Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.1 Approve 01-12-1987 Minutes REGULAR MEETING - January --12, :19-87 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of -Dublin was held on Monday, January 12, 1987 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at _7:35 p.m. by Mayor Linda Jeffery. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Moffatt, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Jeffery. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle- giance to the flag. * * * * - ADMIRAL/LDM MOVING SYSTEM APPEAL City Manager Ambrose reported that a new business item dealing with the appeal of Planning Commission denial of Zoning Approval for occupancy by Admiral/LDM Moving System Site Development Review for a new building at 6270 Houston Place had been removed from the agenda, because the applicant requested that the appeal be withdrawn. * * * * CONSENT CALENDAR City Manager Ambrose reported that an item related to an agreement for towing services for abandoned vehicles was being removed from the agenda and will not be considered at this time. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions : Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 22, 1986; Approved a Budget Change Form for an appropriation for the Trustee Fees associated with the Certificate of Participation Issue for the Civic Center; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 1 - 87 AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO PURCHASE CERTAIN ITEMS Approved the City Treasurer's Investment Report for Period Ending December 31, 1986; Cm. Snyder questioned the City' s $500, 000 investment with one institution. Finance Director Molina explained that this investment is fully collateralized. *************************************************************************** CM-6--1 Regular Meeting January 12, 1987 Approved Financial Report for Period Ending November 30, 1986; Awarded the bid for janitorial services at Shannon Community Center to Central Cleaning- Company ($945/month) , and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement; Received a report regarding the 1987 St. Patrick's Day celebration, approved the celebration' authorized the installation of a banner and approved the parade route; Authorized Staff to advertise Contract 87-1 (Dublin Boulevard Traffic Signal Interconnect System) for bids; Approved a budget transfer of $13, 050 from Reserves to Consultant Budgets to complete the Downtown Improvement Plan; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $483, 669.21. * * * * COALITION TO SAVE OUR DELTA The City Council has received correspondence from the Coalition to Save Our Delta. The letter is signed by Supervisors representing Contra Costa County, Yolo County,, Solano County, San Joaquin County, Sacramento County and the Delta Advisory Planning Council . This group expresses an interest in pursuing legislation which would address • a financing program for the rehabilitation of levies within the Delta. The group has proposed a program which would be funded at $10 million per year. The existing program is being funded at $2 million per year. The proposal would require joint-funding between the State and local landowners or beneficiaries. The funding would be provided with 80% of the rehabilitation funds coming from the State and the remaining 20% coming from the local Delta landowners . However," the proposed legislation also contains a finding that if it is determined that, the State of California receives a greater than 80% benefit, then the State ' s share should increase and the Delta landowners share would decrease to correspond to the level of benefit. Cm. Hegarty questioned if the City could be required to contribute money. Assistant to the City Manager Rankin explained that the contributors would be the beneficiaries, or the land owners . On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council appointed the Assistant to the City Manager as a liaison for this program and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 2 - 87 SUPPORTING COMPREHENSIVE DELTA LEVEE REHABILITATION PROGRAM * * * * *************************************************************************** CM-6-2 Regular Meeting January 12, 1987 TRI-VALLEY COMMUNITY 'TELEVISION CORPORATION The City has received a letter from the Tri-Valley Community Television Corporation requesting that the City forward $45,000 for public access purposes to the Community Television Corporation Board. The Tri-Valley Community Television Corporation has indicated that these monies will be turned over to Community Television for the purchase of this equipment. Cm. Hegarty, who is one of the City's representatives on the Tri-Valley Community Television. Corporation Board, indicated that no long term expenditure plan had been presented to the Board by Community Television for the development of a cable tv studio and the equipping of that studio. Cm. Hegarty indicated that he felt. it would be more appropriate for the Board to have such an expenditure plan before the Cities contributed monies for this capital equipment. Cm Vonheeder questioned who owns the equipment that is now used. Consensus was that the 'equipment is owned by Mr. Oliver, who loans it out for community use. The Pleasanton School District currently donates the building space used for a studio. A studio site will be one of the issues to be dealt with. