLACEMENT OF SCULPTURE #4 "SIRIUS" (600-30) Recreation Director Lowart advised that the Dublin Fine Arts Foundation (DFA) would like to display a sculpture created by Peter Voulkos on the grounds of the Civic Center adjacent to the Dublin Sports Grounds. The sculpture being considered for loan is a 47' x 18' bronze sculpture entitled "Sirius". Ms. Lowart explained that the piece was originally commissioned for the Napa Valley Corporate Park by Kemper Real Estate Management Company; however the property has been sold and the buyers would like to have the piece removed by the end of September. Kemper will retain ownership of the sculpture and have agreed to display it until such time that it is sold. In the event that the sculpture does not sell and the City desires that it be removed, Kemper will be responsible for removing it at no cost to the city. The agreement also provides that Kemper would be responsible for the provision of property insurance coverage in the event of a loss associated with the display. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 217 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 . . Ms. Lowart advised that after the agreement had been prepared, some modifications were needed in accordance with review by Kemper's Legal Counsel. The changes relate to signage and lead time for removal of the artwork in the event the City wished to have it moved. Cm. Moffatt asked since we will have it on consignment if it sells will we participate in any proceeds. Ms. Lowart responded that we will not, but the piece itself will benefit the city. Cm. Moffatt asked if kids will be able to climb up on it and hang from their feet. Ms. Lowart stated it was felt that the location would preclude most of this type of thing as it will be located close to the Police station where there is a lot of activity at most times. Cm. Burton stated he felt this would be nice in front of the building and asked if a different location had been considered. Ms. Lowart stated given the size and dimensions, it needs to be on a relatively flat space. Originally they wanted to put it at Shannon Park, but there was no space there that could accommodate its size; 47' x 18' is really quite large. Lynne Baer and Linda Jeffery were present in the audience to answer questions. Ms. Baer passed around pictures showing the piece from different sides. Cm. Howard questioned the aSking price. Ms. Baer advised that Kemper originally paid $300,000 for the piece. Ms. Baer stated she also wanted to announce that DFA is opening another phase of selling tiles on the wall. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed with the conditions under which the artwork would be displayed, authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement (in substantially the form presented) and directed Staff to work with DFA to complete the installation. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING - LANDSCAPING , LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 83-2 (TRACT 4719) (360-20) Cm. Burton announced that he had a conflict of interest and would not participate in the discussion and/or vote on this issue. Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 218 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 ~ . . Public Works Director Thompson presented the Staff Report and advised that this is the second pUblic hearing for this assessment district which funds landscaping maintenance along Stagecoach Road and the interior slopes of Dublin Hills Estates. No increase is proposed over the 1993-94 assessment of $228.72 per single-family lot and $38.68 per mUlti-family lot. A total of $21,351.36 is proposed for Amador Lakes. No testimony was given by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Houston, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Burton abstained), the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 81 - 94 APPROVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT, AND ORDERING LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR CITY OF DUBLIN LANDSCAPING , LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 83-2 (TRACT 4719 STAGECOACH ROAD) * * * * PUBLIC HEARING CITYWIDE STORM WATER UTILITY FEE (1030-20) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Public Works Director Thompson presented the Staff Report and advised that the City has obtained a storm water discharge permit together with Alameda County and the other Cities in Alameda County as part of the Federally mandated National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. The fees collected under the City program pay for the cost of carrying out the program. The proposed storm water management program for FY 1994-95 totals $186,956. The proposed fee for a single-family property is $14.72, which is the same amount as the FY 1993-94 fee. Cm. Moffatt questioned if this is a mandated program. Mr. Thompson advised that it is mandated by the Federal Government. Cm. Burton questioned how the budget is established and how do we know the money is being used for what's important. Mr. Thompson advised that we have a person who sits on the Countywide Committee to make sure we are keeping a certain level on this program. We have resisted putting the 2 people on that the Water Quality Control Board requests. We have about .6 of a person's time devoted to this. Cm. Burton stated he thought we were going to paint all the drainage areas in the streets. