HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.01 Approve 03-13-1989 Minutes REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 13, 1989
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on
Monday, March 13, 1989, in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The
meeting was called to order at 7 : 40 p.m. , by Mayor Paul Moffatt.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor
Moffatt.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle-
giance to the flag.
Shamrocks from Bray, Ireland
Mayor Moffatt introduced Audrey Hutchinson, who introduced her nephew
from Bray, Ireland, Dublin' s Sister City. Her nephew presented the
Council with shamrocks that he brought with him from Ireland and the
people of Bray.
Citizen of the Year
Cm. Vonheeder explained the background of the Citizen of the Year award,
which recognizes outstanding volunteer service to the community. She
presented the award to Steve Jones, who has been active as a coach for
Little League and youth soccer and basketball programs, as well as with
the Lions Club. Mr. Jones will also serve as Grand Marshal for the St.
Patrick' s Day parade on March 18th.
Mr. Jones thanked the City Council for the award and said that he felt
Dublin is the best city in the Valley.
Organization of the Year
Cm. Vonheeder presented the Organization of the Year award to the Dublin
San Ramon Lions Club.
rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rrx
CM-8-103
Regular Meeting March 13, 1989
Jt,,�rn
i
PROCLAMATION: "ARC-MENTAL RETARDATION AWARENESS MONTH"
Mayor Moffatt read a proclamation declaring the month of March, 1989, as
"ARC-Mental Retardation Awareness Month. " The proclamation was accepted
by Ernest Ellis, who thanked the City Council on behalf of ARC and said
that he felt public information was the most important part of their
program.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Mayor Moffatt introduced Betty Croly of the Alameda County Planning
Department, who made a presentation regarding the Final Alameda County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
Ms . Croly briefly discussed the background of the Plan and indicated that
the issues of greatest concern to the public were ( 1 ) location of the
facilities for treating, processing, and disposing of hazardous waste;
and (2) procedure for approving a facility that treats, processes, or
disposes of the waste. Step I - Inclusionary Criteria: The Plan' s
approach in dealing with the siting process identifies areas within the
County which may be appropriate based on current zoning and general plan
land use designations of general of heavy industrial. The areas must be
near hazardous waste producers, have good access to freeways, and be
consistent with goals and policies established with the Hazardous Waste
Management Plan. Ms. Croly stressed that the counties would take care of
their own waste or possibly set up--an agreement between two counties but
that one location would not be expected to handle waste from the entire
state.
Step II - Exclusionary Criteria: This step removes lands that do not
meet the criteria noted in Step I from consideration. Another set of
restrictions is applied which removes areas near earthquake faults, dam
or reservoir failure flood areas, approach zones for airports, and
environmentally sensitive areas.
Step III - Conditional Criteria: Sites that were not eliminated by Steps
I or II are assessed for specific limitations relating to the land and
its surroundings, such as proximity to schools, residential zones, or
hospitals; availability of emergency services; location within a 100-year
floodplain; access to sewers; air quality and noise impacts; soil
conditions; groundwater situations, etc. No area in Dublin meets the
site selection criteria. The nearest facilities could be located in
Livermore, which includes sites for transfer, storage, treatment, and
incineration facilities. The only site within the County that appears
suitable for a residual repository is west of Vasco Road near the Contra
Costa County Line, just north of Livermore. It is possible that the site
may be removed from the list if a current proposal for residential
rezoning is approved.
Ms . Croly continued that the, :nost significant requirement of the program
is that the local government mu' st appoint a Local Assessment Committee
(LAC) at least 90 days before a land use permit for a hazardous waste
CM-8-104
Regular Meeting March 13, 1989
facility is applied for. The LAC is to negotiate with the developer
regarding terms and conditions for project approval.
Following adoption of the Plan at a future public hearing, the City's
General Plan would be required to be amended to include the Hazardous
Waste Management Plan.
Senior Planner Rod Barger added that Dublin has no general or heavy
industrial lands, and the Hazardous Waste Management Plan does not
propose any transfer, storage, treatment, incinerator, or residual
repository facilities in Dublin. He noted, however, that since I-580 and
I-680 are major transit routes for carrying waste material, there is a
potential for spills to occur in Dublin. The Waste Management Authority
has requested that the City Council provide comments or concerns to be
included in the Plan, which would be returned to the City for final
review and adoption.
Mayor Moffatt asked if the plan was just for disposal sites or if it
would include curbside pickup of hazardous materials.
Ms . Croly stated that the plan was for removal of the materials outside
of Dublin and that no curbside pickups were proposed. One facet of the
Plan could be to provide a place that residents could take hazardous
waste material.
Cm. Hegarty asked where most hazardous waste originated and how it was
transported.
Mr. Barger responded that the largest facility was in Kettleman Hills,
and that it was taken by truck.
Cm. Jeffery asked if the procedure for handling a hazardous material
spill was included in the Disaster Preparedness Plan rather than in the
Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
Ms. Croly stated that the EPA had outlawed open pit dumping, and that the
Waste Minimization Program lessened the amount of waste being
transported. Most of the transporting would be on I-880 . The Disaster
Preparedness Plan also includes procedures for handling spills.
Cm. Jeffery said she felt that a lot of work had already gone into the
Plan and that a letter should be written agreeing with its content.
Cm. Snyder agreed that much work had already been done and that comments
had already been included. Most of the previous comments had been
relative to the Inclusionary Sites .
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote,
the City Council directed Staff to write a letter to the Waste Management
Authority expressing agreement with the Plan as written.
CM-8-105
Regular Meeting March 13, 1989
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous
vote, the Council took the following actions:
Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 13, 1989;
Approved a request by the Rowell Ranch Rodeo Committee to waive the
portion of the City's policy for use of the San Ramon Road banner poles
requiring the event to be held in Dublin, and authorized Staff to issue
an encroachment permit to advertise the Rodeo during the weeks of May 7
and May 14;
Denied a claim submitted by Pacific Bell for damage to a cable incurred
during the San Ramon Road Phase III project and directed Staff to notify
the claimant and the City' s insurance provider;
Authorized Staff to advertise for bids for Contract 89-4 Annual Slurry
Seal Program (engineer' s estimate $42, 000) ;
Accepted the City Treasurer' s Investment Report as of February 28, 1989;
Authorized a budget transfer in the amount of $4, 978.81 from unallocated
reserves in order to pay an invoice for Stagecoach Park that was budgeted
in FY1987-88;
Authorized the Mayor to sign an agreement with Jones, Hall, Hill, and
White for the purpose of determining the arbitrage calculations of the
refinanced Certificates of Participation;
Waived the provision of the City' s Purchasing Ordinance that requires
competitive bids for purchases over $5, 000 based on the finding that the
purchase is an emergency and will be made from the nearest source of
supply and authorized purchase of pumps for the Community Swim Center
from Paco Pumps in the amount of $6, 569 .80;
Authorized the Mayor to execute an amendment to the Solid Waste Agreement
dated March 10, 1986 for collection and disposal of waste (revision to
Schedule 1 ) and authorized the City Manager to execute an amendment for
special pickups;
Approved Warrant Register dated March 13, 1989, in the amount of
$620, 880 .98;
Approved the Financial Report for February, 1989 .
Cm. Snyder requested that the Agreement with Hughes, Heiss and Associates
for a Management Audit of Development Services be removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion. City Manager Richard Ambrose stated
that since time was of the essence on this project, Staff had not had
a..reading_.from the—consultant, Hughes,. Heiss- and Associates, .
regarding the City' s standard Consultant Agreement prior to preparing the
Staff report. There were two items in the standard agreement that did
CM-8-106
Regular Meeting March 13, 1989
not suit the agreement being proposed, and therefore, Staff was asking
the City Council to approve the agreement with two modifications. The
first modification is that the standard agreement provides for 1 /3
payment after 90 days. Since this project is to be completed in 90 days,
it was proposed to pay 1 /3 of the agreed amount at the outset and the
balance upon completion. The second modification relates to the section
requiring errors and omissions insurance. The City Attorney agreed that
it was not imperative that errors and omissions insurance be required for
this type of work. Therefore, Staff recommended that this section be
waived.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous
vote, the City Council approved the agreement with Hughes, Heiss, and
Associates with the two modifications and authorized the Mayor to
execute.