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by. Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to prepare a letter requesting that the Tri-Valley Community Television Corporation present an expenditure plan for the use of Public Access funds prior to their commitment, plus long term plans. The Council discussed prospective applicants for the additional 3 seats°on - the Tri-Valley Community Television Board. Mayor Jeffery questioned if the whole group selects these. Cm. Hegarty indicated that the Board will appoint the individuals and they are looking for anyone interested in serving. . * * *. * DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT - 1987 AQUATICS PROGRAM The City has received a letter from the Dublin San Ramon Services District indicating that it will not be providing the necessary personnel to conduct swimming programs at the Valley Community Swim Center for 1987. The District has indicated its willingness to cooperate with the City, should the City desire to take over the Aquatics Program for this upcoming year. The Recreation Director has indicated that undertaking the responsibility for an aquatics program will involve a great deal of Staff time and planning. Further, the City has not included any funding for such a program in the Fiscal Year. 1986-87 Budget. Despite these obstacles, it is possible that the City could assume respon- sibility for this function for the upcoming swimming season. However, since the Cities and District are still negotiating the disposition of the services that the District provides, it would seem premature to commit to assuming one service without resolution being reached on the outstanding - issues. *************************************************************************** CM-6-3 Regular Meeting January 12, 1987 t r 4 Y d d • Cm. Moffatt questioned .if there -would be a ;`"time` frame with regard to 'a resolution. He felt there should be, as negotiations could -goon fora long time. Cm. Vonheeder indicated that she was one of 3 people responsible'-forgetting the pool reopened in 1979, utilizing ,volunteers. She did ,not -feel: that it made any financial sense to close down the pool`. as the residents will be the ones to be short-changed. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the pool could be operated utilizing volunteers with the City overseeing the operation. No one on the Council felt this :',, could be seriously considered. Cm. Hegarty indicated he felt very strongly that residents should be informed that the City is not the "bad guys"- in: this situation. The Dublin San Ramon Services District must face the fact' that they will someday be going out of business. Cm. Vonheeder felt the District is willing to give the7.áuatics program to , the City, but they don't want to give the necessary dollars that go with it. Cm. Snyder felt that if the City acquiesces even a little, the negotiation process will be lengthened. _ On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm.Hegarty , and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to notify the District that the City will be willing to assume responsibility for the 1987 Aquatics Program, :provided that the District agrees to the disposition of other District services as proposed by the Cities of Dublin and San Ramon. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL PET PREVENT-A-CARE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - MOBILE PET VACCINATION- CLINIC ' ' Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that the Applicant filed a Conditional Use Permit- request -to be allowed to operate 4 separate mobile pet clinics in the Village Square `. Shopping Center parking lot located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway. - The request was considered by the Planning Commission on December 1, 1986. At that meeting, the Commission denied the request, as a result of a 2/2 split vote on a . motion to approve. the CUP request. The Applicant subsequently submitted -a written appeal of the Planning Commission' s decision. The Pet Prevent-A-Care mobile pet vaccination clinics have been previously operated in the City as a low-cost cat and dog vaccination service. The Applicant indicates that the fees charged are approximately1/3. the rate charged by conventional clinics. . The clinics 'have typically lasted-:3 hours and occupy a 6.5' x 35' area of the parking `lot.:;. The clinics have 'typically. included a van and a 23 ' travel trailer and tables 'for registration ' ************************************************************,*t************** CM 6-4 Regular Meeting - "� � 4y � t Januay r 1 ;%19 2 87 i s ♦'=yr r , � t-h ; x o- - i Pet Prevent-A-Care has a record of providing low-cost. mobile pet clinics in Dublin since 1977 with no record of complaints or, problems associated with the operation of these clinics received from private citizens. Local veterinarians have, however, voiced opposition to the approval of mobile pet clinics. since 1983 . Local veterinarians have in .the "past requested that the City adopt an ordiance prohibiting mobile pet vaccination clinics. . They have indicated that they do not believe the mobile clinics are .in the best interest ;of the City or local veterinarians, as they do not pay property or sales taxes, nor . do they employ local residents. Further, permitting mobile clinics provides them with a competitive edge over