HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.01 Approve 06-16,22 & 23-87 Minutes ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - June 16, 1987
An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was
held on Tuesday, June 16, 1987 in the West Room of the Shannon Community
Center. The meeting was called to order at 6:23 p.m. , by Mayor Linda
Jeffery.
* * * *
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Moffatt, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Jeffery.
Councilmember Hegarty arrived at the meeting at 6:36 p.m.
* * * *
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle-
giance to the flag.
* * * *
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
(Cm. Hegarty not present for this item) , the Council authorized the Mayor to
send a letter to the California Transportation Commission to support the
inclusion of funding for the Nimitz Freeway in the 1987 State Transportation
Improvement Program.
* * * *
STUDY SESSION FOR BUDGET AND CIP
City Manager Ambrose advised that a public hearing will be held on June 23,
1987 for adoption of the Budget and the Update to the Five-Year Capital
Improvement Program. He explained the format of the study session at this
meeting and gave a brief overview of both the Budget and the Capital
Improvement Program. The total appropriations this year are approximately
$18 million. The total capital expenditures equal approximately $16. 8
million. The budget is financed with $12.4 million anticipated revenues and
the remaining $4.3 million is from reserves other than the General Fund. By
the end of 1987-88, reserves should be about $11.1 million. We expect fairly
modest increases in revenues; about a 12% increase over this year.
With regard to new positions, we are proposing a net increase of 4 City
employees and 4 Contract employee positions.
Mayor Jeffery questioned if the bus bench ad permits were something recently
approved. City Manager Ambrose advised that we have been receiving fees for
quite sometime. Permits are issued to advertise on bus benches. We can
terminate the agreement with 30 days notice. Mayor Jeffery indicated she did
not particularly care for this type of advertising.
CM-6-182
Adjourned Regular Meeting June 16, 1987
�J
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM N0.
r �
City Manager Ambrose explained the unusual situation with regard to pilot
tax. The Housing Authority does not pay property taxes, but State Law
requires them to pay another tax. The annual revenue is close to $40, 000 per
year.
Under General Government, Mr. Ambrose presented the budgets for the City
Council, City Manager/City Clerk, and Legal Services.
Under General Government, Mr. Molina presented the budgets for Finance and
Building Management. Mr. Molina indicated that the City is looking at an
additional level of service to computerize financial records.
Cm. Moffatt questioned how the training would work. Mr. Molina advised that
the major companies offer training on weekends once you have purchased their
system.
Cm. Hegarty questioned the low amount of $500 in the training item. Mr.
Ambrose indicated that the Council should also look at the category travel
and conferences in addition to training.
Mr. Molina indicated that additional building space would be needed to
accommodate a computer.
Mayor Jeffery questioned if Staff would be looking for space in existing
building. Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff has been talking with the landlord
and it appears we can get the financial systems automated in the current
building, and then use a phased approach for the rest of the applications,
until we are in our new building. We are at a point that we really need to
automate finance.
Under General Government, Paul Rankin presented the budget for Insurance.
Mr. Rankin advised that the City is now a part of the ABAG Plan Corporation.
Cm. Moffatt questioned the amount of the City' s coverage. Mr. Rankin advised
that the City has a $25, 000 deductible per claim and we have $5 million in
liability coverage per occurrence.
Under General Government, Mr. Ambrose indicated that we do not anticipate any
expenses this year in the Elections Budget. Mr. Ambrose reported that the
items included in the Non-Departmental Budget include items not specifically
included in any one budget area. Also included are unanticipated expenses,
and employee salary increases .
Chief John Severini presented the Police Services Budget under Public Safety.
Chief Severini indicated he agreed with Mr. Abmrose' s budget message in that
Dublin residents expect and deserve the best in services. The state of
health of the Police Department is excellent. They have a 75% closure rate
on personal crimes which is well above the state and national averages. The
additional positions they request will be allocated to the patrol force and
an additional traffic officer. The existing workload exceeds the position by
about 50%. If this budget is approved, the City will be spending approxi-
mately $92.43 per capita for police services, as compared to national average
of $109. 21 per capita, and the pacific states average of $136.72 per capita.
CM-6-183
Adjourned Regular Meeting June 16, 1987
1
Cm. Hegarty questioned what population statistics the City uses and where
they come from.
Mr. Ambrose advised that the State Department of Finance provides the
population data each year and as of January, 1987, we use 18, 900; not
including incarcerated individuals.
Ms. Meeker, a Dublin resident stated she felt Dublin has a marvelous Police
Department and she is very impressed. .
Under the Public Safety category, Phil Molina discussed the Crossing Guard
Budget. Mr. Molina indicated that Alameda County will provide this services,
as they have in the past.
Cm. Moffatt questioned if the School District participated in any of the
costs. Staff advised that the School District has not participated.
Mr. Rankin presented the Animal Control Budget. In the past, the City had
supplemented its base level of service with additional field service on an
as-needed basis. During the past year, 520 hours of supplemental services
were requested and the City received approximately 200 hours. Alameda County
informed the City that it was having difficulty filling the part-time
services-as-needed position and that the supplemental hours would be
unavailable in 1987-88. The proposed budget provides for the base service
level of .38 FTE Field Service Officer and a fraction of a Clerk to handle
reporting duties. In addition to field service costs, the budget funds the
City's share of the County Animal Shelter operations. Historically, this
cost has been increasing as fewer agencies participate in the Santa Rita
Shelter. Staff recommended that the City analyze other potential service
providers in the upcoming year.
Discussion ensued related to the Santa Rita Animal Shelter, and its projected
closing date. Cm. Moffatt questioned if we could contract with the Humane
Society to provide some of these services. Mr. Rankin advised that that
organization is comprised mainly of volunteers, however, we are looking into
the possibility of using them to conduct a licensing canvass.
Under the Public Safety category, Lee Thompson presented the Traffic Signals
& Street Lighting Budget. Mr. Thompson indicated that the costs for street
lighting are paid by the Street Light Maintenance District, which will be in
the $17-$18 per household range. An increase is expected with regard to
traffic signals due to the increase in the number of signals.
Under the Public Safety category, Paul Rankin presented the Disaster
Preparedness Budget. Mr. Rankin advised that an amount had been budgeted for
a portable cellular phone for use in the event of a disaster.
Under the Transportation cagegory, Mr. Ambrose presented the Public Works
Administration Budget. Mr. Ambrose stated that this budget provides for the
addition of a Public Works Director/City Engineer.
Cm. Hegarty questioned if the $50, 468 was primarily for a PW Director/City
Engineer position. Mr. Ambrose explained that this figure represents about 9
months salary for the new position.
CM-6-184
Adjourned Regular Meeting June 16, 1987
The issue of liability insurance with contractor vs. City employee was
discussed. Mr. Rankin advised that the City's insurance rates will probably
not be substantially affected.
Mr. Ambrose explained that we needed to have an objective in-house
professional reviewing some of the traffic studies, and we need a lot of help
with the capital projects program.
Cm. Hegarty did not feel the timing was right to make this change and felt
that this was just the first step in getting out of contract engineering
services.
Mr. Ambrose did not feel that this statement was necessarily true. He spends
a lot of time performing Public Works Director duties; time which he no
longer has. Someone is needed who can take a pro-active role on a day-to-day
basis. There are many transportation issues to deal with.
Cm. Hegarty felt that Santina & Thompson could provide more manpower.
Mr. Ambrose reported also that it is very difficult for one contractor to
supervise another contractor.
Cm. Snyder felt that this situation was not a lot different than what
happened last year in the Finance Department. It will take a substantial
load off of the City .Manager.
Under the heading of Street Maintenance, Steve Loweree presented the Budgets
for Street Sweeping, Street Tree Maintenance and Street Landscape Mainten-
ance. Mr. Loweree indicated that changes are as a result of the Pavement
Management System. We are now better able to gauge levels of service for
striping and marking on a regular basis. With regard to street sweeping,
curb miles have been established which have increased by 117 curb miles. The
contract is renegotiated in November. The number of trees has also
increased. The major category is tree trimming, which MCE sub-contracts out.