DUBLIN SPORTS GROUNDS - REQUEST FROM
CALIFORNIA YOUTH SOCCER ASSOCIATION TO WAIVE FIELD USE FEES
Recreation Director Diane Lowart stated that the United States Youth
Soccer Association (USYSA) had selected Dublin, Pleasanton, and San Ramon
as the site for the Far West Regional Soccer Championships during June
16-20, 1989 . Correspondence was received from Brian Leonard, Tournament
Director, requesting that -the-field use fees associated with the use of
the Sports Grounds be waived for this tournament. Teams qualify for the
tournament by winning a State championship; therefore, fees are not
charged to winning teams. The USYSA hopes that tournament expenses will
be offset by donations of goods and services from local businesses, sales
of advertising, and snack bar profits. Use fees for a tournament of this
nature would be $5 per hour per field, or an estimated total of $625.
The fields have been reserved by the Dublin United Soccer League, which
is assisting USYSA in staging the tournament. The City of Pleasanton
does not charge fees for their youth soccer programs. The City of San
Ramon is considering a waiver of fees at a future meeting. Ms. Lowart
stated hosting a tournament of this nature is considered an honor and
that Staff' recommended the City Council waive the fees. The tournament
is estimated to draw at least 25, 000 people to the Tri-Valley area over
the five-day period.
Cm. Jeffery agreed that selecting Dublin as a tournament site was an
honor.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous
vote, the City Council approved waiver of Sports Grounds use fees for the
USYSA tournament.
rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*n*rr*
CM-8-107
Regular Meeting March 13, 1989
PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF PA 88-150 GOODWILL INDUSTRIES
DONATION STATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 7745 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD
Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing.
Planning Director Larry Tong stated that in October of 1988, a request
was approved for Site Development Review waiver for Goodwill Stores to
allow minor exterior alterations to an existing commercial building
within the Shamrock Village Shopping Center in connection with a building
permit request. Subsequently, the Applicant filed an application for a
use permit request to consider a 25-foot long trailer donation station
within the easterly portion of the parking lot of the Shamrock Village
Shopping Center. The Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use
Permit application on February 6, 1989 . On February 16, 1989, the City
received three letters of appeal regarding the Planning Commission' s
action from nearby business owners or operators. Two additional appeal
letters were received after the appeal :period closed.
Mr. Tong continued that the City' s Zoning Ordinance does not list a
specific category for this use, but it is considered to be similar to a
recycling center. Recycling centers are allowed in C-1 districts when
operated in conjunction with a permitted use on the same premises,
subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The appeal letters presented
concerns regarding the trailer' s impact on parking, circulation/access,
visual impact, and after-hours donations.
Staff' s analysis indicated that the loss of 4 parking spaces does not
create a problem as there is sufficient parking remaining on-site to meet
parking requirements, although 3 spaces could potentially be added to the
lot at another location. Alternate locations for the trailer on the lot
posed greater circulation problems or made the trailer more visible from
Amador Valley Blvd. The trailer is proposed to be open during normal
business hours of 10 : 00 a.m. to 5 : 30 p.m. , seven days a week, with a
pickup of goods left outside the trailer each evening prior to 11 : 00 p.m.
The Planning Commission had specified that informational signs be posted
so as to be visible after hours and that a 24-hour emergency or complaint
phone number be available. The Commission also required that the
Applicant reapply after 1 year so that the operation could be reviewed.
Mr. Tong added that the City Council might wish to consider requiring
addition of the 3 extra parking spaces or requiring pickup of items
outside the trailer within 12 hours.
Mr. Mike Flynn of Goodwill Stores said that he was willing to comply with
any conditions and that he felt his organization provided a valid service
to the public. He presented photographs of the site with the trailer in
place, taken from various angles .
Cm. Jeffery asked how long it took to fill the trailer.
Mr. Flynn responded that it took about a week to fill a trailer so that
it would be removed and replaced with an empty one.
CM-8-108
Regular Meeting March 13, 1989
Cm. Snyder stated that in the past, Dublin had had two different sites
for Goodwill trailers and asked if Mr. Flynn had any knowledge of dumping
problems relative to those trailers.
Mr. Flynn said to the best of his knowledge there had been no problems
and added that many organizations in the recycling business had unmanned
drop-off locations that were sometimes messy. The Goodwill donation
station triggers the same response. He added that an effort would be
made to keep the site clean.
Mayor Moffatt asked if the property owner had approved the trailer.
Mr. Flynn responded that the property owner' s approval had been granted.
Dr. Ed Kemprud of the Amador Valley Medical Clinic stated that he
appreciated Staff' s response to complaints and efforts to come up with a
solution. He felt that Goodwill intends to maintain the station. His
objection was that the trailer would be within 10 feet of where patients
enter the clinic, and he had a concern that the patients would object to
debris or feel that they might be accosted. The trailer attendant would
he leaving at 5 : 30 p.m. , and patients arrive until 9:00 p.m. He
continued that the size of the trailer would detract from professional
businesses that surround the proposed site. The parking issue was not as
big a concern. Dr. Kemperud stated that he felt locating the trailer at
the proposed site was a disservice to the businesses, and that it should
be located further north. The northside location would be more visible
from Starward Drive but would not be as close to where people were moving
around.
Mr. Willard Moore of Dublin Dinettes said that cars could not circulate
when the delivery trailer was making a delivery to the store. He added
that he was not opposed to the collection trailer but that he wanted it
located further back.
Dr. Mark McAdams, who also has offices in the Amador Valley Medical
Clinic, said that he had never seen a donation station in early morning
that was not littered with debris. He said that within the first week
the store was opened, a box of shoes was dropped in the driveway of the
clinic, and he assumed it was meant for the Goodwill store. He felt that
the location chosen is the least generally visible but is the most
visible to the clinic and patients.
Ms. Phyllis Moldenhauer, representing Professional Travel, said that
there were only 17 parking spots for 3 businesses at their portion of the
shopping center and that there was not enough parking for the customers.
She added that a lot of donations had been dropped off at the Goodwill
store so far.
Dr. Zev Kahn, Harlan Road resident, said that he was concerned that the
donation station site was too close to a residential area. He felt the
the street was di-fferent from Dublin Boulevard and that the
overall look of the street would be changed by the trailer. He said also
that there was no physical barrier between the medical clinic and the
CM-8-109
Regular Meeting March 13, 1989
proposed trailer site. Dr. Kahn continued that he felt the donation site
should be added into the building itself. He asked why the trailer could
no longer be located on the Mervyn's lot.
Ms. Moldenhauer said that in fairness, Goodwill had come to pick up
debris within five to ten hours of being called, but that it did take a
call to get them to come and that the debris was a daily occurrence.
Mr. Flynn said that he heard two primary concerns, trash and the welfare
of patients at night. He explained that there was a difference within
the Goodwill organization between the persons, such as himself, that
managed the donation stations and the persons who managed the stores. He
had not been involved in the store, but he had asked the property owner
if a donation station could be located on the property and was told that
it could. He stated that it was his job to keep the area clean at night
and that a truck was sent to clean up. He said that the station attend-
ants call for pickup of merchandise that will not fit in the trailer. He
added that the hours the attendant is at the donation station can be
extended if it would help allay the patients' fears.
Mr. Moore asked if the donation station was approved, what would be done
about the delivery truck.
Mayor Moffatt explained that the delivery truck was a different issue.
Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing.
_._ Cm. Hegarty said that Dr. Kahn' s question about why the trailer was no
longer located at Mervyn' s had not been answered.
Mr. Tong said that his understanding from Mervyn's was that they had
decided internally not to continue use of the trailer after their store
was remodeled.
Cm. Hegarty asked whether a donation station could have been added to the
Goodwill Store when the building was remodeled.
Mr. Tong said there were no accommodations for additional space, and an
addition to the building would probably change circulation at the site.
Cm. Hegarty asked if the available parking at the shopping center met the
City' s parking requirements .
Mr. Tong said that the available parking exceeded the City' s requirements
by more than a few spaces .
Cm. Snyder asked if any consideration had been given to placing a fence
between the two parcels in order to alleviate the concern of the Medical
Center.