local veterinarians and mobile clinics do not provide follow-up medical service. Local veterinarians, in conjunction with the Valley Humane. Society, have . offered one low cost pet vaccination service since the last mobile pet vaccination clinic was operated. Staff felt that the mobile pet clinics .provide' an important service to the community by offering low cost •and convenient pet vaccinations, encouraging individuals to vaccinate their pets, thereby reducing the potential for rabies and other diseases. The City Council has supported this position in the past, finding that the use provides a service to the community. Staff reported to the Council that today, Alpha. Beta. had advised the !City that they are withdrawing their approval for use of the site for 2 of the 3 scheduled clinics . Steve Sweetzer, a Veterinarian with Pet. Prevent-A-Care addressed the [Council and advised that their staff are well-trained. Their intentions- areto provide low cost vaccination services.. The clinics are well organized and suitably run. They are constantly being complimented by members of the public and "people continually thank them for coming into the community. Cm. Hegarty questioned what type of records they keep. Mr. Sweetzer indicated that records are kept in their main. office. Cards are sent out reminding people when shots are due. Cm. Moffatt questioned if Mr.. Sweetzer is a veterinarian. Mr. Sweetzer . responded that he has been a. veterinarian -since 1975 and he has been Ian: - employee of Pet Prevent-A-Care for 5 years. Cm. Moffatt indicated that -the Board of Veterinarians indicate that an examination should occur prior to a vaccination being given. Mr. Sweetzer indicated that they question owners regarding the health of a pet and if an animal is sick, they will not vaccinate, but rather refer them to a local veterinarian. Cm. Moffatt" - questioned how they define their business. Mr. Sweetzer responded that- they. are considered a pet preventative medical service. Cm. Moffatt questioned the amounts they charge for services. Cm.' Vonheeder indicated she had tried to return• a telephone call. during the holidays, and was concerned that she only got a recorded message. She questioned what if she had been calling regarding a reaction by an animal to a vaccination. ******************************************************************** ****** CM-.6-5 Regular Meeting -January .12,.`:1987 Eric Young, President of Pet Prevent-A-Care indicated. they had given no clinics the week prior to Cm. Vonheeder' s call and therefore, no one would be trying to reach them regarding a pet reaction. Cm. Snyder questioned the number of people they serve. Mr. Young responded • that in 1982 they gave 6 clinics, as a result of a demonstrated need. . They have had a greater response in this area than any other area in California. Rick Wendling, 719-4 Elk Court, indicated he feels that Pet ,Prevent-A-Care is. interested in good quality care for pets. If -their prices were higher, there would be no controversy. - He felt that if the Council denies this Conditional Use Permit, they are opening themselves up for a suit of discouraging free enterprise. He urged the Council to approve the CUP. Cm. Moffatt reported that he had been advised that a ,vaccination is considered a commodity and therefore requires -a license. V Randall Morrison, Vice President of Pet Prevent-A-Care indicated that only 1 in 100, 000 animals will have a serious reaction to a vaccination. Pam Will, .a volunteer for Valley Humane Society felt there are 2 issues to deal with, legislative and social. The original applications for Pet Prevent-A-Care were approved because .no local service- was available. These are now available. The Valley Humane Society is here year around and the funds that are raised stay within the community.. They use the clinics as fund raisers. A Pleasanton resident indicated he was happy to hear about competition. He brings 2 dogs and , 2 cats to the' clinics because of the low cost,. Michael Cline, a ,Shannon Court resident indicated that recently his wife brought home a kitten. They took it to a local vet and it. cost $35 for 2 shots . He indicated that some people cannot afford this, and therefore, will not go to a vet, but will go to a low-cost clinic. He felt the clinics are a service that everyone can use and they do not hurt local veterinarians.- ,He encouraged the Council to approve the application. Ken Roberts, Manager of the All Creatures Veterinary .Hospital stated that Mr. Young had indicated that local veterinarians; have conspired to keep them out. Local veterinarians have not gone into this business to make a bundle of money. The average veterinarian earns less than $40,000 per year. He indicated that he takes exception to some , statements made in the Staff Report. State law requires that the County provide an annual low-cost service. It must be done by a public agency for $3 .00 . They are not requesting that a new ordinance be adopted, but rather that Dublin simply enforce the laws already on the books. He also indicated that the land owner ' is not Alpha Beta, but rather Wildess North America .Corporation. Jay Nagle, Dublin Veterinary Clinic, indicated that he had independently run 2 vaccination clinics, charged $6. 00, and served approximately 80 people. . William Brady, a Livermore resident, indicated that he has used this service for the last 6 years . He has spoken to many people who have indicated that *************************************************************.