As trees grow, we will need to water less. No change is anticipated in the
tree removal service.
Under the Transportation category, Phil Molina presented the Paratransit
Service Budget. The City utilizes TDA funds as well as City General Funds to
provide this service.
Under the Health & Welfare category, Paul Rankin presented the Vector Control
Budget. A couple of years ago, . the City opted not to become a part of the
assessment district. We receive service based on" a request basis only. The
proposed higher level budget represents what the City would receive if we
were part of the district. For a total cost of $15, 500, this would allow a
pro-active approach. Staff would bring back an agreement at a later date if
the Council approves the higher level of service. It would be paid for out
of the General Fund rather than residents being taxed. Staff does not havc
the expertise to respond to most of the requests.
Cm. Moffatt questioned if this would take care of areas that are filled with
trash, thereby attracting rats.
CM-6-185
Adjourned Regular Meeting June 16, 1987
f
Mr. Rankin advised that surveys would be conducted to determine what areas
need to be looked at.
Mr. Ambrose explained that the County must still look at the situation to
determine whether or not, they would be willing to provide the service.
Cm. Snyder felt that perhaps we should consider reversing ourselves and
becoming a part of the district. .
Mr. Rankin advised that an election may be required to do this.
Mr. Ambrose reported that it has only been within the last year that there
seems to have been an increase in the number of problems.
Mayor Jeffery felt it would be nice if we could combine Vector Control with
the Animal Control Officer positions that we've been trying to get.
Under the Culture & Leisure Services category, the Library Service Budget was
discussed. Ginnie Cooper and Rayme Meyer were present and advised the
Council that residents heavily use and value their Library very much. The
Sunday hours have been very successful. Three other cities have taken
Dublin' s lead and are paying for additional Library hours. Dublin is
currently the only City to fund Sunday hours.
The impact of the San Ramon Library was discussed. Ginnie Cooper indicated
that they hoped it would slow down the rate of growth, as the parking lot and
sitting room space get very crowded at times.
Diane Lowart presented the Recreation Budget. They are requesting a higher
service level for a Clerk Typist/Receptionist plus expansion of summer
playground program to include 4 sites. Ten months for staff to cover the
Senior Center is also included. The new Clerk Typist position will be able
to take over some of the tasks being done by the recreation staff so they can
pursue program development.
With regard to Park Maintenance, Mr. Loweree indicated that the City is
trying to establish a Class A level of service.
RECESS
A short recess was called. All Councilmembers were present when the meeting
was reconvened.
Under the Community Development area, Mr. Tong explained the Planning Budget.
Mr. Tong indicated that a 20% increase is anticipated in telephone calls and
counter inquiries. We are on the up-side of the development curve.
Additional clerical support and professional planning services are being
recommended.
Cm. Moffatt questioned if Staff anticipated that the level of work will taper
off soon. Mr. Tong advised that it was expected that the workload will keep
going up.
CM-6-186
Adjourned Regular Meeting June 16, 1987
Cm. Moffatt questioned whether the City could utilize temporary help. Mr.
Tong advised that from a cost-effective standpoint, utilization of temporary
personnel would not be recommended.
Cm. Snyder questioned what a Planning Intern is. Mr. Tong indicated that
this is a paid, part-time position, but we have been unable to hire anyone at
our current salary level. We do, however, have an Intern coming onboard in
the near future.
Mr. Taugher presented the Building & Safety Budget and indicated that there
is lots of building activity.
Mr. Thompson presented the Engineering Budget.
Cm. Moffatt felt the City should take a careful look at whether the Public
Works Inspector reports to the contractor or the City.
Mr. Ambrose felt that the City will always have the need for at least one
inspector and we are currently spending about $100, 000/year/inspector.
Cm. Moffatt questioned whether the contractor could offer a lower rate for
inspectors, or if the City could obtain inspectors from another source.
Mr. Ambrose reported that the City can provide this position for about
$50, 000 per year, and obtaining inspectors from another source could possibly
be an alternative to consider for as-needed inspection.
Cm. Moffatt felt that unless we can guarantee a long-term position, he would
feel uncomfortable with a contract employee. Cm. Moffatt questioned if there
would be a conflict with a City employee and a contract employee performing
the same job.
Mr. Ambrose advised that there is always the potential for conflicts, but it
can work.
Mr. Molina presented the Debt Service Budget.
Mr. Ambrose advised that there are three organizations requesting money from
the City. They are 1) the Tri-Valley Community Television Corporation; 2)
the Diablo Valley Foundation for the Aging; and 3) the Tri-Valley Transpor-
tation Committee.
Community Television: Sheila Tole advised that Dublin's share of their
$200, 000 annual budget is $24, 000. The budget proposed by their Board was to
give the cities a fully funded operating program. For the past 11 years,
they have been producing programs throughout the Valley. Eight programs are
currently being produced. They will be adding a news type format one-half
hour program. The 4 Cities will have a production center at their disposal.
Their goal is to maximize the use of the public access channel.
Cm. Hegarty reported that Dublin has never been involved before as a City and
felt that the $200, 000 version of their budget was probably the cadillac
version.
CM-6-187
Adjourned Regular Meeting June 16, 1987
Cm. Hegarty advised that the first budget developed was $118, 000, then it
went to $148, 000, and finally up to $200, 000. As a City Council, they are
trustees of Dublin' s money and it is up to this Council to determine what
level they wish to fund community tv. Cm. Hegarty felt they are deserving of
an adequate amount of money to get their program started and in following
years, if they want to improve their programs, they can come back and request
more money. Cm. Hegarty expressed concern regarding funding the full budget
the first time around, especially since they have no track record to look
back on.
Cm. Moffatt questioned if they will be able to get into commercial
production.
Shiela Tole advised that this will have to be determined by the Board.
Cm. Snyder questioned if the Dublin Civic Center space proposal was out.
Cm. Hegarty felt that Dublin can't compete with the deal that has been
offered, however, the current studio is a far cry from what Dublin is
offering. Dublin went to a lot of time and expense to add the studio to its
new facility and it's very unfortunate how things have turned out. Livermore
has indicated they will be going for the Amador Valley School District's
proposal .
The amount of Dublin' s contribution was discussed.
Cm. Hegarty clarified that when Community Television Corporation submits a
final capital budget, a $55, 000 check can be cut immediately.
With regard to personnel, Mr. Ambrose questioned how the positions are going
to be filled, and how long they estimate it will take to fill these posi-
tions. He questioned if the salary costs are for 12 full months.
Sheila Tole indicated that the Board will hire an Executive Director and then
that person will do the hiring of the other positions. She believed that
Darla Stevens would most likely be appointed as the Executive Director.
Cm. Vonheeder questioned who prepared the budget.
Ms. Tole advised that she believed it was prepared by Darla Stevens,
Charlotte Severin, Bob Scruggs and Roger Waller.
Cm. Hegarty felt that we needed to cut the fat out of the budget and felt
that a contribution of about $17, 000 would accomplish this .
Mr. Molina suggested paying 1/2 of the amount agreed upon now, and the second
1/2 paid on July 1st with a request that they provide a listing of how the
money was spent.
Cm. Snyder felt it would be a good idea to look at an operating statement
twice a year. He indicated he has a problem distinguishing the $55, 000 for
capital equipment from the operating budget.
CM-6-188
Adjourned Regular Meeting June 16, 1987
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council agreed to give $19, 800 to the Community Television Corporation to
be made payable twice a year. In order to receive the second half, the
Corporation must justify the first half. Capital items were removed from the
$200, 000 budget and Dublin's share was calculated on the balance.
With regard to the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan, Mr. Ambrose indicated that
this is the fourth major amendment to the entire valley general plan. $1, 500
is being requested to perform a ,computer study. They wish to have a Planning
Commissioner appointed to the Committee. It was felt that the bottom line is
that this is a study that the County must do as part of their General Plan
review.