Mr. Tong said that this had not been considered.
rY-.- y.rt: q...'L.f:+ Y'T.T• ".' ulW a iK'". :?'! sW'rlN _ •ri..+ry, wa.t
Cm. �ohh6ed'erasked if"`the trai`Ter could �be enclosed within some type of
fencing like a paper bin.
CM-8-110
Regular Meeting March 13, 1989
Mr. Tong said that such an enclosure might make it awkward to move the
trailer in and out.
Mayor Moffatt said that at the time the bank was in business, there was a
drive-up window with an overhang, and he wondered if the overhang could
be screened off and used to hide the trailer.
Mr. Tong said that this could be looked at but that it might be an
awkward place to put a trailer. .
Cm. Vonheeder said she felt the space was not wide enough.
Cm. Jeffery stated that she felt Goodwill provides a good service for the
community and that part of the service is being visible enough that the
public can find them. She said that she had no problem with the trailer
being visible from the street, and that! she would like to suggest that
the trailer be attended the same hours that the businesses are open. She
said that Goodwill should be requested to make sure that debris is picked
up every day. She added that the Goodwill Store would draw people to the
area and could be of benefit to the other businesses.
Cm. Moffatt asked if Cm. Jeffery was suggesting that the Goodwill people
meet with the other businesses.
Cm. Jeffery said not really; that her concern was keeping the area clean.
Cm. Hegarty said he had a problem in that the proposed donation station
was causing a problem for someone else. He stated that Goodwill could
have lessened the problem by designing the store so that goods could be
dropped off at the store rather than at a trailer. He said that there
was a place for the trailer but that Staff should research better
locations. He added that he would like to continue the item to another
meeting so that Staff could look at some type of shielding or fencing.
Mayor Moffatt asked if Cm. Hegarty would like Staff to come up with a
compromise location.
Cm. Hegarty said that he would, and that he felt Dr. Kahn's comments were
valid. He said that -Goodwill should have had enough foresight to include
provisions for a donation station within the building.
Cm. Vonheeder said she would support Cm. Hegarty's suggestion and that
the Council was not privy to all the concerns of the businesses . She
would like to see all the businesses work with Staff rather than have the
Council make the decision.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous
vote, the Council continued the matter to March 27, 1989, and directed
Staff to work with the applicant and other business owners to find a
mutually agreeable solution or suitable site for the trailer.
CM-8-111
Regular Meeting March 13, 1989
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE
TO SECTION 3301 (C) OF THE 1985 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
RELATING TO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN REQUIRED EXITS AT 6800 SIERRA COURT
Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing.
Building Official Vic Taugher stated that an inspection had been made at
the subject site at noon on March 13, 1989, and that the appellant had
complied with the code. The appellant was not present at the hearing.
City Attorney Mike Nave said that the best course of action would be to
proceed with the public hearing since the appellant was not actually
withdrawing the appeal.
Mr. Taugher stated that Section 3301 (c) specifies the distance required
between exits . When two exits are required, the distance between exits
shall be not less than one-half of the overall diagonal served. The
purpose of this requirement is to provide a reasonable separation between
exits so that if one becomes unusable, the other may be expected to be
used with reasonable safety. In this instance, a permit was issued to
divide a large storage area so as to create a separate tenant space of
approximately 72, x 961 . The overall diagonal is 1201 , and the exit
doors are required to be 60, apart. The approved plans for the permit
included installing a 3-foot-wide swinging exit door in an existing
rollup door. Roll-up and sliding doors cannot be used as exits because
they can be -difficult to operate. The distance between exit doors as__ _
shown on the approved plans is approximately 631 . In order to grant the
variance, the City Council must find that the variance is consistent with
the intent of the Code and that granting the variance will not lessen the
protection of the people of the City of Dublin or the property situated
within. Mr. Taugher felt that the finding could not be made and that the
variance should be denied.
Mayor Moffatt asked Mr. Taugher to clarify that the code requirement had
been met.
Mr. Taugher stated that it had.
There was no public comment on this matter.
Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote,
the City Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 24-89
DENYING VARIANCE TO SECTION 3301 (C)
OF 1985 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*
CM-8-112
Regular Meeting March 13, 1989
PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE INCREASING CITY COUNCIL SALARIES
Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing.
City Manager Richard Ambrose stated that a public hearing had been
conducted regarding this proposed ordinance at the February 27, 1989,
City Council meeting. This ordinance would increase the Councilmembers'
salaries from $347 . 29 to $364. 65 per month, effective after the November
1990 election.
At the February 27th meeting, the City Council requested that the City
Attorney investigate whether expenses, in addition to the monthly salary,
could be paid at a flat monthly rate. The current policy is to reimburse
actual expenses upon submittal of documentation. The City Attorney
prepared a memorandum which explains that although it is possible to
reimburse expenses at a fixed amount, record keeping is not necessarily
eliminated. The amount paid would be subject to an audit to verify that
the funds were actually and necessarily required. If payments exceed the
actual expenses, this may create tax implications that ' the excess amount
be considered income. Mr. Ambrose continued that if the Council wished
to pursue the matter of flat-rate reimbursement, Staff should be directed
to prepare the necessary resolution and administrative procedures.
Cm. Jeffery asked what kind of accounting would be required.
Mr. Ambrose said that the City would be required to demonstrate that
expenditures equaled -the compensation.
Cm. Vonheeder said that there was a choice of declaring the per-month
allowance as income rather than filing a statement of expenses.
Cm. Snyder disagreed with this observation.
Cm. Hegarty asked what Cm. Jeffery' s concern was.
Cm. Jeffery stated that she was trying to simplify record keeping for
Staff and the Council.
There was no public comment on this issue.
Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous
vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 03-89
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6
AND PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE OF THE SALARY
FOR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CM-8-113
Regular Meeting March 13, 1989
PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 4-87 BY
CHANGING PENALTY FOR FAILING TO INSTALL STREET ADDRESS
NUMBERS ON EXISTING BUILDINGS FROM A MISDEMEANOR TO AN INFRACTION
Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing.
Mr. Taugher stated the title of the Staff report erroneously identified
Ordinance 4-87 as the zoning ordinance. He continued that Section 6 of
Ordinance 4-87 provided that failure to post addresses on non-residential
buildings after a 10-day notice is a misdemeanor. After adoption of this
ordinance, violations of the building code and zoning ordinance became
infractions. It is proposed to change misdemeanors to infractions.
Adoption of this ordinance at this time would allow the revision to be
incorporated into the Municipal Code.
Mayor Moffatt asked for the definition of an infraction.
Mr. Taugher stated that the penalty for an infraction is a fine only, not
a jail term, and court cases are heard by a judge rather than a jury.
The court procedure is simplified. The amount of the fine is at the
discretion of the judge according to the bail schedule which is given to
the court. Fines for infractions range from $100 for a first offense to
a maximum of $500 . The penalty for a misdemeanor is a $500 fine or six
months in jail.
There was no public comment on this issue.
Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, the City Council INTRODUCED an ordinance amending Ordinance 4-87 of
the City of Dublin Ordinance Code by changing the penalty for failing to
install street address numbers on existing buildings from a misdemeanor
to an infraction.
PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND ORDINANCE CODE BY DELETING
SECTION 8-87 .87 OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE
Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing.
Mr. Taugher stated that Section 8-87 .87 was added to the Zoning Ordinance
by Ordinance 7-86. This made violation of the sign regulations a misde-
meanor. Subsequently, Ordinance 7-87 was adopted changing violations of
the zoning ordinance from a misdemeanor to an infraction. However,
Section 8-87 .87 was not changed at that time. By deleting Section 8-
87 .87, violation of the sign regulations will become an infraction as
specified by Ordinance 7-87 . Adoption of this ordinance at this time
would allow the revision to be incorporated into the Municipal Code.
Cm. Snyder asked if this action was just a technicality.
r►*rr*►►*►r*rr*►r*rr*►r*►r*rr*rr*►r*►r*rr*r►*►e*r►*rr*►r*►►*►r*r►*►r*rr*►►*►►*►r*►►*►r*►►*►►*►►*►►*r►*►►*r►*rr*
CM-8-114
Regular Meeting March 13, 1989
Mr. Nave responded that it was.
There was no public comment on this issue.
Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, the City Council INTRODUCED an ordinance amending the Zoning
Ordinance by deleting Section 8-.87.87 of the Alameda County Ordinance
Code as adopted and amended by the City of Dublin.
PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 3-87 WHICH REGULATES THE ENCLOSURE
OF SWIMMING POOLS BY MAKING A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE AN INFRACTION
Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing.
Mr. Taugher stated that again the title of the Staff Report was in error
and that Ordinance No. 3-87 is not part of the Zoning Ordinance. Ordi-
nance No. 3-87 replaced the provision of the County Ordinance relating to
enclosure of swimming pools. Ordinance No. 3-87 did not include a
provision for penalties in the event of non-compliance. It is proposed
to make violation of the pool fencing regulations an infraction.
Adoption of the ordinance at this time will allow the revision to be
incorporated into the Municipal Code.
There was no public comment on this issue.
Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote,
the City Council INTRODUCED an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 3-87,
which regulates the enclosure of swimming pools by making a violation of
this ordinance an infraction.
CITY PARTICIPATION IN DUBLIN PRIDE WEEK
Assistant City Manager Paul Rankin stated that Mayor Moffatt had been
working with community representatives to sponsor Dublin Pride Week,
April 15-22, 1989 .
Mayor Moffatt stated that the committee includes representatives from the
Dublin Chamber of Commerce, Dublin School District, and service clubs.
He requested that the City agree to fund the activities associated with
the campaign, primarily ribbons for school contest winners, flyers, and
so forth, not to exceed $2, 500, and also requested that City Council
authorize use of the City seal on special trash bags and auto litter bags
during the cleanup . campaign.
CM-8-115
Regular Meeting March 13, 1989
Cm. Jeffery asked what the thinking was behind having the City seal on
trash bags. She felt that the money should be channeled in another
direction, possibly to educate the public regarding safe disposal of
hazardous materials.
Mayor Moffatt said that he agreed with Cm. Jeffery's idea. The use of
the seal on the bags was intended to emphasize the City's participation
in the program.
Cm. Vonheeder said that other things besides the bags were being planned.
Mayor Moffatt explained that the schools would be involved by holding a
"clean school contest, " with the prize being a tree for the school yard,
and possibly having the school children judge a similar contest for
businesses. He stated that the potential budget would be around $800 to
$1 , 200 .
Cm. Snyder asked what was proposed for the distribution of the bags.
Mayor Moffatt said the committee had thought about having school children
distribute them or about having, service stations contribute the bags.
Cm. Snyder asked if Waste Management (Dublin Disposal) had been consulted
about providing free bags. It
Mayor Moffatt said that they were not willing to contribute bags but
might be willing to help in some other manner. Waste Management felt the
cost of the bags was too high.
Cm. Snyder stated that he felt there was not much demand for car litter
bags and that there would be no value in distributing them.
Mayor Moffatt said that big bags were also under consideration.
Cm. Jeffery said she had a problem with having school children provide
the large bags from a safety standpoint and that the bags should be
available at the City offices or fire station. She agreed with Cm.
Snyder regarding the litter bags and liked Mayor Moffatt's idea about the
school contests.
Cm. Vonheeder stated that the request for funding was to provide a budget
amount and that the committee would continue to discuss ideas.
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous
vote, the City Council approved the City's participation in Dublin Pride
Week not to exceed $2, 500 and asked that the committee's final proposal
for expenditures be brought back to the Council prior to the event.
rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*
CM-8-116
Regular Meeting March 13, 1989
CONSIDERATION OF 200 SPACE BART PARK & RIDE LOT
Mr. Ambrose stated that this item had been placed on the agenda at the
request of Mayor Moffatt, to determine whether the Council is interested
in working with the Bay Area Rapid Transit District to study the
feasibility of developing a 200 space Park & Ride lot on the downtown
BART station site.
The City previously litigated the proposed 750 space BART Park & Ride lot
facility on this same site some time ago, as a result of the inability of
the City and BART to reach agreement on mitigation measures for which
BART would be responsible. Since that time, BART has been working with
the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore to develop smaller Park & Ride
lots to improve the overall parking for commuters using the BART Express
Bus system. Staff has met with BART Staff to discuss appropriate ground
rules if BART should develop a small Park & Ride facility at the downtown
Dublin station site. Both Staffs agreed that the City' s traffic
engineering firm, TJKM, should undertake a traffic study identifying the
increased traffic that might be created by installing the Park & Ride
facility, and that BART would be required to pay for the cost of the
study.
The 750 space Park & Ride lot alternative for the downtown BART Station
site will remain within the scope of work for the Rail Extension EIR.
Any action toward development of the 200 space lot would be pursued
separately from the Rail Extension EIR. BART has indicated that if the
City were interested and both agencies could reach agreement, the
facility could be constructed as early as the summer of 1990.
Cm. Jeffery said that construction of the 200 space lot would be an
additional way to show that the BART station will eventually be there and
how tax dollars are spent. In addition, the proposed lot will solve
parking problems in that commuters are currently parking in business
lots .
Cm. Hegarty said there would still be impacts from the number of cars.
Cm. Jeffery said those impacts are already there.
Cm. Hegarty responded that Golden Gate Drive was not currently affected.
He stated further that he felt if the 200 space lot was approved, BART
would ask for additional spaces .
Cm. Jeffery stated that the approval process for more spaces and the
station was different.
Cm. Hegarty said he felt BART should bring the rails out to show what
they are doing. The 200 car lot would not solve anything. There have
been too many studies. He added that he was not interested in having the
lot and was not in favor of it.
Mr. Ambrose said—that the study for the interim 750 space lot would be
done approximately June of 1989 .
►�*r►*rr*►►*r►*►r*►r*►►*rr*r►*►r*r�*��*i�*►�*��*r►*►►*rr*►r*►�*r�*►r*►►*►►*rr*r�*rr*►r*rr*n*rr*r�*►r*r�*r�*��*
CM-8-117
Regular Meeting March 13, 1989
Cm. Snyder asked how amenable BART would be toward mitigating impacts, if
TJKM' s study determined that there were any.
Mr. Ambrose said if agreement could not be reached, BART would wait for
the results of the larger study. Traffic studies are not being done in
Pleasanton or Livermore, but a 200 space lot is considered more
significant in Dublin.
Cm. Vonheeder asked if anyone could say that a 200 space lot would do any
more than move the cars out of the shopping centers' lots.
Mayor Moffatt said that the buses would be moved off of Dublin Boulevard.
Mr. Ambrose said that the lot would provide a link between the Wheels bus
and BART bus, a bus shelter, and a phone. In addition, LAVTA had asked
whether they should put a bus shelter on Dublin Boulevard if the buses
would not be using that stop in the future.
Mayor Moffatt asked who would pay for the study.
Mr. Ambrose responded that BART had agreed to pay for it.
Mayor Moffatt asked how much the study would cost.
Public Works Director Lee Thompson estimated $2000 to $3000 .
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority
vote, the City Council approved the study, with the stipulation that if
BART would not agree to mitigate any impacts outlined in the study, the
City would wait for the results of the study for the 750 space lot. Cm.
Hegarty voted no on the motion.
OTHER BUSINESS
Management Audit Interviews
Mr. Ambrose asked the Councilmembers to choose a time on either Thursday,
March 16 or Friday, March 17, for interviews with Gary Goelitz of
Hughes-Reiss relative to the Management Audit. Times chosen were as
follows : Cm. Hegarty, Thursday at 6: 00 p.m. ; Cm. Jeffery, Friday at 7 :30
a.m. ; Cm. Vonheeder, Friday at 6: 30 p.m. , Cm. Snyder, Friday at 2 : 30
p.m. , and Mayor Moffatt, Thursday at 7 : 00 p.m.
ABAG General Assembly
Mr. Ambrose reminded the Council that the ABAG General Assembly was
scheduled for April 20th at the Santa Clara Convention Center.
CM-8-118
Regular Meeting March 13, 1989
League Legislative Briefing
Mr. Ambrose said that the League of California Cities' Legislative
Briefing was on March 29th, and forms needed to be returned by the 22nd
for anyone attending.
AB 160
Mayor Moffatt said that the League was asking for opposition to AB 160,
which restricts a redevelopment agency's ability to use eminent domain to
acquire property, and asked whether the City Council would be interested
in writing a letter.