***.*********** CM-6-6 Regular Meeting January 12, 1987 • they would not be able to have their animals vaccinated' were it not for this service. He 'felt competition was desirable.. Vicky Crosetti, President of the Valley Humane Society indicated that they pass out a list of telephone numbers to call if a. reaction occurs. They provide services every day of the. year. At their last clinic, 369 vaccinations were given to approximately 250 animals Eric Young reiterated that they believe in the service they provide and clarified the statistic that in . 1983, . the. average annual income for - veterinarians was $44, 000 . Mayor Jeffery requested that everyone stick to the business at hand and not get involved with other unrelated side issues: " Planning Director Tong clarified retail sales that need to be conducted inside a building. He indicated that it is appropriate from a Staff standpoint to 'allow this application with a Conditional Use Permit. City Attorney Nave expressed concern that Cm. Moffatt kept referring to information received from Gary Hill. In fairness, it it ' should be' introduced as part of the public hearing, with copies provided to all interested parties. Since the information is not apart of the transcript,, he advised Cm. Moffatt that the information should not be used. Information that is not available to all should not be discussed at this hearing. Cm. Moffatt indicated that the information will be sent to him, at his request. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. . Cm. Moffatt made a motion to deny the request based on the fact that Pet Prevent-A-Care is a non-professional company, not owned by veterinarians, the City does not allow peddlers,, and the -clinics could cause traffic, theft and consumer protection problems. The motion was seconded by Cm. Vonheeder who indicated that when the Planning Commission approved the application in the past, the public need was not being met. She felt that the service is now being adequately provided. Cm. Hegarty felt the City, should support the Valley Humane Society now that they are getting started. Cm. Snyder indicated he was not in favor of denying the application as it is clear that there is a segment of the community of the valley as a whole that is not being serviced' otherwise. . Mayor Jeffery indicated she had received many telephone calls from people requesting that the Council approve Pet Prevent-A-Care' s application. She did not feel that Cm. Moffatt had a valid point, in that most hospitals in the United States are not owned by doctors . On motion of Cm. Moffatt, . seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote, the Council adopted *********************************************************.****************** CM-6-7 Regular Meeting January 12, 1987 • RESOLUTION NO. 3 87 DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION OF DECEMBER 1, 1986, REGARDING PA 86-117 PET' PREVENT-A-CARE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR. FOUR MOBILE PET CLINICS IN THE VILLAGE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER PARKING LOT, - NORTHEAST CORNER OF AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD AND VILLAGE PARKWAY, AND . UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL ,OFTHE SUBJECT REQUEST Cm. Snyder and Mayor Jeffery voted against this motion. * * * .*.. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. On November 24, 1986, the City Council reviewed - Howard Johnson. Sign Variance Appeal. The City's existing Sign Ordinance allows one Freestanding Sign per parcel and specifically prohibits granting a Variance from this requirement. The Council continued the item for two months, directing Staff and the Planning Commission to consider a Zoning Ordinance Amendment that would provide for two Freestanding Signs on larger parcels which have two or more frontages . ; Since the adoption of the City' s revised Sign Ordinance, Staff has identified several area requiring .clarification., Staff prepared and presented several paragraphs intended to clarify provisions of the Sign Ordinance. At the December 15, 1986 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission considered the proposed Sign Ordinance Amendment and modified the Ordinance deleting the amendment to allow two Freestanding Signs for large parcels adjacent to I-580 and I-680. It was the consensus of the Commission that: 1) the proposed Lodging signs located on the street were adequate signage; 2) they didn't want a proliferation, of signs; 3) there should not be a row of signs visible from the' freeway; 4) the ordinance provisions for Wall Signage and one Freestanding Sign per parcel is adequate. Johnson Clark representing Howard Johnson' s Motor Lodge indicated he was in favor of an amendment to allow for 2 freestanding signs. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Snyder felt there are some unique situations that exist. He did not feel that there would be a proliferation of freestanding signs along the freeway. Cm. "Hegarty felt that a lot of time had gone into the development of the new ' sign ordinance and now, the council could either stick to the rules or make constant changes. He felt that l freestanding sign per parcel is enough. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote, the Council agreed to provide for two Freestanding Signs on large parcels adjacent to the freeway, and adopted *************************************************************************** CM-6-8 . " . Regular Meeting January 12, 1987 • RESOLUTION NO. 4 - 87 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 86-129 .SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT . and waive the reading and introduce an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance relating to the Sign Ordinance. Cm. Hegarty voted against this motion. * * * PUBLIC HEARING INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS ON LARKDALE AVENUE & BRISTOL ROAD Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. The intersection of Larkdale Avenue and Bristol Road is currently controlled by yield signs on Larkdale Avenue. TJKM has investigated this intersection in response to a request from Staff and determined that there is limited sight distance caused by landscaping and parked cars. Therefore, stop signs. would be more appropriate at this location. Otto Clause indicated he lives on the corner of Larkdale Avenue and Bristol Road and reported" that someone had run into his motor home. He encouraged the placement of stop signs at this intersection. Many children cross this street. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. ' On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and, adopted on an urgency basis ORDINANCE NO. 1 '- 87 . • ESTABLISHING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS (Stop Signs on Larkdale Avenue at intersection of Bristol Road) * * * * PUBLIC HEARING - ORDI NANCE CHANGING VIOLATIONS ` OF BUILDING & ZONING REGULATIONS FROM A MISDEMEANOR TO INFRACTIONS Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that the overriding goal of the City.'is: to encourage compliance with building and zoning regulations rather than to punish violators. This goal is frustrated, however, where citizens are aware that swift and sure prosecution is unlikely. The current' enforcement procedure is cumbersome and time consuming. This procedure is also not very cost effective. Several jurisdictions have recognized that the misdemeanor crime is not an appropriate category for most land use construction and development code violations. Use of the infraction procedure is a simplified cost effective enforcement technique with realistic penalties that are swiftly imposed. *************************************************************************** CM-6-9 Regular Meeting January 12, 1987 Cm. Moffatt questioned if this ordinance would be retroactive. Chief Building Official Taugher indicated that -it .would not be. effective until 30 days after adoption. Cm. Moffatt questioned who is penalized for violations. Mr. Taugher indicated that it could be the -owner, tenant, agent, contractor, etc. , at. the discretion of the result of consultation within City offices. Staff reported that a call-out list has been developed "for' weekend violators. Mr. Taugher reported that after the ordinance is .adopted, a bail schedule must be presented to the court. This schedule will be brought back to the Council after the ordinance is adopted., Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the Policy & Procedures, waived the reading and INTRODUCED an, ordinance amending 11.15 of Chapter 1, Ordinance No. 02-84, amending Section 8-107, of Article 9, Part 2, Chapter 2, Title 8 Alameda County Ordinance Code as adopted by the City of Dublin and repealing Section 8-107.1 Article 9 Part 2 Chapter 2 Title 8 Alameda County Ordinance Code as adopted by the City of Dublin. * * * .* PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE INCREASING CITY COUNCIL SALARIES Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. In a .Memorandum prepared by the City Attorney' s Office, the Assistant City Attorney has noted that the Council, in accordance with the Government Code, may increase its salary by 5% for each calendar year from the date of the last adjustment. However,- any such salary increase cannot be effective until after 1 or more `member(s) of the Council begins a new term of office. Therefore, action on approval, of a salary increase at this time for the City Council would not become effective until after the November, 1988 election. The Government Code also provides that the City Council cannot automatically increase its salary. Therefore, the draft Ordinance provides only for a 5% increase for the calendar year 1986 and' a 5% increase for the calendar year 1987 (to become effective after November 1988 Election):. The Council could increase its salary an additional 5% in. 1988 prior to the November 1988 election, but the action to approve such an increase could not be taken until calendar year 1988. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading andINTRODUCED' an. ordinance amending Ordinance No. 6 and providing for an increase of the salary for members ' of the, City Council. *************************************************************************** " Regular Meeting January 12, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE REGULATING MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND MASSAGE SERVICES Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. This ordinance was introduced at the City Council meeting of December 22,- 1986 and is a part of the comprehensive revision of the City's ordinances:; and development of a Municipal Code. The proposed ordinance regulates massage establishments and services. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 2 ' 87 REGULATING' MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND MASSAGE SERVICES * * * * PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE ENCLOSURE OF SWIMMING POOLS Mayor Jeffery opened the public heairng. This ordinance was introduced at the City Council meeting. of December 22, 1986, and is a part of the comprehensive revision of the City' s ordinances and development of a Municipal Code. The proposed ordinance requires swimming pools to be enclosed by a fence or a fence and, portions of the building; Cm. Moffatt questioned if a sauna were 4 1/2' deep would it require a .fence. Staff clarified that a fence not less than 4 1/2' high, must be placed around any portion of water which is 2 or more feet deep. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, . the Council waived the reading and adopted . ORDINANCE NO. 3 - 87 • REGULATING THE. ENCLOSURE OF SWIMMING POOLS * *• * * . . PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A STREET ADDRESS NUMBERING SYSTEM Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. This ordinance was introduced at the City Council meeting of December 22, 1986 and is a part of the comprehensive revision of the City' s ordinances and development of a Municipal Code. The provisions, of the proposed ordinance are essentially the same as the County ordinance with requirements that apply only to the unincorporated area , deleted. ****************************************************************'*********** CM=6-11 Regular Meeting January 12, 1987 Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 4 - 87 ESTABLISHING A STREET ADDRESS NUMBERING SYSTEM * * * * PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE RELATING TO AUCTIONEERS • Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. • This ordinance was introduced at the City Council meeting of December 22, 1986 and is a part of the comprehensive revision of the City's ordinances and development of a Municipal Code. The proposed ordinance requires auctioneers to comply with the provisions of the State Law and the City's Zoning Ordinance. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 5 - 87 RELATING _TO AUCTIONEERS * * * * PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDING TIME FOR FILING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION STATEMENTS Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. At the City Council meeting of December 8, 1986, Staff was requested to place the City' s Ordinance regulating election campaign contributions and expenditures on the City Council agenda for January 12, 1987. This request was prompted by Vice Mayor Vonheeder who had concerns with respect to the number of filings the ,candidates had to make, especially as they related to the different reporting periods for the City and State campaign statements. The City Council, on January 9, 1984 adopted an ordinance regulating election campaign contributions. and. expenditures. ': This ordinance was amended on January 23, 1984 . These ordinances in concert, provide for a disclosure of campaign donations and expenditures which is lower than the State of California requires . It also places alimit on the maximum amount of contributions which can be made or received. The ordinance also provides for a specified time frame for filing verified campaign statements to make certain that the requirements of the ordinance are met. *************************************************************************** CM-6-12 Regular Meeting January 12, 1987 The amended ordinance as proposed, would consolidate 7 filings into '4 filings, as well as bring the '.filing period for. the City's ordinance into conformance with the filing period for the State. The only statement that would be filed in addition to the State filing statements.. would be the statement that is required in Ordinance No. 1-84, Section 4.c. The filing of this statement is necessary because Section 2.c. and Section 3.a. of the ordinance preclude acceptance of campaign contributions outside of the . election period, which is defined as_ that period of time commencing on the 58th day following an election and ending on .the close of the 5th day before the next election. Cm. Moffatt suggested abolishing the entire ordinance, including the lesser dollar amounts that can be collected and which must be reported, as he felt the State of California maintains sufficient controls. On motion of Cm. Moffatt,. seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council continued the public hearing to the January 26, 1987 meeting and directed Staff to bring back a draft ordinance that would repeal Ordinances No. 1-84 and No. 3-84 . * * * * RECESS A short recess was called. All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RULES FOR SELECTION OF MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR In accordance with the City Council ' s direction at its meeting of November 24, 1986, the City Attorney' s Office has prepared a. draft resolution establishing rules for the selection of Mayor and Vice Mayor. The resolution provides that immediately following the certification of the results of the election in even numbered years, the Council shall select one of its members as Mayor and one of its members as Vice Mayor. The term for each office would be until their successors are selected following the next general municipal election. There would also be an annual confirmation which would be held at the first regular Council meeting in December of odd numbered years. At that meeting, the Council would vote to confirm the selection of the Mayor and Vice Mayor made in the preceding year, or vote to take no action. Cm. Moffatt questioned the authority of Dublin' s Mayor, since this is not a directly elected position. Staff explained that the authority levels were the same, regardless of how- the Mayor is put into office. *********************************.