Discussion was held with regard to the many transportation committees now in
effect and the consensus of the Council was to not commit this $1, 500 at the
present time.
With regard to the request from the Diablo Valley foundation for the Aging,
Dublin has been asked to contribute $1,133 to help fund a newsletter project.
This is mainly a Contra Costa County funded project and Recreation Director
Lowart felt the money would be better spent on senior programs here in
Dublin. The Park & Recreation Commission considered the item at their last
meeting and recommended that the Council not fund this item.
Mr. Ambrose gave an overview of the CIP Update and all capital projects were
identified.
Mayor Jeffery felt the City should make it a point to advise our elected
representatives of the effect that the tax increase has had on our
undergrounding projects. Mr. Rankin advised that the League is forming a
sub-committee to work with the PUC and the Feds and it is anticipated that
some type of ruling will come down this summer. There was a 67% increase in
the dollar amount of Dublin's project as a result of this legislation.
With regard to the Senior Citizen Center, Ms. Lowart advised that this
project is way behind schedule. The architect's estimate was just received.
The architect identified 7 options, with a minimum shortfall of $33, 575 and
maximum of $93, 970. When questioned what it would cost to bring the facility
up to meet the State Safety Codes, it was felt that an additional $46, 650
would accomplish this. Mayor Jeffery felt there are community groups that
would be willing to donate their time for construction projects.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the
Council agreed to fund an additional $46, 650 toward completion of the Senior
Citizen Center.
With regard to Streets, Mr. Ambrose indicated there would be a shortfall of
about $1 million in the program.
Mr. Ambrose advised that the City had met with BART and emphasized the fact
that Dublin does not have funding for all of the Dublin Boulevard
improvements.
CM-6-189
Adjourned Regular Meeting June 16, 1987
< Mayor 'Jeffery•questioned which phase .-of the San ,Ramon Road :project"„would ,'.
include the. soundwalls.' , Lee .Thompson ,'advised 'that the soundwalls will be put
in as a ,.separate project, not "tied to `the phasing. '
With 'regard' ;to projects not included in the CIP, Mr. Ambrose reported ',that
there are 14 projects identified, plus one more,,..which is cable tv service
for Arroyo Vista. . Ophelia Basgal .is going to recommend that the Housing
Authority fund this .-from their own .sources.
OTHER BUSINESS
DSRSD Services Study
Mr.- Ambrose reported that .the 3 Liaison Committees had met with regard to the
DSRSD services issue today and a report would be -placed on an upcoming
agenda. It looks like we may be one step closer to agreement.
* * * *
Bureau of Prisons
Mr—Ambrose reported that he had recently met with Jerry Williford, the
Regional Director of the Board of Prisons regarding the poor roadway access.
If we are interested in their participation at looking at this as part of
their environmental review process, Mr. Williford has expressed a willingness
to try to get some discussion going.
* * * *
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Mayo
ATTEST:
City Clerk
* * * *
CM-6-190
Adjourned Regular Meeting June 16, 1987
-
REGULAR MEETING June 22, 1987
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on
Monday, June 22, 1987 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting
was called to order at 7 :32 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.
* * * *
Oakland Zoo Raffle
Mr. Gordon Brandt, a 19 year Dublin resident, advised the Council that he is
a Trustee of the Oakland Zoo. They are attempting to conduct a fund raiser,
with a raffle being held on Saturday. When he questioned the City regarding
the procedure for selling tickets, he was advised that he needs the property
owners permission and was then told he must conduct his sales inside of a
building rather than outside.
City Manager Ambrose advised that this has been discussed with the City
Attorney and the Police Chief.
Mike Riback, Acting City Attorney advised that a raffle is prohibited by
state law. This is defined as a lottery.
Mr. Brandt advised that they have been advised by legal counsel that they are
offering chances to win for a tax-deductible donation. The tickets do not
have to be purchased.
Attorney Riback advised that if the District Attorney says this is in
compliance with the State Penal Code, then this activity would be allowable.
If it were properly publicized that someone could get a ticket without
purchasing it, and this was done to the satisfaction of the DA, then it would
comply.
Mr. Brandt advised that he will have his stand outside at Pak N Save on
Thursday, so if the City feels it must, it can send an officer out to arrest
him.
Staff advised Mr. Brandt that it should be a fairly easy task to simply
contact the District Attorney's Office.
* * * *
CM-6-191
Regular Meeting June 22, 1987
' . . - . � ' 'is" r•�I s
Meals on Wheels Program Funding
Phil Flores, Chairman of the Dublin San Ramon Drop in -Center, addressed the
Council and indicated they• are in trouble with their -.sponsored .Dial-A-Ride
Meals on Wheels program. As 'of June -18th, they ' are going to, discontinue ,
serving Dublin and .San Ramon; however he had J ust .learned that they.:will
continue until the 'end of the. month. They currently serve about 18 people.
They must come up with $6, 000 to keep the program going for another year.
Cm. Snyder questioned how many Dublin residents are served, and if Dublin
could consider a proportionate share of the funding.
Mr. Flores responded that he believed that there were 5. He wasn't sure of
how the funding would work.
Mayor Jeffery indicated that this could be added to the requests for
consideration which would be discussed the following night at the Budget
Hearing.
* * * *
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote,
the Council took .the following actions:
Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 8, 1987;
Approved Financial Report for Period Ending May 31, 1987;
Received a report on the Spring 1987 Recreation Program;
Authorized Staff to advertise Contract 87-7, Phase I, Dolan Park Improvements
for bid;
Appropriated 1986-87 unappropriated revenues to each fund's reserve for
authorized projects;
Accepted improvements under Contract 86-4, Dublin Boulevard @ Sierra Court
Street Reconstruction, Traffic Signal, Street Lighting and Landscaping;
authorized retention payment to Steiny & co. , Inc. , in the amount of
$20, 918. 80; and authorized a budget transfer of $3,757 for costs over budget
for Fiscal Year 1986-87;
Accepted improvements under Contract 87-3, Street Slurry Seal Program and
authorized payment to McReynolds Paving, Inc. , in the amount of $24, 402;
Accepted improvements under Contract 87-2, Annual Street Overlay and
authorized payment in the amount of $226, 890.40 to Teichert Construction;
Approved an option on the Senior Citizens Center which would provide for
renovation of the entire building and bring it into compliance with
applicable State codes; directed Staff to include an additional $46, 650 from
CM-6-192
Regular Meeting June 22, 1987
the General Reserve in the Update to the Five-Year Capital -Improvement
Program; and authorized the architect to prepare construction documents based
on the approved design;
Accepted improvements under Contract 86-7, Sierra Court Southerly Extension
and released the letter of credit to Robert Quatman, Inc. ;
Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $1,162,461.00.
* * * *
REQUEST FOR CLOSURE OF BURTON STREET FOR 4TH OF JULY BLOCK PARTY
Residents of Burton Street have requested and received permission to close
their street, which extends for approximately one block between Amador Valley
Boulevard and Tamarack Drive for a 4th of July block party for the last
several years. The City of Dublin, until March 1, 1986, had commercial
insurance coverage.
In the past, this closure was approved based on compliance with barricading
provided and tended by residents of the block, alcoholic beverages restricted
to adults and fireworks limited to approved "safe and sane" types and super-
vised by adults. In 1986, the City requested that residents participating in
the party provide the names of their insurance carriers and their policy
numbers.
The City Attorney's Office has advised that the City require the homeowners
to provide a certificate of insurance showing a one-day rider that would
cover the block party. Staff advised Ms. Landreth. of the insurance
requirement and upon contacting her insurance agent, Ms. Landreth was advised
that the premium for a one-day event with $1 million in coverage would be
$600. Staff informed Ms. Landreth that she might wish to investigate a
$500, 000 policy, as tenants of Shannon Center are allowed to provide.
David Landreth questioned what the penalties would be if they withdrew their
request and still conducted their party.
Staff advised that there would be no problem if they held the party in their
yards.