Mr. Nave said that the the State Bar was also opposing the measure, and
that it would not pass.
Mayors' Conference Openings
Mayor Moffatt said that there were openings on several committees of the
Mayors' Conference if anyone was interested in applying.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting
was adjourned at 9 :55 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*n*rr*rr*rr*rr*rryrrr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr*rr�rr*rr*rr*rr*
CM-8-119
Regular Meeting March 13, 1989
REGULAR* MEETING - March 27, 1989
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on
Monday, March 27, 1989, in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The
meeting was called to order at 7 :33 p.m. , by Mayor Paul Moffatt.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Vonheeder & Mayor Moffatt.
ABSENT: Councilmember Snyder.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle-
giance to the flag.
Sidewalks on Dublin Boulevard
Jim Wamberg, 6363 Ebensburg Lane stated he wished to call to the City's
attention the fact that there are no sidewalks on Dublin Boulevard from
Clark Avenue to the bridge just before the new Civic Center on the south
side of the street. This is very unsafe when trying to-get to the Dublin
Sports Grounds.
Lee Thompson advised that there is a project in the Five-Year Capital
Improvement Program. The problem is that the areas on both sides of the
street need to be widened. An asphalt sidewalk could be put in as a
temporary measure; however, the City needs to obtain right-of-way before
a permanent sidewalk can be put in.
PROCLAMATION - EAGLE SCOUT GARY DOWELL
Mayor Moffatt stated that a Proclamation had been prepared honoring Gary
Dowell for obtaining his Eagle Scout ranking. Since no one was present
to accept the proclamation, Mayor Moffatt indicated that it would be
mailed to him.
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote,
(Cm. Snyder absent) , the Council took the following actions:
Approved Minutes of Adjourned Regular Meeting of February 23, 1989 &
Regular Meeting of February 27, 1989;
CM-8-120
Regular Meeting March 27, 1989
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 25 - 89
APPROVING REPLACEMENT OF SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
AND SECURITIES FOR TRACT 4978
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 26 - 89
APPROVING TWO SAFETY-RELATED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND
DIRECTING STAFF TO APPLY FOR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDING
Received the Dublin Police Services 1988 Calendar Year Report
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 27 - 89
APPROVING APPLICATION TO THE LOCAL GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE
EBRPD REGIONAL OPEN SPACE, WILDLIFE, SHORELINE, AND PARRS BOND ORDINANCE
PHASE I FOR THE SHANNON PARR RENOVATION PROJECT
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 28 - 89
FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS
- VILLAGE VI "RIDGECREEK" (VILLAGES -@ WILLOW-CREEK-)
and authorized Staff to accept a maintenance bond at a future date;
Adopted ,
RESOLUTION NO. 29 - 89
AWARDING CONTRACT 89-3
ANNUAL STREET OVERLAY & REPAIR PROGRAM TO
BAY CITIES PAVING & GRADING, INC. ($340.358.05)
Approved the installation of fencing at the Dublin Sports Grounds as a
new parks Capital Improvement Project; authorized $16, 000 budget .transfer
from the street maintenance operating budget to the Capital Projects
fund; and authorized Staff to solicit bids;
Approved the submission of a grant application to the Clorox Foundation
Community Development Program for youth development projects in the Tri-
Valley Community Area; and authorized Staff to prepare the necessary
written and oral presentation materials (purchase and installation of
portable aluminum bleachers for the Dublin Sports Grounds) ;
Received a Mid-Year Financial Review for Fiscal Year 1988-89;
. Approved Warrant ,Register in the,...amount of„ $941,,,159 .0.0;._____
CM-8-121
Regular Meeting March 27, 1989
PUBLIC HEARING - AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 3-87 WHICH REGULATES THE ENCLOSURE
OF SWIMMING POOLS BY MAKING A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE AN INFRACTION
Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing.
Building Official Taugher advised that this Ordinance, which was
introduced at the March 13, 1989 Council meeting, replaces the provision
of the County Ordinance Code relating to the enclosure of swimming pools.
Ordinance No. 3-87 did not include a provision for penalties in the event
of non-compliance. This action would make a violation of the pool
fencing regulations an infraction.
No public comments were made relative to this issue.
Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote,
(Cm. Snyder absent) , the Council waived the reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 4 - 89
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3-87
WHICH REGULATES THE ENCLOSURE OF SWIMMING POOLS
BY MAKING A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE AN INFRACTION
PUBLIC HEARING - AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 4-87
BY CHANGING PENALTY FOR FAILING TO INSTALL STREET ADDRESS
NUMBERS ON EXISTING BUILDINGS FROM A MISDEAMEANOR TO AN INFRACTION
Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing.
Building Official Taugher advised that this Ordinance, which was intro-
duced at the March 13, 1989 Council meeting, replaces the provisions of
the County Ordinance Code relating to establishing a street address
system. Section 6 of Ordinance No. 4-87 provided that failure to post
addresses on non-residential buildings after 10 day notice is a
misdemeanor. After this Ordinance was adopted, violation of the Building
Code and Zoning Ordinance became an infraction. It is proposed to change
misdemeanors to infractions.
No public comments were made relative to this issue.
Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous
vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted
CM-8-122
Regular Meeting March 27, 1989
ORDINANCE NO. 5 - 89
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4-87
WHICH ESTABLISHES A STREET ADDRESS NUMBERING SYSTEM
BY AMENDING SECTION 6 BY CHANGING PENALTY
FOR FAILING TO INSTALL STREET ADDRESS NUMBERS ON
EXISTING BUILDINGS FROM A MISDEMEANOR TO AN INFRACTION
PUBLIC HEARING - AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE BY DELETING SECTION 8-87.87
Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing.
Building Official Taugher advised that this Ordinance was introduced at
the March 13, 1989 Council meeting.
Section 8-87 .87 was added to the Zoning Ordinance by Ordinance No. 7-86.
This made violation of the sign regulations a misdemeanor. Subsequently,
Ordinance No. 7-87 was adopted changing violations of the Zoning
Ordinance from a misdemeanor to an infraction. However, Section 8-87.87
was not changed at that time. By deleting Section 8-87 .87, violation of
the sign regulations will become an infraction, as specified by Ordinance
No. 7-87 .
Adoption of this Ordinance at this time will allow the revision to be
incorporated into the Municipal Code.
No public comments were made relative to this issue.
Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous
vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 6 - 89
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY DELETING SECTION 8-87.87 OF THE
ALAMEDA COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE AS ADOPTED AND AMENDED BY THE CITY OF DUBLIN
PUBLIC HEARING-THE CASDEN COMPANY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING,
TENTATIVE MAP 5883 & SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PA 88-009 . 1 / . 2/ .3
Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing.
Planner Trudy Ryan advised that CoastFed Properties, Owner, and The
Casden Company, Applicant, are requesting the City to rezone 17 . 45 +
acres of property located south of Amador Valley Boulevard south and east
;.:,, _,,,,pf, Stagecoach Drive -from Zoning Unit #1497 to Planned Development
District (PD) . They are concurrently requesting the City to consider a
request to subdivide the property to accommodate 206 multi-family
CM-8-123
Regular Meeting March 27, 1989
residential condominium units and a request for Site Development Review
of the property. The proposed 206 apartment/condominium will consist of
1 , 2 and 3 bedroom units in 26 2-story buildings. Each unit includes a
washer, dryer, separate water heater, private storage area and a balcony
or patio. Building exteriors are stucco with wood trim. Architectural
detailing includes decorative strips of wood, windows with divided
lights, and lattice patio fences and deck walls plus lattice archways .
Fourteen of the buildings are oriented to face the creek providing views
of the creek. Physical access to the creek is limited to Zone 7
maintenance vehicles and emergency vehicles. The main entry road, off of
Amador Valley Boulevard, loops through the project and connects to
Stagecoach Drive. Two pools, 2 tot lots, and 2 tennis courts are being
proposed.
The project includes 1 carport space for each unit and 255 open spaces
for a total of 461 spaces ( 2 . 23 spaces :!per unit) .
The conceptual landscaping plan shows a heirarchy of street trees, canopy
trees and vertical accent trees with shrubs and groundcovers. Proposed
landscaping is located around buildings, and parking areas, providing
shading and visual accents . Landscape screening is also proposed between
new buildings and the existing Heritage Commons development.