****************************************** CM-6-13 Regular Meeting _January 12, 1987 City Attorney Nave indicated that- while most General Law cities select a Mayor and Vice Mayor annually, more continuity would be -provided" with 2 year terms. Cm. Snyder felt that it is extremely important in dealing with the County that continuity be encouraged. There are very few cities in Alameda County which do not have directly elected Mayors. Cm. Snyder felt that it is time for residents of Dublin to have a voice in the selection of Mayor. Zev Kahn reported that in the' last election, 95%- of the incumbents running in California were reelected. He felt the Mayor's position should be directly elected. Cm. Vonheeder -made a motion which was seconded by Cm. Hegarty to adopt the resolution establishing: rules for the selection of Mayor .and- Vice Mayor as . written, with annual confirmation. This motion was not voted upon as a substitute motion was made by Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majority vote to eliminate reference tosection :2, annual . confirmation. The Council adopted, as amended RESOLUTION NO. 5 - 87 ESTABLISHING RULES. FOR THE SELECTION OF MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR Cm. Snyder voted against this motion. * * * CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS On December 8, 1986, Staff presented a list of those commissions and governing bodies. upon which Councilmembers presently serve. Mayor •Jeffery- indicated that she has asked Cm. Vonheeder to assume the position on the Audit Committee. Cm.. Vonheeder indicated a willingness to serve on this Committee. Consensus of. the Council was that the list will remain the same with the one change noted. * *- * VOLUNTEER.RECOGNITION PROGRAM, ORGANIZATION OF THE YEAR AND CITIZEN OF THE YEAR AWARDS - COMMITTEE REPORT In accordance with City Council .direction, Vice Mayor Vonheeder and Cm. Moffatt developed a Volunteer Recognition Program,- as well as a, progra,.. . format for the selection of the Citizen of. the Year. This Council Sub- Committee has also recommended that the Council consider an award to the Organization of the, Year. ; *************************************************************************** • CM-6-14 Regular Meeting January 12, 1987 • • • • The- Sub-Committee developed a letter which has . been sent out to. various • community -groups inviting them• to submit nomination forms for the Citizen, of the '.Year and .Organization of the Year Award. The Sub-Committee has . established a deadline of January 23, 1987._ The Sub-Committee also recommends that the awards be announced at 'the Volunteer Reception which will be held on Friday, January 30, 1987 at the Shannon Community Center. ` - The. Selection Committee was discussed. It was agreed that the Committee will • consist of 1) each Councilmember-or appointee, 2) City Manager-or appointee, 3) President of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce-or appointee. The Council agreed with regard to the list of those appropriate to be honored with either a -City pin, proclamation or other.. gift, and -to be invited. to , the volunteer reception. * *- * *• DOLAN PARK • At ' its April 28, 1986 meeting,. the City .Council , adopted the Park Masterplan - for Dolan, Dougherty Hills, East Dougherty HIlls,-.Kolb, Mape and Shannon Parks. In June of 1986, the- Five-Year Capital .Imprdvement Program was adopted which provided funds for design ,.and= construction of Dolan Park, Phase I. ' The firm of Cardoza, Dilallo, Harrington was selected to prepare the final design and construction documents for Phase I of Dolan Park based on the masterplan done by -Singer & , Hodges, Inc. Phase, •I improvements include: site prep & clearing, grading, drainage, - irrigation, lawn, trees, walkways, park furniture, lighting and children' s play area. The total budget for, Phase I is $407,020., of which $309, 700 is for improvements and $97,320 is for design, engineering and contract administration. • The Park & Recreation -Commission considered the design at their meeting •of , December 9, 1986. . There were concerns indicated from members of the public regarding a- power pole located on the park property fronting Padre Way. . The . . architect has contacted PG&E to investigate the. costs associated with undergrounding this one pole-. Preliminary estimates total approximately . $36, 000. It was the- consensus of the Commission to leave the power pole. in. its present location, .but -to screen- it with plantings . Relocation of the pole is also being considered and should not hold up the project design and construction. • Zev Kahn showed pictures to the Council of a power pole ,located, .at the entrance to the park. He felt- the issue is a .difficult one to deal with, however, . a •decision needs to be made. regarding the disposition of the pole before. Padre Way is resealed. - He presented a petition signed by- 63 people asking that ' the pole 'be eliminated. The issue of restroom facilities in the park were discussed. • City Engineer Thompson showed a drawing indicating 3 power poles. nearby 'and indicated that •Staff could contact PG&E regarding a more precise estimate to remove the poles should the Council so direct. *************_*****************************************************.