Jeanne Landreth advised that this neighborhood has held this block party for
the past 10 years and they show their young people that it is not necessary
to spend a lot of money on celebrations. Safety is of the utmost importance.
She advised that they would be willing to sign a waiver to not hold the City
responsible, but were advised that this could not be done. They feel this is
unjust. The Police Department has referred to their group as a mob. She
stated the City has no idea of what their block party actually is.
City Manager Ambrose advised that if they have no encroachment permit, they
would not be allowed to conduct any of their games in the street. The
problem is that the City has incurred more than a quarter million dollars in
claims in the last year. When the City sanctions an event, we are put in a
very precarious position.
CM-6-193
Regular Meeting June 22, 1987
Cm. Hegarty felt that when the street ''is blocked off;' there `is less chance of
an accident and therefoxe .the City's liability exposure would be less: . He
relayed the instance of when' Silvergate Drive was closed for 'about 2 weeks.
Mr. Rankin advised that the contractor assumed liability for the closure of
Silvergate Drive and posted an insurance certificate with- the City.
Ms. Landreth questioned where it is legal to do fireworks.
Mr. Ambrose responded that it is legal on private property only.
Glen Forbes introduced himself as being somewhat familiar with this as 'he was
a City Attorney for 21 years and is also familiar with the fireworks
industry. He felt there may be available through the fireworks industry,
some type of special coverage. He indicated that he could research this and
that it would take approximately one week.
Betty Heller reported that last year they submitted copies of their
homeowners policies. She felt that if the street is left open, " and someone
is hit by a car going down the street at 75 mph, then they could 'sue the
City. People on the block could get hurt if the street isn't closed.
Sue Hammons reported that she moved to Burton Street 2 years ago and has 4
young boys. She questioned if there wasn't some type of waiver that' the City
could come up with.
Acting Attorney Riback indicated that the problem with this is it doesn't
cover someone who might drive through a barricade, plus this type of waiver
cannot cover minors' rights.
Cm. Moffatt suggested bringing together all of the homeowners policies to try
to reach some kind of resolution to this situation.
Mr. Ambrose indicated that what this actually boils down to is what kind of
exposure is the Council willing to accept. It is up to the Council to
decide.
Mayor Jeffery questioned if the City got a rider, would this cover more than
just Burton Street.
Mr. Rankin reported that the coverage we checked on would be a separate cover
issued under the Shannon Center tenants policy and it excludes alcoholic
beverages.
Cm. Vonheeder felt that it was no longer a matter of who is negligent, but
rather who has the deepest pockets. This is a very discouraging position to
be in because activities that go on on Burton Street are what we want to
encourage in the City. It's especially difficult because the Council must
sit on a fence and protect everyone from everyone else. She indicated that
she would like to see the City accept the fact that they all have homeowners
insurance.
CM-6-194
Regular Meeting June 22, 1987
Cm. Hegarty questioned the group as to how much of the $600 they would be
willing to come up with. The group indicated that they would have to have a
bench meeting to decide. They were informed that they could obtain $500, 000
in coverage for $475. They did not ask about alcohol because this is not one
of their priorities. They asked if the City could subsidize them in any way
for the insurance.
Attorney Riback stated that if the City wants to co-sponsor this activity, he
did not believe that it would be a gift of public funds. However, it would
be necessary for Burton Street to invite the entire community to the block
party in this case. Or, you would have to make the same provision for anyone
else that would request it.
Al Bell, a 12 year Dublin resident questioned the nature of the increase in
claims. He wanted to know 'where does it stop? '
Mr. Ambrose reported that the City incurred a loss of $40, 000 from someone
who drove in a pothole.
Betty Heller stated that either way, the City is going to be liable.
Mike Pacer felt that the City is assuming that the liability exposure is
greater by blocking off the street, when in fact, he felt that just the
opposite is true.
Mr. Rankin reported that the City basically becomes uninsured if it issues
the permit. We are not trying to say one way or the other is best. Under
California law, simply having a certificate is not enough.
Dr. Jerry Kaplan advised the Burton Street residents that he will pay for 1/2
of the insurance policy if the homeowners will match it.
Cm. Snyder advised that it is very uncomfortable for the Council to deal with
issues such as this. They have a fiduciary responsibility and to blatently
open themselves up to potentially damaging situations when they have been
advised that it is not in the best interest of the City is very difficult.
They do not want to create this type of a situation for the rest of the
community. It is unfortunate that it is a litiguous society in which we
live. He hoped that residents could understand the position of the Council.
Mr. Forbes stated that in the event that there is no policy coverage avail-
able, he will individually join with Dr. Kaplan to pay the other half of the
amount.
Attorney Riback clarified that the City would need to be named as an
additional insured.
Staff advised that everything would need to be taken care of no later than
July 2nd, as City Offices will be closed on Friday, July 3rd.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council authorized Staff to issue an encroachment permit upon receipt of
proof of $500, 000 insurance.
* * * *
CM-6-195
Regular Meeting June 22, 1987
PUBLIC HEARING
ENEA PLAZA - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Staff advised that Robert Enea, representing John & Sal Enea, is requesting
that the City rezone approximately 5 acres located on the southeast and
southwest corners of the intersection of Amador Plaza Road and Dublin
Boulevard from a PD, Planned Development District allowing C-0,
Administrative Office District uses and limited C-1, Retail Business District
uses to a PD, Planned Development District permitting a range of retail
shopper, office, personal service and financial uses. This approach
parallels the approach used in the San Ramon Road Specific Plan.
Consistent with the General Plan and the Draft Downtown Specific Plan, Staff
recommended that a condition be imposed with this project approval to require
the Developer to provide for the future dedication and full improvement for
that portion of the planned new street linking Regional Street and Amador
Plaza Road.
The Applicant has indicated that he feels the requirements related to the new
street are premature.
Staff prepared rough estimates of the costs of the land and physical
improvements if the City were required to acquire and construct the new
street. The new street would cost $1.4 million to $1.9 million. The Enea
Plaza portion of the new street (approximately 330 ft of the 1, 980 ft planned
roadway) would range from $230, 000 to $320, 000. The BART portion of the new
street would range from $315, 000 to $435, 000 and BART has indicated a
willingness to dedicate and construct their portion of the new street as part
of the BART Park & Ride Lot project.
If the City Council grants the Enea Plaza's request for relief from their
portion of the new street, a precedent may be set for the treatment of future
planning applications located in the area. The effect of this action could
be to shift some or all of the costs for the new street to the City.
Planning Director Tong displayed slides of the area being discussed.
Cm. Snyder questioned Staff as to what timeline is being discussed for
development of the street.
Mr. Tong responded that no specific time was being discussed, that it would
be necessary sometime after the rest of the roadway is built or when an
applicant comes in for development of the other properties.
Cm. Moffatt questioned where exactly the road would be.
Mr. Tong responded that it was yet to be determined.
Mr. Geoffrey Etnire, Attorney for the Applicants, indicated that this is a
complicated issue. He felt that since he was just recently retained, he has
the advantage of coming in to review this issue with a fresh look. A high-
CM-6-196
Regular Meeting June 22, 1987
. quality ..,retail center .will be to ;the. advantage of both"the`City and the
Eneas. The question is really the timing of ,.the dedication = why face this
now instead of when the remaining 17 acres are . developed. - Their .objections
relate to the fairness of . Condition #5. They .do not feel it is ''fair at this
particular time. The planned °roadway may not be contiguous to the parcels
being discussed. The . rezoning makes sense and -they felt their conclusion is
simple as there is really no reason to face this issue at this time. They
requested that Condition #5 be deleted.
Cm. Snyder questioned how they would propose the dedication be handled in the
future. .
Mr. Etnire indicated that the Eneas expect that with the next development,
the dedication would occur.
City Manager Ambrose indicated that the project has existing zoning and the
only real use permit that the City would process would be a Site Development
Review and he felt that this is a weak tool for requesting a dedication. He
suggested having the Eneas commit to a date in this document. Clarification
was made that the dedication would have to be tied to an event rather than a
date.
Mayor Jeffery closed, the public hearing.