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 219 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 . . Mr. Thompson advised that this was one thing we did to promote the program. We painted most of the drains. Cm. Burton asked what happens to the money when the delinquencies pay up. Mr. Ambrose stated last year, there were less delinquencies than we estimated. This year, we are estimating a lower level of delinquencies. It is a hit and miss type thing. The important thing to keep in mind is that one-third of the budget is controlled by the County. We have been chastised several times because they don't feel we are spending enough staff time on the project. Two-thirds of the budget is for specific City services. Cm. Houston advised that it is a federally mandated program, but it is not required that the citizens pay for it. He commented he was glad to see we are not raising the fees this year. Cm. Moffatt felt it would be helpful for Staff to show what was done next year. No testimony was given by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 82 - 94 APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING STORM WATER UTILITY FEE * * * * PUBLIC HEARING SIGN ORDINANCE REVISIONS PA 93-062 (400-30) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Carrington presented the Staff Report and advised that the Planning Commission, Business Sign Task Force and Staff had worked together to completely revise and improve the Sign Ordinance. Their goal was to develop an Ordinance that responds to the business community's needs for attractive, effective, visible signage and that is implemented by a simplified and flexible application and review process. Mr. Carrington explained the major issues identified by the Planning Commission and the Sign Ordinance Committee: VisibilitYi Landscaping; Freestanding Signs; Banners and Flags/Temporary Promotional Signs; Simplifying Sign Permit/Application Processing; Signs Placed on Vehicles; Accommodating Growth/Expansion; Automobile Dealership Signs; Freeway Signage; Open House Signs; Illegal and Non-Conforming Signs; and Enforcement. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 220 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 . . Mr. Carrington stated he would like to have the Council vote on each major category as it is presented. Cm. Houston suggested that if the Task Force, the Planning Commission and Staff were in agreement, it was unnecessary to reread each section. There was no need to discuss each section if there was no controversy. Cm. Moffatt felt that as a point of order, the Ordinance might give information that will change the City Council's mind. Cm. Houston felt that in the interest of time, his suggestion would make much more sense. Everyone has read the Staff Report, which is very good. Mayor Snyder stated he felt the Task Force, Staff and the Planning Commission all did a good job. Mayor Snyder questioned the best way to deal with each section and the appropriateness of the Council going in and out of the public hearing in order to vote on each section as it is presented and discussed. City Attorney Silver stated it would be more appropriate to take straw votes on the various sections since the Council will be voting on whether to introduce the Sign Ordinance following the close of the public hearing. I. Visibility: The PC recommended that several methods be incorporated into the Sign Ordinance to increase visibility. 1) Increase the size of lettering used on wall signs. 2) Allow Freestanding Signs within required yards. 3) Allow a larger mlnlmum Wall Sign size. 4) Allow computation of the area of Wall Signs in a simpler manner while still providing adequately sized signs. 5) Provide an increase in sign size for signs far from the street. 6) Allow tenants to use all existing legal sign cabinets on a Tenant Frontage. 7) Allow more flexibility in determining which building frontages to place wall signs upon. 8) Encourage more effective use of signage permitted by the Sign Ordinance. The PC and Staff recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance relating to Visibility. The Council concurred. II. Landscaping: The proposed Ordinance would require that landscaping used in commercial areas where signage is proposed be of species which have growth habits which facilitate visibility of signage to the greatest degree possible while still providing necessary shade, shelter, and screening, and meeting all other requirements of this chapter. The PC and Staff recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance relating to Landscaping. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 221 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 ~ . . The Council concurred. Cm. Burton asked about existing landscaping where trees are growing up and people are touchy about whether they or the City will prune them. This seems to be a very subjective thing. Mr. Ambrose discussed the Home Express landscaping for them to cut down the trees in the parking lot. there is a good answer unless it goes back through process. plan which called He was not certain the planning review III. Freestanding Signs: 1) Allow Freestanding Signs within front yard setbacks. 2) Master Sign Program/Site Development Review. The MSP process will result in facilities with attractive and effective signage that is far higher in quality than would otherwise be provided. This flexible and creative approach will provide the business community with an effective tool to obtain the signage it needs while providing the City with an effective means to regulate signage. The PC and Staff recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance relating to Freestanding Signs. The Council concurred. IV. Banners and Flags/Temporary Promotional Signs: Permanent Banners are not permitted by the existing Ordinance. An amendment is proposed to permit Permanent Banners by means of a Master Sign Program approved by the Zoning Administrator which may display only the name or logo of the shopping center or business. The banner must be maintained in good condition and be subject to semi-annual review. If found to be in poor maintenance, the banner must be replaced or removed by the shopping center or business. The PC and Staff recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance relating to Banners and Flags/Temporary Promotional Signs. The Council concurred. V. Simplifying Sign Permit/Application Processing: 1) Larger minimum wall sign sizes and simpler means of calculating wall sign sizes. 