********* - CM-6-15 - Regular Meeting January 12, . 1987 . • Cm. 'Snyder questioned if the residents affected would be willing to share in the cost of undergrounding. Mayor Jeffery indicated she was unsure that this would be a good precedent to set. She did not, feel the City should actively pursue this, but rather check with the 2 people who would benefit to see if they are willing to pay for their connections . It was suggested that Staff poll the entire area to see if the people want to form an assessment district. City Manager Ambrose pointed out that the City would have to consider if the removal of the pole represents a great benefit to the general public. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the design as proposed and authorized the Architect to prepare construction documents based on approved design. * * SHANNON CENTER BUILDING IMPROVEMENT PLAN At its meeting of February 24, 1986, the City Council retained the services of Hansen/Murakami/Eshima, Inc. , to develop a -Building Improvement Plan for the Shannon Community Center. The main objectives of the Plan were to 1) assess the overall condition of the building and identify deficiencies in building design; 2 ) make recommendations as to needed -building improvements; and 3 ) prepare a preliminary improvement plan and. cost estimate. The study comprised four main areas of concern 1) life :-safety; 2) .handicapped accessibility; 3) function, as it relates to architecture, structure, heating, ventilation, -air conditioning, plumbing and electrical systems; and 4 ) maintenance. . The report submitted contained an analysis of existing conditions, recommendations for improvements and a construction cost analysis. _ The Council received a presentation from' John Nelson and considered the proposed recommendations . As the Building Improvement Plan Report was not complete at the time that the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program was ,. prepared, funds were not budgeted 'for -improvements to Shannon Center. John Nelson displayed slides illustrating exposed duct systems . Cm. Snyder felt that life safety and handicapped accessibility should be dealt with initially. A more useable facility is needed. Mayor Jeffery questioned the approximate life of the building if nothing were done. Mr. Nelson responded that with routine maintenance, it would probably last another 25 years . ************ ************************************************************* CM-6-16 Regular Meeting January 12, 1987 Cm. Snyder felt this was just another piece of a bigger problem with the Dublin San Ramon Services District. City Manager Ambrose indicated that the District does have some funds available which could be used on the Shannon Center. On motion of Cm. Snyder,. seconded by Cm. Vonheeder and by unanimous vote, the Council determined that the initial improvements should be those related to life safety and handicapped access,- then the upgrading of the kitchen, followed by the main floor and the lower floor improvements. The Council also requested Staff to identify funding options in the 1987-88 Capital Improvement Program. * * * . * CONTRACT SERVICE EVALUATION STUDY SESSION The Council has requested that evaluations of services provided by contract service providers to the City take place concurrently. The Council will evaluate the services of 1) Building & Safety; 2) Engineering; 3) Police; 4) Animal Control; 5) Vector Control; 6) Public Works Maintenance; 7) Traffic Signal Maintenance and Crossing. Guards . City Manager Ambrose indicated that the City would need to hold off on evaluating paratransit services until a response is received from LAVTA.: Cm. Vonheeder . suggested that food be provided at the meeting. The Council selected the 'date of Tuesday, February 10, 1987 to conduct a special meeting for purposes of contract review. • * * " * * 1987 GOALS & QBJECTIVES STUDY SESSION Annually, the City Council holds a special meeting to establish Goals & Objectives for the City for the upcoming year. Cm. Vonheeder suggested that food be provided at the meeting. The Council selected the date of Thursday, February 12, 1987 to conduct a special meeting. for discussion of the 1987 Goals & Objectives. * . * * * **************************************************************.************* CM-6-17 Regular Meeting - .January 12, 1987 OTHER BUSINESS League of CA Cities Meeting Cm. Vonheeder reminded the Council of the League dinner on January 29, 1987 which will be at the Blue Dolphin in San Leandro. The speaker will be an attorney specializing in toxic waste issues . * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12 :22 a.m. * * * * Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk * * * * *************************************************************************** CM-6-18 Regular Meeting January 12, 1987