Cm. Hegarty suggested that we require the dedication when this land is
developed in phases.
Cm. Vonheeder questioned what if Bedford and BART development occurs first.
Staff advised that there would be no problem tying dedication and improve-
ments to the same point in time.
Mayor Jeffery had questions related to the tax responsibility once dedication
is made to the City.
Attorney Riback indicated that in order for there to be a dedication, there
must be a definition of the property line.
Cm. Moffatt indicated he would agree to the dedication of land when the Eneas
develop their other parcel. He questioned if they would dedicate the road
when the other sections of the road are to be built.
Mr. Etnire indicated that all along the Eneas have assumed that a dedication
will be made. They prefer to discuss this when the remaining 17 acres come
in for an application for development.
Rich Enea indicated they want to avoid a floating line in their 4 acre parcel
and expressed concern that they feel they would be building a road that will
go nowhere for possibly 5 years.
Cm. Hegarty indicated he wanted it somewhere on the record that someday a
road will go in there with lands being dedicated by the property owners.
CM-6-197
Regular Meeting June 22, 1987
City Manager Ambrose felt that the City has no guarantee that the back
property will ever be developed. Mr. Ambrose asked how long the study would
take to approve the plan line for the location of the road.
City Engineer Lee Thompson felt that the study could be done within the next
6 months .
Mr. Etnire reiterated his concern that the Eneas do not feel that this
request for dedication is proper for consideration of the application before
the City.
Planning Director Tong indicated that the back parcel could be sold to
someone else, and it would put the City in a very awkward situation in trying
to get the dedication of the street.
Attorney Riback suggested revised language with regard to the timing of the
dedication and improvements.
A short recess was called to allow Staff to prepare precise wording for the
change in the resolution.
All Councilmembers were present when the meeting was reconvened.
Attorney Riback advised that page 2, section 5, sub-paragraphs a) and b) of
the resolution approving and establishing findings and general provisions for
a PD rezoning, should be changed as follows: "a) At such time as the future
development of any portion of the southerly portion of the parcel through
which this road is proposed to pass is approved by the City, the developer
shall dedicate the right-of-way and construct the road improvements; or in
the alternative the developer shall dedicate the right-of-way and provide to
the City security in an amount and form approved by the City guaranteeing
such construction at such time as the remainder of the proposed street is to
be constructed by others. b) If prior to the future development of any
portion of the southerly portion of the parcel through which this road is
proposed to pass, the remainder of the proposed street is to be constructed
by others, the developer shall at that time dedicate the right-of-way and
construct the road improvements. "
Mayor Jeffery questioned if the applicants would approve the proposed change
in verbage.
Mr. Etnire indicated that the Eneas had not had a chance to respond to the
new proposal.
Mayor Jeffery reopened the public hearing in order to give the applicants a
chance to respond.
Mr. Etnire indicated they still had some problems with the new language.
Mayor Jeffery again closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote,
the Council adopted
CM-6-198
Regular Meeting June 22, 1987
RESOLUTION �NO. 40 - ,87
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING
PA 87-018, ENEA PLAZA PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING APPLICATION
and
RESOLUTION NO. 41 - 87
APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONCERNING PA 87-018,
ENEA PLAZA APPLICATION
and waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance amending the Zoning
Ordinance to permit the rezoning of real property located at the southeast
and southwest corners of the intersection of Amador Plaza Road and Dublin
Boulevard.
Cm. Moffatt voted against this motion.
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING
KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN - SIGN VARIANCE APPEAL
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
This appeal, which was heard at the City Council meeting on June 8, 1987 was
continued in order to allow the City Attorney time to review the issue of
amortization of an illegal sign. The Applicant's Variance request was to
allow a 17 foot tall freestanding sign within the front setback and not
within the middle one-third of the lot. The City's Sign Ordinance revisions
adopted on May 12, 1986, did not result in changes affecting the Applicant's
Variance request.
Staff advised that in order for the Applicant to retain the existing sign in
its present location, the Council would need to overturn the County Zoning
Administrator's denial by adopting a resolution making the following
affirmative findings based on fact: 1) the Variance authorized does not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on
other properties in the vicinity; 2) special conditions and extraordinary
circumstances apply to the property and do not apply to other properties in
the vicinity, so that the strict application of this Chapter deprives the
property of rights enjoyed by other properties; 3) the VAriance authorized
meets the intent and purpose sought to be achieved by the regulations in this
Chapter; and 4) the Variance authorized does not adversely affect the orderly
development of property and the preservation of property values in the
vicinity.
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the appeal and determined that the 17
foot freestanding sign is an illegal sign. As an illegal sign, the
Applicant' s sign is not subject to the removal provision specified for a
non-conforming sign.
CM-6-199
Regular Meeting June 22, 1987
t• .. ' SKI c � ;' 1:� .
Staff recommended that the Council uphold the 'Zoning .Administrator's -action
denying the Variance request. The resolution ,,includes .a,blank "space for
Council 'to designate a specific date�for the Applicant'tto comply .with 'the
City's Sign Ordinance. .
Keith Holmes felt that since the sign ,was put up with approval,' and then it
was found to be illegal, he requested 3 years in which to deal with replacing
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
Cm. Snyder indicated he would like to allow a reasonable time to amortize the
sign and requested the advice of the City Attorney.
Attorney Riback indicated that this is not actually an amortization period,
but rather a question of what the Council feels is a reasonable period of
time in which an illegal sign must be removed.
Cm. Snyder felt that an injustice has been created and now the Council must
deal with it. _.._. . _..._
Cm. Hegarty stated that everyone recognizes that an error was made by Alameda
County. However, the law doesn't bend.
Attorney Riback advised the Council that it would not be setting a legal
precedent.
Cm. Vonheeder felt that 10 years for the life of a sign is a reasonable
period.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majority vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 42 - 87
UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION DENYING
V-8422 KEITH HOLMES SIGN VARIANCE FOR KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN
(with a date of June 22, 1990 for compliance)
Cm. Moffatt voted against this motion.
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING - SPARK ARRESTORS
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
On April 27, 1987, a public hearing was held in connection with the adoption
of the Fire Safe Roof Ordinance and installation of spark arrestors. The
City Council directed Staff to investigate the feasibility of requiring spark
arrestors to be installed within a specified time and to review the standards
for spark arrestors.
CM-6-200
Regular Meeting June 22, 1987
The Building Official estimates that there are 2, 800 homes in 'Dublin with
fireplaces that are not equipped with spark arrestors. .. Costs ,for the
installation of spark arrestors, in the event the Council adopted the
ordinance were discussed.
The Planning Commission recommended that the ordinance require spark
arrestors be installed at the time of sale or when alterations costing over
$1; 000 are done.
Staff also presented an ordinance "requiring spark arrestors to be installed
within 6 months. The Council may, however, wish to consider an alternate
date for compliance.
A Resolution was presented which would establish that the City Council finds
that the ordinance and requirement for spark arrestors is necessary because
of climatic and topographical conditions. State law requires the findings to
be made whenever local building regulations are adopted that differ from the
regulations adopted by the State Department of Community Development.
Cm. Moffatt asked questions related to the permit process.
Mr. Taugher indicated that we would need some kind of an accounting system
and the cost of a permit would have to be determined. The minimum fee in the
current schedule is $20.
Mayor Jeffery questioned if this applied to all units in Dublin, not just
single family homes. She questioned apartments and businesses.
Mr. Taugher advised that as a practical matter, multiple family units already
have spark arrestors.
Cm. Moffatt questioned business such as restaurants with fireplaces.
Mr. Taugher indicated he would need to check into this.
Greg Smith, a Dublin resident felt that if you have to spend $25 for the
spark arrestor and then have to pay $20 for a permit, this seems steep to
cover the bureaucracy.
Susan Hurl, Southern Alameda County Board of Realtors felt that if the real
concern of the Council is to fireproof homes in Dublin, it should not be done
at resale. Ms. Hurl presented statistics that indicated that in a good year,
only about 10% of the homes turn over.