The City' s park dedication requirement is 0 .009 acres per dwelling unit,
for a total of 1 .84 acres for this project. Parkland dedication credit
for on-site improvements may be available. Preliminary Staff calcula-
tions are for 0 . 1333 acres of credit.
The use of the site is governed by the Dublin General Plan. The GP
designates the land use for this property as Medium Density Residential
(6. 1 to 14 . 0 units per acre) and Stream Corridor. This site is part of
Zoning Unit 1497 which would have permitted 230 dwelling units on the
remaining vacant site. Since the site was previously approved for 230
units and the creek, as it exists, does not have high natural resource
value, Staff advised the Applicant that 1 dwelling unit per acre of
stream corridor (up to 3 dwelling units) could be credited toward the
overall project density. Permissible number of units is 91 to 206.
An Initial Environmental Assessment Study was prepared for this project
which identified 3 main areas of concern: traffic, noise and biology.
Studies of these issues were prepared and mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the proposed project conditions of approval.
The Planning Commission held 3 public hearings and during the course of
those meetings, 3 main issues emerged: 1 ) use of Stagecoach Drive, a
private street, by PA 88-009; 2) traffic circulation through the project
and along Amador Valley Boulevard; and 3) apartment vs. condominium
ownership. The Applicant suggested, and the Planning Commission
recommended that speed bumps be added within the project.
~n'!.:•x;, ,. ..y. ,+.':' {:: :.i^ ..v �y.�`.a .Ti•.,i"\ b &.:. L"3 y .... .. ..`-.ti. �::} •' �::x �:.' ry'�:'-'.::'3�:. �
�lriother'"coricer'n"wised' by the'15_h n ng"Comm `s'si'on"related t'o the availa-
bility of schools for project residents. The School Board advised that
@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@
CM-8-124
Regular Meeting March 27, 1989
sufficient capacity is available at the high school and middle school
levels for this and other projects. Districtwide, capacity is available
at the elementary level, however, the District may need to adjust school
service boundaries to accommodate growth in some areas of the City.
Cm. Jeffery expressed concern regarding the location of the proposed
speed bumps, as well as the insurance liability factor.
Ms. Ryan explained that the residents wanted the speed bumps, but that
insurance issues were not brought up.
City Manager Ambrose advised that this will be a private road, so the
City will have no liability for the speed bumps.
Carl Steinberg with CoastFed Properties indicated that they are an
apartment, single family home and condominium developer located in
Southern California. He explained the :project that they would like to
develop. There would be 50% 1 bedroom units, 30% 2 bedroom units, and
20% 3 bedroom units. There will be a 2 story garden courtyard. The
project has been designed with 2 vehicular entrances, which will spread
the distribution as 70% of the vehicles are expected to go out at Amador
Valley Boulevard and 30% will go out through Stagecoach Drive. Their
company will manage the property; they currently manage thousands of
units in Southern California. They design, build and manage all their
properties. They maintain full responsibility for what they build.
Amador Valley Boulevard is currently handling well below its capacity.
They provide an extensive amount-.of amenities for the residents.
Cm. Hegarty questioned the condition related to an on-site soils
engineer. He asked how they interpret "full-time" .
Mr. Steinberg stated that each day there will be someone there the full
time that grading is being done. He indicated they had no problem with
this .
Don Kurtz, 6574 Conestoga stated he was recently transferred to Dublin
from San Bruno. He was concerned that the existing Heritage Commons was
designed as owner occupied. He felt that an apartment lifestyle is
different, i .e. , a different mentality. There is not as much concern for
other people.
Ren Patton, 2173 Ygnacio Valley Road in Walnut Creek stated he is an
Attorney representing the existing Heritage Commons Homeowners
Association. There is an easement over Stagecoach Drive, but it was for
the entire Tract 4950 . They do not agree that this easement is across
Stagecoach Drive. They have yet to find where the property actually is .
They also had concerns related to the number of parking spaces. There
currently are 461 spaces provided which does exceed the required ratio,
but they always seem to be short of parking. They felt that overflow
parking from the new development would be inclined to park in their
spaces. He ..indicated that the .Alameda County guidelines specify 2 .spaces
`�^ _per"unit and questioned why`they require more than the City.
@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@
CM-8-125
Regular Meeting March 27, 1989
Cm. Jeffery indicated that the Alameda County guidelines no longer apply.
Joyce Pascoe stated she lives in Heritage Commons and backs up to the new
area. She is a realtor and applauds the City of Dublin for upgrading the
City. It is becoming a beautiful City where residents can be proud. She
stated she would like to see Dublin continue on the road to improvement.
This developer is proposing very small stacked units with carports.
There is no better market than right now for townhomes, while there is an
overflow of apartments. Casden should be asked to go back to the drawing
board for larger, nicer units.
Randall Gordner, Conestoga Lane stated they are being built as
apartments, but they had heard that they were only going to be apartments
for 5 years and then they will be sold. They are so small and in a
tiered setup and he felt it would be difficult to sell them.
Steve Cameron, 6610 Conestoga Lane, stated he had concerns related to the
easement. The Dublin City Attorney neglected to indicate who owned the
easement. He felt the City Council should find out exactly where the
easement lies, because after development starts, this could open a whole
can of worms.
Carl Steinberg stated he would address the major concerns he was hearing;
namely, easement, parking and design. With regard to the stated 2 1 /2
parking spaces per unit at the existing Heritage Commons, he stated this
was not quite correct. People currently park in the red zone. Their
development will provide more than adequate parking spaces for their
tenants. They might be able, in addition, to provide existing Heritage
Commons with some spaces for their overflow. With regard to the
easement, they have documented and referenced this in the CC&Rls . The
easement is in the name of CoastFed Properties. As far as they are
concerned, the issue has been completely clarified. With regard to
design and quality, they do not design units that people cant live in.
They have top of the line appliances, including washers and dryers, and
use only high quality materials . Their analysis indicates that there is
a shortage of rental apartments in this area. They will incorporate
every available amenity into the project.
Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing.
Cm. Vonheeder requested that the City Attorney comment on the easement
issue.
City Attorney Nave stated that he was provided with a background
consisting of several deeds that dated back to the time when Heritage
Commons was first developed, plus the CC&R' s referencing the easement
question. He stated that this question is not up to the City Council to
determine, but rather it is the responsibility of the developer.
Cm. Hegarty felt that they had presented everything honestly and had
addressed issues that were brought _up_.at -the. Planning. Commission level
and have mitigated" e"ach area. Reports show a°need in the next few years
for several thousand new dwelling units. A bond measure failed by a
CM-8-126
Regular Meeting March 27, 1989
small percentage. We have codes, and so long as they build up to codes,
there is no reason the City should deny them. Ownership of the units in
5 or 10 years is not up to the City to determine. He did speak to the
developer regarding the number of 1 bedroom units and felt he would like
to see more 3 bedroom units; however, his money is not what finances what
gets built. The market place determines what gets built. This project
appears to have some very high quality amenities going in. He felt that
noise will always be a factor. They will have a property manager on
site. Cm. Hegarty summarized that he was more or less satisfied with the
mitigation measures put in by the developer.
Cm: Jeffery asked for clarification regarding the process for changing
from rental units to condominiums.
Mr. Nave stated there really isn' t a process. They have the right to do
this whenever they choose and there is .nothing the City can do to require
a property owner not to rent out units :in favor of selling them. This
has--been held unconstitutional. We are without the power to tell them
that they cannot rent their property but must sell it.
Cm. Jeffery asked if the management will still be on site when they sell
some of the units . She asked if the City could add a condition requiring
- this when they start to sell .
Mr. Nave stated that so long as a certain percentage of units are being
held for rental purposes, there should be an on site rental manager. The
tentative map could be set up saying that - &- homeowners association must
come into place when 51 % of the units are sold.
Cm. Jeffery stated she understood the concerns of the people with regard
to the location of rental units next to owned units, but this is what
Dublin has had for quite some time. This kind of housing is needed.
Ms. Ryan pointed out that there is a condition that the CC&R' s address
the subject of a homeowners association prior to the filing of the
tentative map.