2) Allow signs on more building frontages. 3) Make Temporary Promotional Signs easier to obtain. 4) Allow larger wall and projecting signs. The PC and Staff recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance relating to Simplifying Sign Permit/Application Processing. The Council concurred. VI. Signs Placed on Vehicles: A Vehicular Sign is proposed to be defined as any sign permanently affixed to an operable, driveable and *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 222 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 . . currently registered motor vehicle which is used in the normal course of business. Further, the proposed Ordinance would require that a vehicle with Vehicular Sign affixed be parked on the property on which the business is located, and as close as practical to the business it serves. The vehicle shall not be used as a sign platform or for the sole purpose of attracting people to a place of business. The PC and Staff recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance relating to Signs Placed on Vehicles. Furthermore, the PC recommended that the City Council require Staff to contact owners of businesses to recommend that they add a provision to their Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) restricting vehicular signs. Cm. Burton felt this was a pretty serious thing and very difficult to manage. Everyone would have to agree with the changes, or at least a large percentage would have to agree to change the CC&Rs. ~ An unidentified audience member stated it would be more practical to make this a provision of the lease. Ms. Silver advised that the original CC&Rs indicate the procedure it takes to amend them. She agreed that this would probably apply to a lease. CC&Rs typically do not apply to commercial property, but they are used more on residential properties. Cm. Burton requested the Council to consider taking this requirement out. Mr. Carrington clarified that it is not in the Ordinance, but rather it was just a recommendation of the Planning Commission. Cm. Houston asked if there would be any way they could be required to park in a designated parking space. It's particularly bad at the Shamrock Center on Amador Valley Boulevard. Usually they turn their cars or trucks sideways parallel to the street. It wouldn't be so bad if they would park like a normal car. He agreed that the CC&Rs might be getting a little more involved than the Council wants. It should be stated that vehicles should be in a designated parking spot at all times. He asked if this was feasible. Mr. Tong stated the Zoning Ordinance requires designation of parking spaces, but he knew of no provision that requires them to use just one space. Ms. Silver advised that when someone comes in for approval, we could require that cars be parked within the spaces. She felt we could also require businesses to use certain designated spaces for company cars. Cm. Houston felt that some people abuse the process and this looks bad. They're like billboards advertising their businesses. Cm. Moffatt asked how we currently enforce handicapped parking on private property. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 223 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 . . Lt. Gomes stated this falls under the California Vehicle Code as long as it is properly marked. It's private land, but public parking. Ms. Silver stated it would be a Zoning violation. difficult to enforce for other than company cars. applicable if someone came in for a permit though. It would be This would only be Cm. Burton asked if we could do something simple like write to the tenants and ask them to comply. Mayor Snyder indicated that Staff will do what they are directed to do. It would have to be added into the Ordinance, otherwise, it would be just a courtesy request. There would be no grounds for enforcement. Cm. Houston felt this was a fairly simple idea and asked if we could require people to park in designated parking spots. Ms. Silver stated this could probably be added to the Ordinance. We could require people to park within designated lines. Mayor Snyder asked if it would be relative only to people with signs on their vehicles. Ms. Silver advised that Staff should take a look at the Vehicle Code Mayor Snyder advised that information 9n this could be included at the next public hearing. John Bevilaqua stated he knew what the Council was trying to accomplish; however, unless the lot has been restriped, the spots next to the street are actually parallel to the street. He also asked what happens if someone else were to park in a company's designated parking spot. Cm. Houston stated the goal is just to eliminate the billboard situations. It would have to be parked in a regular parking spot. Phyllis Sutton stated she thought this could be made clearer if language about billboard parking were to be put in the lease. This would take the legality off the City and as a landlord, she felt this should be her responsibility. This would let the City off the hook. Cm. Moffatt asked if the Council could indicate they would like something like this in leases. Ms. Silver stated the Staff Report referenced CC&Rs, but really, the reference should be to leases. If landlords do require a provision which prohibits billboard type parking, then the landlord has to enforce it. The City could encourage landlords to include this in leases. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 224 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 . . Cm. Burton did not feel this was the type of thing which should be put into the Ordinance. The City could write to landlords reminding them that this would be beneficial for their businesses. Cm. Houston felt Staff could send a letter and try to get compliance. Mayor Snyder pointed out that staff needs to have something they can cite. Cm. Burton stated they could say it is not attractive. Cm. Houston agreed that it would not be against the law. Mr. Ambrose stated it is difficult enough to enforce standing laws on the books. What will happen is Staff will send out letters with no policy. Staff would just be saying it would be nice if you would do this. Mayor Snyder felt if there isn't a clear policy, it's like asking Staff to step into a mine field. Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff understood the goal and could try to come up with something before the next meeting. VII. Accommodating Growth/Expansion: The proposed Master Sign Program/site Development Review procedure would enable the business community to have a sign program flexible enough to accommodate the growth and expansion of centers. The PC and Staff recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Sign ordinance relating to Accommodating Growth/Expansion. The Council concurred. VIII. Automobile Dealership Signs: The proposed MSP would provide sufficient flexibility in Freestanding Sign numbers, heights, sizes and locations to provide attractive and effective signage for automobile dealerships. The PC and Staff recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance relating to Automobile Dealership Signs. The Council concurred. Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff is working with one of the car dealers to get them some expansion. Being in a holding pattern is hurting them. IX. Freeway Signage: 1) Permit freestanding signs to be located within required yards. 2) Allow each business or tenant space to be permitted a maximum of 3 building frontages on which to place a sign, thus increasing potential freeway visibility. 3) The proposed MSP. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 225 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 ~ . . The PC and Staff recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance relating to Freeway Signage. The Council concurred. x. Open House Signs: The PC recommended that the existing Ordinance be changed. 1) Open house signs would be permitted within the public right-of-way only where they do not endanger the safety of persons or property or disrupt the normal flow of vehicle or pedestrian traffic, block ingress or egress from any residence or place of business, or restrict a sidewalk to less than 32" Signage may be placed in a landscaping strip between the roadway and the sidewalk. 2) Signage is prohibited in public streets in addition to the center divider strip and/or traffic islands in public streets. 3) Signs cannot be placed within a 5' radius of a call box, fire hydrant or mail box. 4) No more than 8 open house signs shall be placed at any intersection. No more than one sign per property being advertised may be placed at an intersection. 5) Signs cannot have additional tags, riders, streamers, balloons or other attachments. 6) Open house signs will be permitted on holidays, Saturdays, Sundays and one agent tour day each week from 10:00 a.m., through sunset. The PC recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance relating to Open House Signs. The Staff recommendation differed in that the City Attorney and Public Works Director are concerned about potential liability claims against the City if Open House Signs are permitted in the public right-of-way and recommended that Section 8.08.50(K) be modified by adding: 9. All organizations placing Open House Signs within the public right-of- way shall apply for and secure an Open House Sign Annual Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department. A Certificate of Insurance naming the City as Certificate Holder and additional insured shall be provided by the Applicant to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director together with a bond in an amount and form to the satisfac- tion of the Public Works Director assuring timely removal of such signs by the Applicant. 10. As a condition of an Open House Sign Annual Encroachment Permit, the applicant shall agree to pay all necessary costs for the time spent by City personnel, or its authorized agents, to remove illegally located open house signs. In cases of repeated violations of requirements dealing with open house signs, rights to locate new open house signs in the City pursuant to an Open House Sign Annual Encroachment Permit shall be forfeited. If the City Council wishes to allow Open House Signs on sidewalks or the greenway between the sidewalk and the curb, it will be necessary to instruct Staff to revise the Ordinance relating to encroachments. Furthermore, if the Council requires an encroachment permit for Open House Signs, it will be necessary to modify Section 7.04 to establish a fee for the encroachment permit. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 226 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 ~ . . Mr. Ambrose stated the responsibilities, thus Council. This was the attention. City Council is the only body with fiduciary the reason for raising this issue with the City main reason it was brought to the Council's Cm. Burton asked how much Staff time would be needed to enforce this process and what the permit costs would be. Mr. Ambrose advised that we are already removing signs that are illegally placed on weekends. We remove 2 or 3 signs per week. The main issue to be brought forth is do we want to cease keeping our right-of-way clear from these types of obstructions. Cm. Burton stated it concerned him that Staff had titled this section Open House Signs when they are only a small part of the problem. The real estate industry has always had the privilege of putting out open house signs. The industry itself is having a bad time being recognized and we don't want to aggravate it any more. We ought not to be an obstructionist to open house signs. Mr. Ambrose advised the Council that the City has had several sidewalk claims filed. Cm. Houston