Ray Tem, a Dublin resident indicated that he is not planning on selling for a
long time. He just bought and installed spark arrestors. He would like to
see the permit fee reduced.
Mr. Taugher reported that Staff could bring back a fee modification at the
second reading of the ordinance if this is what the Council desires.
CM-6-201
Regular Meeting June 22, 1987
Lyn Dinelli, a Dublin resident reported that two years agog she had her
chimney cleaned and a spark arrestor installed and the total cost ,was $45 for
cleaning and $10 for the spark arrestor.
Bill Burnham questioned who would go down to City Hall to buy a permit to put
on a $25 spark arrestor. He also reported that there is no State or U L
approved spark arrestor.
Captain Hathcox, DSRSD Fire Department indicated that major fire codes
provide specifications for spark arrestors.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
Cm. Vonheeder indicated that they had put on a spark arrestor in the past and
it had messed up the draw of the fireplace. Cm. Vonheeder expressed concern
regarding the permit fee.
Cm. Moffatt suggested requiring a permit, but without a fee.
Cm. Vonheeder felt this would be acceptable as long as City offices are open
in the evenings so people who work out of Dublin can get one.
Cm. Hegarty felt we should modify the fee schedule. The City is merely
trying to help keep houses from burning down.
Cm. Hegarty made a motion to introduce an ordinance which would require that
spark arrestors be installed on all existing chimneys within 6 months and
that the Council review the fee schedule. This motion died for lack of a
second to the motion.
Cm. Moffatt then indicated he would like to pass the same motion, but require
no permit. He then referred to the Staff Report, and revised his motion.
Cm. Moffatt made a motion to introduce an ordinance which would require spark
arrestors to be installed on existing chimneys whenever work exceeding $1, 000
in value is done and without a permit. This motion died for lack of a second
to the motion.
Cm. Vonheeder felt that in this case you would be covered because you would
need to get a permit for the building work.
Mayor Jeffery clarified the motion made by Cm. Moffatt that spark arrestors
be installed on existing chimneys whenever work exceeding $1, 000 in value is
done and without a permit, and when the property is sold. Mayor Jeffery
indicated she was not clear on what he meant by no permit required. Cm.
Moffatt stated he meant at the time of sale.
Cm. Snyder felt this would be very confusing and questioned if Cm. Moffatt's
intention was to adopt Exhibits 1 and 2. Cm. Moffatt responded that he
wanted to introduce the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Cm. Snyder felt that in this case, someone has to justify during a sale that
CM-6-202
Regular Meeting June 22, 1987 .
there is a ,spark arrestor on the home.- - Someone has - to go gout and 'inspect it
or certify 'it. We are .then justified in accepting a -fee. Cm. Moffatt stated
that he is basically trying -to get away from the $20 'permit. :` .
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. •Vonheeder, and by..unanimous vote,
the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ,ordinance requiring spark
arrestors to be installed on existing chimneys whenever work exceeding $1, 000
in value is done and that spark arrestors be installed on an existing chimney
whenever the house is sold. Every time a house is sold it is to be
inspected.
Cm. Hegarty felt that the City will potentially have to wait 20 years to make
it safe, and even then it's not assured.
Cm. Snyder felt that this ordinance is better than having nothing at all. He
did not feel that the 20 year figure is reasonable.
Council discussion was held related to the fact that many homes in Dublin are
reaching the potential lifetime of their original roof and everytime someone
reroofs their house, they must get a permit and thereby would have to install
a spark arrestor at that time.
Cm. Vonheeder questioned why not let the City pay instead of repairing
sidewalks.
Mr. Taugher reported that a date contained in the ordinance related to the
sale or exchange of property would need to be changed,
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING
FIREWORKS - ORDINANCE REGULATING SALE AND USE
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
At the May 11, 1987, Council meeting, the Council directed the City Attorney
to prepare an ordinance which would prohibit the use of fireworks in the City
of Dublin. Additional information was also requested on the regulation of
fireworks by surrounding communities.
Staff determined that the Cities of San Leandro, Union City and Dublin are
the only municipalities in Alameda County which allow the sale and use of
fireworks. Alameda County took action in April to prohibit the sale of
fireworks in the unincorporated areas following the 4th of July celebration
this year.
The City Attorney has included the term "regulated fireworks" in the proposed
ordinance. There is currently legislation pending in Sacramento which would
remove the reference to "safe and sane fireworks" and impose the term
"regulated fireworks" . Both terms are used in the proposed ordinance in
order to avoid the need for an amendment, if the State Law changes.
CM-6-203
Regular Meeting June 22, 1987
.. .... ,> x..... >, .•R . :. ..a, .r •,t^,••:,.a^: --•t!rx'a?'.-�:9.r9':i!7+Kti;{:.`e'iT>•"":.'rcA'7+"CK ........ <r,. _ rwh.^_p}:ntiy*a<.;tTCmtrr;,.. ,.c.c, .- .f..
The proposed ordinance would prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession,
purchase and use of fireworks. An exemption has been provided whereby the
City could conduct a public display of fireworks at an approved site,
pursuant to the rules and regulations of the State Fire Marshall.
Gordon Swanson, Assistant Fire Chief indicated that his department definitely
supports this issue and would like to see a total banning of all fireworks.
Cm. Moffatt questioned how many fires occurred last year. Fire Department
personnel responded that there were 8 fires last year that caused some damage
due to fireworks. The approximate amount of damage was about $10, 000.
Lyn Dinelli, a Dublin resident, indicated that she appreciated what the City
Council must go through. She stated she realizes the dangers, but still
feels regret at the thought of not being able to share the pleasures of
fireworks with her children. She felt the real issue is management and this
issue should be put into perspective.
Greg Smith, representing Dublin Little League indicated that groups sell
fireworks to raise money and they are a tremendous fund raiser. As a parent,
resident, and individual, he indicated that he appreciates the Fire
Department's position, but safe and sane fireworks are a cornerstone of our
country. Mr. Smith felt that $10, 000 damage caused by fireworks is a fairly
insignificant amount - until it happens to his house.
Cm. Snyder commented that he felt Mr. Smith' s last statement was very
profound.
Fire Captain Hathcox indicated that it is sometimes difficult to put a dollar
loss on a fire. Two years ago, a fireman fell from a 2-story roof while
fighting a fire, and he is , still suffering from this injury.
Harvey Scudder, a Dublin resident, spoke in support of a banning ordinance.
He felt this would remove the cover for illegal fireworks. He felt it is a
matter of cutting down an unnecessary risk.
Al Bell, a Dublin resident, felt that since last time the City voted on this
issue, it should again be put back to the people. He is involved with sports
groups and the sale of fireworks helps the groups.
Mayor Jeffery pointed out that the last election was advisory only, and was
not binding on the City Council.
Glen Kaplan felt that fireworks look neat, but they are kind of dangerous.
He watches older kids lighting them, and they do cause litter.
Cindy Cobb-Adams, Newport Court resident, indicated that she agreed that the
issue should go back to the people to decide.
Bill Burnham felt the issue should be voted on by the people and questioned
the recourse of people if it goes through.
Staff advised that it could go to a referendum.
CM-6-204
Regular Meeting June 22, 1987
Doris Felton, Betlen Drive resident indicated that people come from out of
this area to use fireworks. Ms. Felton relayed instances of damage for the
last 3 years. She felt it was irritating year after year to have to stay
home to protect her property from potential fire damage as a result of
fireworks. She felt that if fireworks are allowed, there should be a
policeman and fire trucks at the end of the street. She indicated that she
works for a non-profit organization and there are many ways to raise funds.
Glen Forbes, representing the fireworks industry indicated that there are
different elements in Dublin than other jurisdictions. Newark and Livermore
also allow safe and sane fireworks. Mr. Forbes gave a brief history of how
the advisory election came about. If the Council now overturns this
decision, they are overturning the vote of the people. If the Council bans
safe and sane fireworks, they will be increasing the useage of illegal
fireworks. Mr. Forbes advised that in Los Angeles, 99.1% of damage caused by
fireworks was done by dangerous and illegal fireworks.