Cm. Jeffery again expressed concern that the Planning Commission
recommended speed bumps . She did not feel that Heritage Commons should
be burdened with this liability. Cm. Jeffery stated she would move for
adoption of Staff recommendations on the project, but with the speed bump
requirement left out.
After further review, Ms. Ryan stated that the resolution approving
Tentative Map 5883, Page 4, Condition 10, the CC&R's will provide for the
establishment of a homeowners association.
Cm. Vonheeder stated that it is usually the transition period that is the
problem.
Nave stated that. there . is .a certain. amount ,of. trust .that the City
must have' in thedeveloper: Amador Lakes was. developed in the same
manner, plus several of the Villages @ Willow Creek.
CM-8-127
Regular Meeting March 27, 1989
Mayor Moffatt questioned when a homeowners association would take over.
Ms. Ryan advised when over 50$ of the units are sold.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous
vote, (Cm. Snyder absent) , the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 30 - 89
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING, TENTATIVE MAP 5883 AND
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUESTS FOR A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT _
OF 206 DWELLING UNITS, AND COMMON OPEN SPACE PROPOSED OVER A
17.45 + ACRE PROPERTY SOUTH OF AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD, SOUTH AND EAST
OF STAGECOACH DRIVE, COLLECTIVELY REQUESTED UNDER PA 88-009.1 , .2 & .3,
HERITAGE COMMONS PHASE 2-4, COASTFED PROPERTIES, CASDEN COMPANY
RESOLUTION NO. 31 - 89
ADOPTING A REPORTING OR MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING, TENTATIVE MAP & SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REQUESTS OF 206 DWELLING UNITS & COMMON OPEN SPACE PROPOSED OVER 17.45_+ ACR
PROPERTY SOUTH OF AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD, SOUTH AND EAST OF
STAGECOACH DRIVE, COLLECTIVELY REQUESTED UNDER PA 88-001 .1 , .2 & .3
HERITAGE COMMONS PHASE 2 THROUGH 4, COASTFED PROPERTIES, CASDEN COMPANY
RESOLUTION NO. 32 - 89
APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING CONCERNING PA 88-009.1
HERITAGE COMMONS, SOUTH OF AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD BETWEEN THE
SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ALAMO CREEK
RESOLUTION NO. 33 - 89
APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 5883 CONCERNING PA 88-009.2
HERITAGE COMMONS - CASDEN COMPANY
RESOLUTION NO. 34 - 89
IMPOSING A TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ON PA 88-009.2
HERITAGE COMMONS
RESOLUTION NO. 35 - 89
APPROVING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CONCERNING PA 88-009.3
_. HERITAGE--COMMONS`.-- `CASDEN "COMPANY
CM-8-128
Regular Meeting March 27, 1989
and waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance amending the Zoning
Ordinance to permit the rezoning of real,, property-within the City of
Dublin.
PUBLIC HEARING - GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, 7745 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD .
APPEAL OF PA 88-150 DONATION STATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing.
Planner Laura Hoffineister advised that this item was considered by the
Council at its March 13, 1989 meeting. During that meeting, several
business owners expressed concerns regarding the Applicant's proposed,
and Planning Commission approved, donation station location along the
shopping center' s easterly property line. The Council continued
consideration of this item and directed Staff, the Applicant and business
owners to meet to further review other :on-site alternative locations,
especially on the north side of the site and on the south side of the
Goodwill building.
Staff met with the Applicant and a majority of the business owners who
attended the previous Council meeting and expressed concerns. Three
potential locational areas were reviewed. Staff prepared a summary of
the key concerns expressed with each location.
Staff advised that the site along the south side of Goodwill, although
-considered, was the least preferred and eliminated as an option by--the
businesses, Applicant and Staff.
The Applicant' s original location, which received Commission approval,
has a minimal impact -to nearby apartment residents across Starward Drive,
however, had several key concerns identified. Major concerns seemed to
be visual impact, security, and parking impacts to the nearby businesses.
Although not the preferred alternative of the businesses, several
potential mitigation measures were discussed that could lessen the
impacts the operation could have on the nearby businesses. These
measures involve requiring the Applicant to install a fence along a
portion of the easterly property line to create a visual barrier and to
contain discarded items outside of the trailer on-site; install 3 parking
spaces for those utilized for the trailer; and have the Applicant
participate with other businesses in having an on-site after hours
security guard.
A site along the northern portion of the property was the most preferred
by the business owners . Concerns identified for this alternative were
visual impact, security and parking. Potential mitigation measures were
discussed. Suggested was requiring screening plants/trees to be
installed in the planter area along Starward Drive and having the trailer
located as close to the driveway as would be safe for traffic circulation
so as not to be in the Koto Restaurant window view area.
_ ..��.,__ ..- - .�__.._"&::.r"".';::.r:rr1'+�,_rY',...^rCl,',..�� .sr,'. .. •.r•%l'4^_L'ri',�i�l_"�xF-RSS»: :Y.'.:.......•.-i'C:.�..�:-.-..._.. .- �. .,_..._ ....._...-w`-r._..._..� _'-'.+,.TM.z:.'4`+^ryr�
C'DC'bC'6C�C�C�C'6C'6C'6CbC�C'6C'bC'6C'bC'bCb C'6C"6C'6CbC'OC�CbCbC�C'bCU C'D C'6 C'b C'O C'DC�C�C'OC
CM-8-129
Regular Meeting March 27, 1989
Security concerns were minimized as the site would have lighting from
on-site building lights as well as from street lights which are located
along Starward Drive near the trailer site. Additionally, the trailer
would be more visible to Starward Drive where police patrol cars could
easily observe and monitor the site.
Staff advised that 2 draft resolutions were prepared; one for the
alternative north side and one for the original easterly site. This
would be for a 1 year approval. '
Mike Flynn stated that they all got together to discuss this and there
was a general consensus that . the problem was looking out and seeing the
trailer. He advised that he had been out looking at fences today. They
are a service oriented industry and are trying to make everyone happy.
He requested that they locate the trailer on the north side. He also
questioned exactly what a 15 gallon tree was. Staff advised that it
would provide the specifics for him.
Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous
vote, (Cm. Snyder absent) , the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 36 - 89
-MODIFYING THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION APPROVING PA 88-150
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES DONATION STATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
25' LONG TRUCK TRAILER LOCATED IN THE SHAMROCK VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
PARKING LOT ALONG THE NORTH SIDE NEAR GOODWILL STORE,
7767 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD
PUBLIC HEARING - HOWARD JOHNSON' S, 6680 REGIONAL STREET
APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TEMPORARY RETAIL SALES
& AUCTIONS WITHIN EXISTING CONFERENCE/BANQUET ROOMS, PA 88-148
Mayor Moffatt announced that Cm. Snyder, who appealed the temporary
retail sales/auctions portion of this application, was not present due to
a sudden illness, and therefore, Council deliberation would be postponed
until the next meeting. Mayor Moffatt stated that the Council would
receive public testimony, for the record, at this meeting and then
declared the public hearing opened.
Planner Laura Hoffineister advised that in December, 1988, the Applicant
made a Conditional Use Permit application to consider additional uses at
the hotel which were not included in previous conditional use permits
(barber/beauty shop, hair salon, gift shop, offices, a dance floor in the
Lord Dublin Restaurant Lounge) , and to allow for .temporary retail saje.s
and auctions- to occur within the conference/banquet rooms.
CM-8-130
Regular Meeting March 27, 1989
On February 21 , 1989, the Planning Commission considered and approved the
Conditional Use Permit with conditions. On March 3, 1989, the Commission
action was appealed by Councilmember Snyder. The appeal was in regards
to only the Commission action which allowed the establishment of
temporary retail sales and auctions within the conference/banquet rooms.
Cm. Hegarty questioned whether the 5 or 6 other hotels in the surrounding
area allow temporary retail/auctions. Since things are becoming more and
more competitive and if it is allowed across the freeway, and we are not
allowing it because we must make the findings, he wanted to know how
other cities allow it.
Johnson Clark, one of the partners in the hotel stated that they have had
temporary sales and auctions in the hotel for 16 years with no problems.