questioned if most of the claims were related to sidewalks rather than signs. Mr. Ambrose stated most of them were. Cm. Houston asked if we need to start licensing garbage cans and recycling bins and post office boxes because they are on the sidewalks. We don't want to start permitting everything under God's green earth. Mr. Ambrose advised that it depends on the use. You must distinguish if it is a private use of a public thoroughfare. Cm. Houston stated he thought Staff was trying to expand this public safety thing a little too far. Cm. Moffatt felt we were trying to reinvent the wheel. He asked if the League of California cities had any resolutions or ordinances that deal with this subject. Mr. Carrington stated he had not contacted the League of California Cities but he was aware that none of our neighboring cities were pursuing this. Cm. Houston clarified that signs would not be allowed in the center meridian areas in any case. Maureen Nokes discussed the background of Freeway Signage and Open House Signs and advised that there was no discussion by the Task Force on either of these. They wanted to try to become closer aligned with the neighboring cities to lessen confusion to Realtors. No other *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 227 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 . . cities in California have this requirement. A permit process would be an overwhelming burden. This will be seen by the real estate community as a way of the City trying to generating revenue. She has been a real estate person in Dublin for 18 years and she is constantly defending Dublin like a little public relations person. There hasn't been a problem to date. Mayor Snyder asked Ms. Nokes to carefully consider who is going to respond to the first individual going down the sidewalk who can't get around a real estate sign. Also, another major issue which must be considered is the subsidy of an industry by the City of Dublin. Ms. Nokes responded that in Dublin, this Ordinance specifically requires 32" be left available. with regard to subsidizing an industry, they are only talking about a-frame signs. Mayor Snyder reminded everyone that someone on this Council championed the abolishment of a-frame signs several years ago. Tricia Thomas with the Southern Alameda County Board of Realtors stated they support what the Task Force has done. They worked with Livermore and Pleasanton and came up with a workable sign ordinance that allows signs on the sidewalks. She would not encourage Dublin to add another layer of bureaucracy and in simplifying the process, this is what would occur. She urged the Council to approve the Planning Commission and Task Force recommendations. Cm. Houston commented that he thought a typical a-frame sign would weigh about 2 to 2 1/2 pounds. He felt people in wheelchairs would have a way of getting these signs out of their way. His garbage can probably weighs about 75 pounds. Al Hunter stated he looked at this issue strictly as a parent. If his 5 year old daughter gets hurt riding her bicycle because signs are in the way, he would be very unhappy. He has seen instances where the same type of signs actually took up most of the sidewalk. Children should be able to use the sidewalk without being blocked. Cm. Burton urged everyone to keep in mind that a permit would allow a form of endangerment. Mayor Snyder stated it needed to be clarified that this is a complete departure from policy. This past weekend, every real estate company had signs allover intersections near his home. We have to be sensitive to issues of handicapped people being able to move about freely. He was not talking about permits, but rather about allowing them at all on the sidewalks. Following discussion, Cm. Houston made a motion which was seconded by Cm. Burton to approve the Planning Commission's recommendations numbered 1 through 6 related to open house signs as contained in the Staff Report. Prior to a vote by the Council, Ms. Silver advised that rather than a formal motion, this should be done by consensus. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 228 Regular Meeting AUgust 8, 1994 ~ . . Therefore, by consensus, the Council accepted the 6 Planning Commission recommendations. Ms. Nokes commented that this will give them more options. Some are willing to risk getting their signs confiscated, but she is not willing to risk this at a cost of $60 per sign. Elliott Healy stated he had no fight with either real estate people or the City Council. He walks the sidewalks of Dublin and if there is a sign obstructing his way, he will knock it down and into the gutter. XI. Illegal and Non-Conforming Signs: The Sign Task Force has suggested that any non-conforming signs created as a result of the new Sign Ordinance be "grandfathered-in" as legal non-conforming signs, and also that existing illegal and non-conforming signs created by the adoption of the existing Sign Ordinance be "grandfathered-in" under the new Sign Ordinance provisions. The PC has suggested language, "All illegal and non-conforming signs existing in the City of Dublin as of the effective date of this Ordinance, including any signs made non-conforming by this Ordinance, shall be considered to be legal non-conforming signs." Revised language for this section was distributed at the Council meeting, which read: "All signs and their supporting members that were rendered non-conforming by enactment of Ordinance 7-86, including signs previously approved through a Variance and/or Conditional Use Permit process and were not brought into compliance with the provisions of this Chapter on or prior to three (3) years from the effective date of Ordinance 7-86 and thus became illegal, and any signs made non-conforming by this Ordinance, shall be considered to be legal non-conforming signs." Staff explained that there are only 2 signs that are now illegal, according to a City inventory (excluding auto dealership signs which are addressed elsewhere) Corwood Carwash and Custom Fireplace Patio & BBQ, because the amortization period of 3 years allowed under the Ordinance has expired without the signs being brought into conformity. The PC recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance relating to Illegal and Non- Conforming Signs. Staff, however, recommended that the language making all illegal signs legal non-conforming signs not be added to the Ordinance. The owners of the signs have known for years that their signs were non-conforming and a second issue is equity. Many other signs were brought into conformity with the Ordinance and their owners could be upset that the 2 remaining illegal signs were not held to the same standards. Mr. Carrington stated the new language will grandfather the 2 signs in and prevent others from being constructed. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 229 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 ~ . . Mr. Carrington pointed out that the proposed Ordinance does not contain a provision used in the current Ordinance that would make non- conforming signs become illegal 3 years after the Ordinance goes into effect, if not brought into conformity during that time. Thus, any existing sign made non-conforming by this Ordinance would be legal non-conforming and could exist in perpetuity. The numbering would change in Section 8.08.210 as (a), (b) and (c) would no longer be necessary, so the new language would just be Section 8.08.210. The Council concurred. XII. Enforcement: The PC recommended that the City Council direct staff to enforce sign and other zoning regulations on a proactive basis within the constraints of funding and Staff availability. staff requested direction from the City Council as to whether enforcement should: 1) remain primarily on a complaint basis, or 2) be handled more proactively as recommended by the PC. Cm. Burton stated he did not feel the City should create a proactive situation and should just stay with enforcing on a complaint basis. This is the current policy. The Council concurred. Mr. Carrington stated the Task Force requested equitable enforcement. The PC and Staff recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendments in the remainder of the Ordinance not directly discussed in the Staff Report, but contained in Attachment 2. Cm. Houston asked if there had been any discussion related to political signs and why the allowable size was changed from 16' down to 8'. Mr. Carrington stated political signs were included as part of the discussion under Section IV, Banners and Flags/Temporary Promotional Signs. Cm. Houston felt a letter should be sent to people who are running for office such as Congressman Baker and Assemblyman Rainey advising them that the Ordinance has been changed. Cm. Burton felt there could be a problem notifying people of this change because of the timing. Mr. Carrington stated it could be changed back to allow 16' signage if the Council desired. By a consensus, the Council agreed that the allowable size of political signs should be changed back to 16'. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 230 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 ~ . . staff reviewed the changes made: Open House Signs - no change to current Ordinance; Vehicle Signs - Staff will look into this and report back at the next public hearing; Non-Conforming Signs - revised language as submitted for Section 8.08.210, plus eliminate the first 3 paragraphs which discuss amortization; Political Signs - change back to allow 16'. Cm. Burton stated he was very pleased with what the Task Force, the Planning Commission and Staff had come up with. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Houston, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and with the changes discussed, INTRODUCED the Sign Ordinance. Mayor Snyder requested that everyone save their copies of the Sign Ordinance Report in order to cause as little additional copying for the next agenda on this item as possible. * * * * REPORT ON ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REQUEST TO CONSIDER ESPRESSO CARTS (450-20) Mayor Snyder advised that a letter had been received (copies distributed) this afternoon from the Chamber of Commerce requesting that this item be tabled until they could review it. Planning Director Tong then presented the Staff Report and advised that Ms. Jaynie Bunnell, representing the Sidewalk Graffiti Company, is requesting the City Council to consider a self-contained espresso bar or cart outside of an existing local business. The existing Zoning Ordinance and city Council policy does not allow outdoor food vendors on an ongoing basis. The Council requested Staff to review the request as it relates to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding outdoor sales and report back to the Council. Mr. Tong reviewed the background data contained in the Staff Report which covered the Chamber of Commerce concerns expressed in 1984 related to outdoor uses with little overhead competing with existing Dublin businesses. In March of 1993, the Dublin Business Task Force requested that local businesses be allowed to have periodic temporary outdoor sales, but suggested that no accommodation be made for retailers which do not have a place of business in the City of Dublin. Mr. Tong explained that Ms. Bunnell's request would modify and expand the City Council's previous direction of allowing local Dublin businesses to conduct periodic temporary outdoor sales with an Administrative CUP while the Planning Staff was preparing a Zoning Ordinance Amendment Study. An expanded study would need to consider the additional issues and options, and Planning Staff would need additional time to complete a draft. The amendment could be processed and effective by February, 1995. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 231 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 ~ . . Mr. Tong summarized by requesting that the Council give policy direction to either 1) modify and expand the Zoning Ordinance Amendment study or 2) continue the Zoning Ordinance Amendment study as previously directed. He also reminded the Council of the Chamber's request to table the item. Cm. Houston asked if existing businesses would be prevented from opening up this type of thing from their building right now. Mr. Tong stated the issue is currently being studied. Previous direction of the City Council was to not allow independent businesses to come into Dublin and sell or promote sales outdoors. Cm. Houston asked what temporary means. Mr. Tong responded that temporary will be defined as part of the study. Ms. Bunnell asked for clarification on the phrase, "without place of business". Mr. Tong advised that the intent of the Task Force was that it be a business that is currently located with a permanent indoor address in Dublin. Ms. Bunnell stated as she listened to the Sign Ordinance discussion, there was reference to pulling ordinances from other cities. This might be appropriate in this case also. She currently conducts business in Danville under a CUP. She is willing to make a commitment and provide research of surrounding areas. Mayor Snyder stated the design of the Ordinance is not the problem. Staff would like to incorporate all this into one process. Ms. Bunnell stated in dealing with Chevron, they are bound by some really strict guidelines and policies. Cm. Burton pointed out that if she were inside, there would be no problem. Ms. Bunnell stated in the particular station where she wants to locate, there is not enough room indoors. Their proposed site is located under the awning of the station. It could be technically considered an extension of the business. Mayor Snyder asked if she had a contract with Chevron. Ms. Bunnell responded yes, Chevron owns the land and there would be a three party agreement. Cm. Burton stated it is a unique idea, but it will be a little while before she can get started. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 232 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 ~ . . On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council continued the item to the August 22, 1994 City Council meeting. * * * * HERITAGE CENTER RENOVATION (295-30) Recreation Director Lowart presented the Staff Report and advised that a Survey and Recommendations Report had been prepared by Architects Alan R. Dreyfuss and H. Ruth Todd. Mr. Dreyfuss has extensive preservation and construction experience and Ms. Todd is an Historic Restoration Architect specializing in projects which involve exterior restoration. Phase I of their agreement provided for Program Planning and Schematic Design, and Phase 2 is for Construction Documents. Ms. Lowart stated the Survey and Recommendations Report was divided into five sections: I) Construction Chronology; II) Building Survey; III) Building Survey Recommendations; IV) Structural Survey and Recommendations; and V) Preliminary Cost Estimate. The Construction Chronology outlines the history of both the Old st. Raymond's Church and Murray Schoolhouse including additions, renovations, relocations, etc. The Building Survey included a thorough analysis of both structures by the Architects, a structural engineer and representatives from the city's Public Works and Building Departments. Ms. Lowart discussed the proposed scope of work and the preliminary cost estimates, as well as possible options to address the funding shortfall. Ms. Lowart advised that the Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed the survey and recommendations at their July 12, 1994 meeting, approved the design and recommended that Staff pursue additional funding as well as the use of volunteer labor. Cm. Burton complimented Ms. Lowart for a nice report and stated this is exciting. This has been a real revelation. He asked if it would be possible to set it up so that all that is done at first is to prepare it so it is a safe building, or if this would be too complicated. Ms. Lowart stated they are looking for an economy of scale situation, but she would need to defer the question to the Architect. Cm. Houston questioned how far into the future we could get advances on block grant money. Mr. Ambrose responded 3 years. The City did this for the Swim Center project. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 233 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 . . Alan Dreyfuss, Architect stated Ms. Lowart had given a good overview of the project. The project doesn't easily divide itself into making it safe and other, or making it accessible to handicapped and/or preventing the building from deteriorating any further. Most of the problems were not in regard to areas of safety. The cost figures are only estimates. It would be appropriate to prepare the construction documents listing certain things as options. The time issue arises in order to stop further deterioration, but some of the issues are definitely interlocking. Cm. Moffatt asked in the cost estimates for the church tower interior cost range which shows $27,000 to $36,500, which number is being presented as part of the budget. Mr. Dreyfuss stated the budget indicates a range. His cost estimator is very conservative. Cm. Moffatt questioned if there were any areas that he could see that could be broken out and done by volunteers. Mr. Dreyfuss stated this would depend very heavily on the expertise of the volunteers. Work done in the past was done very poorly. A majority or nearly all of the work needs to be done by people in the trades who know what they are doing. The City would need to decide whether the liability issue would preclude volunteers from being used. The porches are totally rotten and they have only been there since about 1980. The construction techniques used were not suitable for outdoor construction. Cm. Moffatt corrected information that the volunteers are not the prisoners, but rather people who work at the Federal Correctional Institute who wish to volunteer their time. Woodshop work would be made at the FCI facility. Mr. Dreyfuss advised that most of the windows need to be reworked and this is something that could be done at a woodshop. Mr. Ambrose stated the key is to identify the volunteer pool. Once this is done, the process could move forward. Cm. Burton suggested that $160,000 be spent now to make it so that it is serviceable and do the best we can with the money that's available. Cm. Houston stated it must be done right. Everything can't be decided tonight. Whatever the different trades are, someone should seek out professionals to do the work. Once a specifications sheet is available, people will know what is to be done. Ms. Lowart pointed out that the City is not in a position to be a general contractor and supervise the subs. Cm. Houston stated the City has had volunteer projects in the past, so it can be done. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 234 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 ~ . . Mayor Snyder asked if the Council made a decision to go forward with the project as identified, what the ramifications would be to the city. Mr. Ambrose advised that it could be taken from the estimated 1994-95 fund balance. Cm. Houston asked how long the block grant request would take. Mr. Carrington advised that we would need to give them a couple of months. We did not have any trouble getting advances in the past, but there has to be money available in the pool. Mr. Ambrose asked if we could get an answer by October 10th. Mr. Carrington stated they could try to get it on the agenda for the September meeting. Mr. Ambrose stated we should be in a position to know by November, when it would go to bid. Staff could try to develop some alternates. Donna Miller stated this is really exciting. She gave some family history and said this is a wonderful moment and she was thrilled that we have gotten this far. She referenced a Valley Times article that indicated the place wasn't open very often, but she corrected that she has worked very hard to keep it open almost every Sunday afternoon. It is well used and it has been active. They currently have a request to borrow 25 to 30 of their items to be put on display at the San Ramon Library. Ms. Lowart reminded the Council that they approved money in the budget to hire a Staff person and the plan is to make the facility available to the public. Ms. Miller stated having a person to help with the scheduling will be wonderful. Cm. Moffatt asked Ms. Miller if she had any contact with potential people who know how to do some of the work and could volunteer. Ms. Miller stated she was not aware of anyone, but she would rather have the Council talk to Tom McCormick as she was not involved in that part. Janet Lockhart stated she didn't want people to get their hopes up too high regarding volunteers. The reason DHPA came to the City Council for help was if they had volunteers to do stuff, they would have done it. They want it to be done right. They have hung their hats on the volunteers at FCI. DHPA will really be focusing in the future on programs and preserving heritage and gaining new items for the museum. Cm. Burton felt the City should request full repair proposals and identify alternates. The issue of volunteers can be dealt with in the future. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 235 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 ~ . . On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council: 1) approved preliminary design and authorized the Architects to proceed with development of construction documents incorporating bid item alternates as necessary; 2) directed Staff to identify those aspects of the project that can be undertaken by volunteers, confirm volunteer labor and report back to the Council at a future meeting; and 3) directed staff to pursue an advance from the City's 1995-96 allocation of CDBG funds. * * * * OTHER BUSINESS DSRSD Liaison Meetinq (610-05) Mr. Ambrose advised that DSRSD would like to schedule a Liaison Committee meeting and suggested either August 15th or August 30th as possible dates at 7:30 a.m. Cm. Houston and Mayor Snyder indicated that August 30th would fit their schedules. * * * * Graffiti (530-20) Cm. Burton questioned with regard to graffiti if it would be possible to get involved with offering a reward. Mr. Ambrose stated this could be a part of the discussion when the graffiti report is presented to the Council. Other cities have had very little success. We no longer pay membership dues to be a part of the WETIP program, but we could start our own. Cm. Burton discussed the possibility of using the $10 inspection fee as part of the business license for graffiti. Now that we have the business license program underway, it should be pretty much paying for itself. Mr. Ambrose advised that the fire inspection fee is a Dougherty Regional Fire Authority fee. Mr. Rankin advised that a considerable amount of Staff time is required responding to inquiries related to business licenses. Cm. Burton stated he had always felt expenses rise to meet income. * * * * *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 236 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994 ~ . . CLOSED SESSION At 10:45 p.m., the Council recessed to a closed session to conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation (640-30), City of Dublin vs. City of Pleasanton, Contra Costa Superior Court No. C93- 05746. REPORT ON eLOSED SESSION AeTION City Attorney Silver advised that no action was taken. * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. * * * * Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk * * * * *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 237 Regular Meeting August 8, 1994