Cm. Snyder advised Mr. Forbes that the 1982 election was advisory only and
only 3 Councilmembers voted for the ordinance to allow fireworks. The
ordinance was then amended to make it illegal for anyone under 18 years of
age.
Dr. Kaplan, a Danville resident who practices in the burn unit at Alta Bates
Hospital in Berkeley indicated that he makes his living taking care of burn
victims. He has a keen interest in burn prevention and anything that he can
do to prevent a single burn injury, he will do. The basic problem is that
fireworks operate by burning. Sparklers reach temperatures of 1800 degrees.
He is a Cub Scout leader and has kids in Little League. Fireworks are banned
in all of Contra Costa County and somehow the programs have survived. The
Council must make a decision regarding risks versus benefits. The City could
potentially be liable for someone getting burned by fireworks because they
have allowed their sale.
Glen Forbes requested the City Attorney' s opinion regarding the City' s
liability. He stated that the fireworks industry is just as concerned with
safety as is Dr. Kaplan.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
Cm. Hegarty felt that everything sound the same as it did 5 years ago -
nothing has changed. He questioned why not have another advisory election.
Cm. Moffatt questioned if this could be onto the School Board election in
November.
Cm. Vonheeder indicated that she was not a member of the Council in 1982, but
felt that the Council abrogated their responsibility by putting it to the
voters then and does not feel that the process is proper unless we go back to
the people.
Mayor Jeffery did not feel it necessary to go to a vote. It is contradictory
for adults to sell fireworks to children when they can hurt them. She felt
that feelings have changed considerably in the community. There are other
CM-6-205
Regular Meeting June 22, 1987
ways to enjoy fireworks other than on -the public streets. " Dollars .played
very heavily in the last election. Red .Devil was very generous with their
_,oney. Mayor Jeffery felt that if the citizens do not want a ban, ' they can
pursue a referendum and it would -be much stronger in this case. -
Cm. Hegarty stated he did not feel that any fireworks are safe and sane,
however, .it should be put on the ballot 'as a Council initiative. .
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote, the
Council agreed that the issue of whether or not to ban the sale, use and
possession of fireworks should be put on the ballot as a Council initative.
Cm. Snyder and Mayor Jeffery voted against this motion.
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING
BUS STOPS ON DUBLIN BOULEVARD @ SIERRA COURT
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
This ordinance was introduced at the City Council meeting of June 8, 1987 and
would provide for bus stops to be installed on an experimental basis for up
to one year. They may or may not become permanent, depending upon the number
of persons using the stop.
No comments were made by members of the public.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council waived the reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 33 - 87
ESTABLISHING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
(Bus Stops on Dublin Boulevard @ Sierra Court)
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCE RELATING TO OPERATION OF TAXICABS
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Staff advised that this ordinance relates to the operation of taxicabs within
the incorporated limits of the City. The ordinance sets forth the minimum
insurance coverage as required by state law, use of a taximeter, schedule of
rates, permit application procedures for both owners and operators, and the
City recommended insurance coverage which is higher than the minimum state
requirement.
Mayor Jeffery questioned if this included limos. Chief Severini responded
that it did.
CM-6-206
Regular Meeting June 22, 1987
Cm. Moffatt questioned if limos would have to have a meter. Chief .Severini
stated he believed there would be set fees 'established.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance relating to the
operation of taxicabs.
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING
REVENUE SHARING BUDGET AMENDMENT
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Staff advised that during the preparation of the 1986-87 Budget, the receipt
of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds were not 'anticipated. This was due to a
termination of the program. Subsequent to the adoption of the Budget, the
City received one payment. In addition to the funds received, the City has
interest earnings which have accrued to the fund. A public hearing is
required to obtain input on the appropriation of Revenue Sharing Funds.
Staff recommended that the appropriation be made to fund costs associated
with the provision of Police Services. Staff recommended that this budget be
amended to fund $51, 825 of the 1986-87 total of $1,139, 940 with Revenue
Sharing Funds.
No comments were made by members of the public.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. ' Moffatt, and by unanimous vote,
the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 43 - 87
AMENDING THE 1986-87 BUDGET FOR THE PURPOSE
OF APPROPRIATING FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS
* * * *
OTHER BUSINESS
Alameda County Fair
City Manager Ambrose advised the Council that fair tickets are available in
City Offices. Anyone needing them should contact Kay.
* * * *
CM-6-207
Regular Meeting June 22, 1987
Tri-Valley Joint Council Meeting
Cm. Vonheeder indicated that at the Tri-Valley Joint Council meeting, it
appears that all cities are headed toward a joint transportation plan. They
would like to try to coordinate construction of roads. There was a feeling
expressed that the Counties need to be players in this effort, but the cities
need to be the leaders.
By Council 'consensus, Staff was directed to place this issue on a future
agenda.
* * * *
Library Support
Cm. Hegarty requested that Staff write a thank you letter to Assemblyman
Baker for his support with regard to Library services.
* * * *
CLOSED SESSION
At 11:44 p.m. , the Council recessed to a closed executive session to discuss
pending litigation, City of Dublin vs. BART and personnel related matters.
* * * *
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was
adjourned at 12:45 a.m.
* * * *
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CM-6-208
Regular Meeting June 22, 1987
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - June 23,'' 1987 '
An adjourned regular meeting' of the City Council of 'the City of Dublin was
held on Tuesday, •June 23, 1987 in the west room of the Shannon Community
Center. The meeting was called to order at 6:22 p.m. , by 'Mayor , Linda
Jeffery.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Jeffery.
Councilmember Moffatt arrived at 6:25 p.m.
Councilmember Hegarty arrived at 6:35 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle-
giance to the flag.
Oakland Zoo Raffle
Mr. Brandt indicated that he had checked with the District Attorney's Office
and Consumer Fraud and was advised that there is nothing that prohibits him
from selling raffle tickets. They are asking for a $2.00 donation.
PUBLIC HEARING
1987-88 UPDATE TO FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
On June 16, 1987, the City Council reviewed the Five-Year Capital Improvement
Program proposed Update at a Study Session. The Council recommended that
Staff revise the Senior Citizens Center Project to include an additional
$46, 650. Projects for the entire 1986-91 Program period include:
General $17, 641, 584
Community Improvements 2,130, 600
Parks 5, 256, 998
Streets 13, 498,168
Total T3-T,-527, 350
On June 15, 1987, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Update and
determined that it was in conformance with the City's adopted General Plan.
The Park & Recreation Commission reviewed those projects included in the park
section. The Commission recommended a priority schedule.
City Manager Ambrose went over each program area and utilized an overhead
projector for charts.
$C$ SS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $G$ $ $C$ $ $ $G$C$ $G$G$ $ $C$C$ $C$C$ $�$
CM-6-209
Regular Meeting June 23, 1987
Donald Shanks, an Ashford Way resident ,indieated that it was his
understanding that a wooden fence was being proposed for construction as a
soundwall along Alcosta Boulevard. He indicated that he had learned an
important lesson - 'don't buy property on a -county ' line' . He' urged the
Council to build a masonry fence rather than a wooden one and questioned how
high the fence would be.
Staff advised that the wall would be 6' high to replace the existing fences
and would be masonry rather than wood.
George Zika requested that the City take a look at his street in order that
it could be paved again. Mr. Zika indicated that this is his annual request.
City Engineer Thompson explained the cycles used to determine when slurry
seal and overlay takes place.
Mayor Jeffery indicated that there should be some money coming in from
Measure B, but the formula is not yet designated.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 44 - 87
ADOPTING THE 1987-88 UPDATE TO THE
FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1986-91
PUBLIC HEARING
ADOPTION OF 1987-88 BUDGET
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
During discussion of the proposed budget on June 16, 1987, the City Council
directed that two modifications be made. The first dealt with the provision
of $19, 800 in operating funds for local cable television programming. A
program has been added to the Culture & Leisure Services Budget to account
for this appropriation. The second adjustment was $46, 650 in additional
funds for the renovation of the Senior Citizen Center at the Fallon School
site.