The Planning Commission had no problem with issuing a Conditional Use
Permit. They checked many other cities and there are no restrictions,
except they must get a business license. They compete with hotels in all
the other cities, and if there are delays, customers will just go across
the street to Pleasanton. Mr. Clark felt they have always cooperated
with the City and hoped that the City will cooperate with them.
Cm. Hegarty questioned how they could have been holding these events for
so many years with no permits.
City Manager Ambrose stated that it came to his attention that on several
of the occasions, it was in violation of the zoning Ordinance and in
other cases they ap.plied for an ACUP. -_
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote,
(Cm. Snyder absent) , the Council continued this item to the Council
meeting of April 10, 1989 .
AWARD OF BID-REPLACEMENT OF PUMPS @ DUBLIN SWIM CENTER, CONTRACT NO. 89-5
Public Works Director Thompson advised that this is the second half of
what has been a fast track process to get the pool opened. On January 9,
1989, the City Council authorized Staff to advertise for bids for the
replacement of the pumps and motors at the Dublin Swim Center. At the
March 13th meeting, the Council authorized Staff to purchase the pumps
outright from Paco Pump Company. Contract No. 89-5 is for installation
only of the pumps and motors and any other appurtenant work required to
make the pumps functional.
Due to several problems encountered with the specifications during the
bid process and the resulting issuance of two addenda, the bid opening
had to be delayed until Friday, March 24th.
Mr. Thompson advised that the low bidder was the Martin Company with a
bid of $7, 950 . Staff anticipates delivery of the pumps approximately
April 11th, with installation to follow within 5 working days. Once the _.
pumps- are-- inst•alled _dnd=operati"ona-li Staff will- be'able to` determine what `
repairs are necessary to the heating system.
CM-8-131
Regular Meeting March 27, 1989
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous
vote, (Cm. Snyder absent), the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 37 - 89
AWARDING CONTRACT 89-5 DUBLIN SWIM CENTER PUMP REPLACEMENT TO
THE MARTIN COMPANY ($7,950)
REVIEW OF POLICY FOR USE OF SAN RAMON ROAD BANNER POLES
Public Works Director Thompson advised that on December 13, 1983, the
City Council adopted Resolution No. 73-83, which set the policy for
installation of a banner on the San Ramon Road banner poles. This policy
provided that non-profit organizations advertising events to be held
within the City could apply for an encroachment permit for a banner and
that the fee would be waived. Staff has rbceived some requests involving
events being held outside Dublin, but which benefit Dublin residents.
Rather than continuing to grant waivers, Staff requested that the Council
consider modifying the adopted policy. Staff suggested that considera-
tion be given to charging an encroachment permit fee for organizations
that are holding events outside the City in order to cover the cost of
installing the banners .
In addition, the present encroachment permit fee schedule does not
include a fee for banner--installation. In order to revise a fee
schedule, a public hearing must be held and must be noticed 10 days in
advance.
Staff indicated that if the Council wishes to proceed in this manner, the
public hearing would need to be scheduled for the second April meeting in
order to meet the noticing requirement.
City Manager Ambrose advised that the City has had the banner poles up
since about 1983, and they are starting to be used very heavily. If you
consider the almost $400 per installation, it becomes quite expensive.
Cm. Hegarty felt that most of the users are non-profit. organizations that
request the City to waive the fees.
Cm. Vonheeder indicated that she sees the banners as a public service and
does recognize that there are costs associated with it. She questioned
what happens when the City receives 2 requests from people outside the
community for the same time. She feels that City non-profit events have
to come first. There should be a fee, but it doesn't necessarily have to
cover costs, but more of a token fee. This would, however, probably only
create more paperwork for City Staff.
Cm. Jeffery indicated she likes the idea of a $50 fee. This is actually
very inexpensive advertisin .
..:....�•.�...z.r...r3 r .r_...3....-....a•.. .,... ..+ ....<v.�..: t.:.-'u:..—..=-+.:.r ... .i, .-........_. .....,-... ... ... .... .... a....v..,. ..._.rr••: ....z.._ .,.fir.... .. s4;:r7.,::.-.
C�C'OC'OC'DC'OC3 C'DN'DC'OC�C�C'6C'OC'OC�C'OC�C'6C�C�C�C'OC�C'DC'6C�CbC'O C'DCbC"OCbC�C"O C'D C'OC
CM-8-132
Regular Meeting March 27, 1989
Mr. Ambrose advised that the current policy allows. the waiving of fees
for organizations in the City. What we are facing are requests from
organizations outside Dublin, but which. they say benefits our residents.
Cm. Jeffery felt that when we have a banner for activities in Dublin,
people come into the community and spend their dollars in town. On the
other hand, as an example, the Wings for Charity banner would not benefit
Dublin.
Cm. Vonheeder stated that her scout troop got almost $1 , 000 from this
event.
Mayor Moffatt stated he would like to see a fee charged to groups that
have less than 51 % membership in the community. He felt we owe some
advantage to groups in Dublin.
Cm. Vonheeder felt that there always seems to be a problem coming up with
the 51 %.
Liz Schmitt stated it is also very difficult to verify this type of
information.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by majority vote,
(Cm. Snyder absent) , the Council established that a $50 fee should be
charged, with no exceptions . The Council determined further, that this
fee is not appealable to the Council. Mayor Moffatt voted NO on this
motion. Staff was directed -t-o come back with a change to the Fee
Ordinance to be presented. at the April 24, 1989, Council meeting.
SENIOR CENTER FACILITY USE POLICY
Recreation Director Lowart advised that one of the goals adopted by the
City Council was the development of a Facility Use Policy for the Dublin
Senior Center. A proposed policy was drafted. A draft policy was
developed by the Senior Center Advisory Committee and was then reviewed
by the Park & Recreation Commission. A joint meeting was held between
the Committee and the Commission to finalize policy prior to submittal to
the City Council. The proposed policy is patterned after the Shannon
Center Facility Use Policy, however, it has been tailored to the specific
needs and requirements of the Dublin Senior Center.
Ms. Lowart advised that the areas which differ related to: 1 ) .classifi-
cation of users; 2) reservation procedure; 3) general regulations; and 4)
fee schedule.
Cm. Hegarty questioned the debate related to the use of any type of
alcoholic beverages . It appears this would mean no celebrating 50th
wedding anniversaries with champagne, no toasts with wine, etc.
Ms. Lowart explained that the -Seriior Center Advisory Committee felt very
strongly about this and wanted this restriction added.
@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@
CM-8-133
Regular Meeting March 27, 1989
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous
vote, (Cm. Snyder absent) , the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 38 - 89
ESTABLISHING POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND RENTAL RATES
FOR THE USE OF THE DUBLIN SENIOR CENTER
OTHER BUSINESS
Tri-Valley Joint Council Meeting
City Manager Ambrose advised that Dublin will be hosting the next meeting
of the Tri-Valley Joint City Councils. The dinner meeting will be on
Thursday, April 27, 1989, and the Council expressed a desire to have the
meeting at The Fishery.
Planning Department Management Audit
Mr. Ambrose questioned how the Council wished to handle having Gary
Golitz with Hughes Heiss & Associates interview the Chamber of Commerce
leadership. Mr. Golitz has advised that if this is a group meeting, it
could be included .in the. scope of.. work, ..but individual interviews would
be an additional $600-$900 .
Cm. Jeffery questioned what the Chamber' s issue was.
Cm. Vonheeder felt that the City has received a lot of flack from the
Chamber and this is an opportunity to sit down with them and get their
input.
Consensus of the Council was that the Consultant should meet with the
Chamber representatives as a group.
Mr. Ambrose advised that he will contact the Chamber President and
provide the ground rules .
League of California Cities Dinner
Cm. Vonheeder advised that Friday, April 28th, is the date for the
quarterly League dinner. It will be held at Centennial Hall in Hayward.
Quintin Kopp and DeLaine Eastin will speak on transportation. The
Council will be getting notices.
@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@
CM-8-134
Regular Meeting March 27, 1989
Community Television
Cm. Hegarty advised that he had recently attended a meeting of the Tri-
Valley Community Television Corporation. He advised that this group will
be asking for an increase in the contribution amount.
CLOSED SESSION
At 9 :55 p.m. , the Council recessed to a closed executive session to
discuss potential litigation.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting
was adjourned at 10 :40 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CM-8-135
Regular Meeting March 27, 1989