The total Operating Budget, as amended at the June 16th meeting totals
$7, 703,176, expenditures total $17, 444, 601 and 1987-88 appropriations total
$18, 006, 558.
City Manager Ambrose indicated that one change had occurred since the last
meeting. The Dublin Housing Authority has finally received a balance sheet
which separates the pilot tax. The revenue estimate needs to be revised.
$45, 000 of the total amount of $215, 000 will not be received until July of
1988, which will be in the 1988-89 Fiscal Year. $38, 000 is alloted to the
City of Pleasanton for providing fire protection services to Arroyo Vista.
CM-6-210
Regular Meeting June 23, 1987
Cm. Hegarty questioned if the Council's decision at -the June 22nd meeting
regarding a fireworks election would effect the Elections Budget. Mr.
Ambrose indicated that $5, 000 had been added to this account.
With regard to Vector Control Services, Cm. Snyder indicated that if the
level of, service does not improve in the future, and the City is not
satisfied with the level of service it receives, a possible alternative could
be to go to the voters in November to find out if they want to become a part
of the District.
Cm. Hegarty suggested that Staff poll the other 13 cities who are members of
the District to determine what they think of the service they receive.
Mayor Jeffery felt that the request made by Mr. Flores with regard to the
Meals on Wheels program should come under the category of Recreation, as they
are responsible for senior programs. The Meals on Wheels request was
discussed.
Cm. Snyder felt that the money could stay in the contingency reserve and then
when we get more information, we could transfer funds.
City Manager Ambrose indicated that Staff would try to get more specific
details from the provider.
Cm. Vonheeder questioned how Dublin ended up with San Ramon rather than
Alameda County and Pleasanton.
Consensus of the Council was an agreement. to contribute, but not until more
information is provided.
Darla Stevens, representing the Tri-Valley Community Television Corporation
passed out a reformatted budget to the Council.
Cm. Moffatt felt that if San Ramon does not choose to participate, then this
budget will be off.
Darla Stevens indicated that this was not the case. The Cities that
participate are buying services . Services will be provided for dollars
given. The level of service we receive is directly tied to the amount of
money given.
Cm. Hegarty reported that Dublin is the only City to commit funding thus far.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 45 - 87
ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987-88
CM-6-211
Regular Meeting June 23, 1987
PUBLIC HEARING
1987-88 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
The City's Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 1986-87 was established in
June 1986 at $7, 672, 746. For Fiscal Year 1987-88, the City is required to
adopt an Appropriations Limit which adjusts the 1986.-87 Appropriations Limit
by the change in the U. S. consumer Price Index (CPI) and the change in the
City's population as determined by the State Department of Finance.
The City's 1987-88 Appropriations Limit is $9, 670, 616. This limit only
restricts those appropriations which are funded by Proceeds of Taxes as
defined by Proposition 4. This total is $7, 806, 431. City Manager Ambrose
indicated that this figure would be adjusted slightly as a result of this
meeting. We are, however, well under the limit.
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 46 - 87
ADOPTING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 (9, 670, 616)
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AND CROSSING .GUARD AGREEMENT
The City contracts with the County of Alameda Public Works Agency for both
traffic signal maintenance and crossing guard services. The agreement for
the provision of these services expires June 30, 1987 .
Revised agreements have been prepared which are consistent with the proposed
1987-88 budget.
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote,
the Council approved the agreement and authorized the Mayor to execute same.
LIBRARY SERVICES AGREEMENT
The City' s contract with Alameda County for additional Library Services
expires on June 30, 1987. The County has prepared a new agreement which
provides for the funding of 15 hours per week over and above what will be
provided by the County. The cost to the City for funding these additional 15
hours per week is $103, 500 per year.
$4$ $4$4$ $4$ $ $0$0$0$4$0$0$4$4$4$4$4$4$4$4$4$4$4$4$4$4$4$4$4$4$4$4$4$
CM-6-212
Regular Meeting June 23, 1987
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 47 - 87
APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
FOR ADDITIONAL LIBRARY SERVICES DURING FISCAL YEAR 1987-88
and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement.
REPORT ON REORGANIZATION OF DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
On February 9, 1987, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding
between the City of Dublin, Dublin San Ramon Services District and City of
San Ramon related to the transfer of service responsibility from the
District to the two Cities. Since that meeting, representatives of the
District, San Ramon and Dublin have met several times in an attempt to work
out differences between the three agencies over the transfer of fire and
park responsibilities from the District to Dublin and San Ramon.
On June 16, 1987, representatives from the three agencies met again and
reached agreement on a redrafted Memorandum of Understanding between the
three agencies.
This Memorandum of Understanding differs from the MOU approved in concept by
the City Council on February 9, 1987 as follows:
1) The District will transfer title to each fire station to the cities in
accordance with their respective geographical locations at such time that
the Fire Joint Powers Authority becomes operational.
2) All personal property which is either used for fire protection and
suppression or for parks which is not physically located and customarily
used at each of the facilities will be divided between the Cities equally
based on current market value.
3) Each City will convey the fire assets that it receives from the District
to the Fire JPA at the same time.
4) The Proposition 4 Appropriation Limitation will be transferred to the
Cities as calculated by the District upon the date that the Fire JPA becomes
operational.
5) One or both Cities may assume park and aquatics maintenance and operation
responsibility from the District prior to the implementation of any actions
contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding. If one or both Cities
indicate a willingness to assume responsibility for District facilities
within their respective jurisdiction, the District may transfer those monies
it budgets to maintain and operate facilities within the City requesting
responsibility for the facilities. An agreement for such a transfer would
be subject to the prior written approval of the other City.
$C$C$C$C$C$C$C$C$C$CSC$ $ $C$ $C$ $ $C$C$C$ $C$C$C$C$C$C$C$C$C$C$C$C$C$C$C$
CM-6-213
Regular Meeting June 23, 1987
Staff advised that since our side of the line has generated more fees, we
want to look at an equitable split in`fees collected.
Cm. Snyder indicated that this has been a . long road, and we still are not at
the end.
Cm. Hegarty indicated that he would feel more comfortable if all agreements
were documented.
City Manager Ambrose indicated that the District charges $650 per .unit for
fire capital improvement purposes. This is actually an agreement to agree.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO.. 48 - 87
APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING
TRANSFER OF SERVICE RESPONSIBILITY RELATING TO
FIRE PROTECTION AND SUPPRESSION AND PARR AND RECREATION
and
RESOLUTION NO. 49 - 87
.:REQUESTING NEGOTIATIONS WITH COUNTY REGARDING
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT PROPERTY TAX PROCEEDS
OTHER BUSINESS
Fireworks
Cm. Snyder stated he wished to apologize for a remark made at the June 22nd
meeting regarding the fireworks discussion, when Cm. Hegarty made the motion
to put a Council initiative on the ballot. He requested that Cm. Hegarty
modify his motion to put it back to an advisory motion. A Council initiative
would set up a situation whereby the Council would always have to go back to
the voters. Regardless of how the' vote goes, he felt confident that the
Council would do the right thing.
Cm. Snyder indicated that he was making this request at this time because he
will be out of the Country when the report is brought back to the Council for
consideration at the July 13th meeting.
Developer Fees
Discussion was held regarding the fee that will be charged to developers by
the School District. Information will be provided to the City.
CM-6-214
Regular Meeting June 23, 1987
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council,. the meeting was
adjourned at 8: 07 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City _ Clerk
CM-6-215
Regular Meeting June 23, 1987
•-.-._...._...,..... ......-,....,n.�.-.-..-..,.„,...,. ....•....—x..,.....;:,...v...Y,,-....-,:--� -}.:r•w...-.ti2,"`..e w...w.,,c> r?^:"e1',«$7?c•tw .,.cnc..rt: .. aw.,..........t.szx.a..: " -•.. .-a: