Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.01 Approve 01-25-1988 Minutesi REGULAR MEETING - January 25, 1988 R A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, January 25, 1988, in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7: 30 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. CLOSED SESSION At 7: 31 p.m. , the Council recessed to a closed session to discuss pending litigation, Rose Jurich and Mario Jurich vs. City of Dublin et al . PUBLIC MEETING RECONVENED At 7 : 48 p.m. , Mayor Jeffery announced that the public meeting was reconvened. All Councilmembers were present. Wastewater Sewage Disposal Doug Abbott, a Rhoda Avenue resident, addressed the Council related to a decision that will be made soon related to wastewater sewage disposal. The decision on what to do could cost Dublin residents about $35 million. He was upset that Dublin residents will not be allowed to vote on this . People should have the right to say no if this is not what they want. Mr. Abbott gathered a number of signatures from residents in his neighborhood requesting that the DSRSD Board of Directors hold an election. Alameda County Supervisor Ed Campbell has indicated that he sees no problem in having the people vote on this issue. Mr. Abbott requested that the City Council urge the Dublin San Ramon Services District Board of Directors to submit this very important issue to the voters . Harvey Scudder reported that the Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority will be meeting on February 17th. They have worked for a new pipeline to handle sewage capacity. The range of costs is considerable. The issue of raw or treated sewage is yet to be decided. This will cross 2 major fault lines and a project this size needs to come before the voters . The City of Livermore has indicated that they will have this issue on the ballot at the June primary. Mr. Scudder requested that the Council suggest that DSRSD also put this on the ballot. . .* .* .* .* .* .* .* .* . .*.* .* . . .* .* .* .* .*.* . .* .* .* .* .* .* .* .*.* .* .* .* .* .*.* . CM-7-10 Regular Meeting January 25, 1988 ------------------------------------------------------------- TTF.M Nn- t� Mayor Jeffery requested that Staff review this and provide more information to the Council. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions : Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 11, 1988; Approved Financial Report for Period Ending December 31, 1987; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 6 - 88 ADOPTING A POLICY SUPPORTING THE USE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AS POLLING PLACES Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 7 - 88 APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL ACCOUNT FOR CAPITAL OUTLAY MONEYS FOR ALAMO CREEK PARR and RESOLUTION NO. 8 - 88 APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL ACCOUNT FOR CAPITAL OUTLAY MONEYS FOR SHANNON PARR Approved RFP for Shannon Center renovation and authorized Staff to advertise for Consultants; Denied a claim submitted by Larry Quesada on January 19, 1988 and directed Staff to notify the claimant and tender the claim to Alameda County pursuant to existing agreements; Denied a claim submitted on behalf of Darci Townsend on December 28, 1987 and directed Staff to notify the claimant and tender the claim to Alameda County pursuant to existing agreements; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $312,714.39; Approved the City' s continued participation in the NorCal Employment Relations Consortium and authorized the City Manager to execute the agreement; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 9 - 88 AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN (Aquatics Program Positions) . .* .* .* .*.*i*.*.* .* .* .*.* .*i* .*.*.*i* .*i* .*.*.*.*.* .* .* .*.*.*.*i* .* .* .* .*. CM-7-11 Regular Meeting January 25, 1988 and RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 88 ESTABLISHING A SALARY PLAN FOR PART-TIME PERSONNEL (Recreation Positions) Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 11 - 88 AWARDING AGREEMENT FOR TESTING SERVICES FOR DUBLIN CIVIC CENTER PROJECT TO CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING LABORATORIES PUBLIC HEARING CREST ENTERPRISES/THE NEW EWE - REQUEST FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. On December 14, 1987, the Council held a public hearing to consider the request to rezone the "Green Store" at the southeast corner of Donlon Way and Dublin Boulevard. The Council continued the hearing with direction to consider maintaining the site' s historic value and integrity. On December 21, 1987, the Council held a public hearing and adopted a resolution adopting a Negative Declaration and a resolution establishing findings and general provisions and introduced an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to permit rezoning the parcel . On January 11, 1988, the Council held a public hearing and adopted a new resolution establishing findings and general provisions and re-introduced an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance. The general provisions permit the following uses : restaurant; bank/financial institution; antique store; ice cream store; candy store; barber shop; photographer; health club/fitness center; tanning salon; beauty salon; and medical offices. The general provisions would allow a tavern only if a Conditional Use Permit is approved. Any exterior or interior modifications would be subject to Site Development Review approval . The SDR approval will need to find that the use maintains the site' s historic value and integrity. Bill Kline, Attorney representing the New Ewe, thanked Staff for their responsiveness on behalf of the New Ewe. They have come a long way toward turning this item around and look forward to working with both Staff and the Historical Society in the future to allow the New Ewe to open. They intend to proceed as quickly as possible to get their act together to submit all the required documentation that the City requires in order to get the business open and functioning. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. CM-7-12 Regular Meeting January 25, 1988 w' 1 Cm. Vonheeder indicated that at a past meeting, discussion was held with regard to the Applicant's ability to proceed with paperwork prior to the time the Ordinance is effective. Planning Director Tong reported that Staff and the Applicant's Attorney have discussed this and they can go forward with the understanding that it is at their own risk. As a courtesy to the Applicant, they can submit materials for the Site Development Review. Staff cannot take action on the SDR until the Ordinance goes into effect and then there is a 10 day appeal time. Cm. Snyder stated he wished to continue to indicate opposition to this change because of the proposed mix of uses at this facility. The uses are not compatable. Mayor Jeffery stated she agreed. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm: Vonheeder, and by majority vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 1 - 88 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE REZONING OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DONLON WAY AND DUBLIN BOULEVARD Cm. Snyder and Mayor Jeffery voted against this motion. PUBLIC HEARING - THE GOOD GUYS (APPLICANTS)/ENEA PROPERTIES COMPANY (OWNERS) SIGN LOCATION VARIANCE REQUEST - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION' s DENIAL - PA87-161 - SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AMADOR PLAZA ROAD & DUBLIN BOULEVARD Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that the subject property is the partially occupied 5. 8+ Enea Plaza Shopping Center. This center is currently under development as—a 3- building 42, 000 sq ft center. The sign involves signage proposed for The Good Guys, Inc. , tenant space in Building B, which is currently under construction to be a 20, 000 sq ft single-story structure. The Good Guys outlet is proposed to occupy the southerly 15, 000 sq ft on that structure, establishing them as the largest -single tenant in the center. This entire building elevation, totaling over 300 feet in length, is not entitled to receive wall-mounted signs under the City' s Sign Ordinance Regulations. That building elevation does not qualify as either a Primary or Secondary Building Frontage. The Applicant indicates that the proposed tenant space for The Good Guys outlet would qualify for an aggregate total of 208. 9 sq ft of Wall Signage (assuming that a SDR permit could be approved to yield 10% aggregate sign coverage on the Primary Building Frontage and 7 1/2% sign coverage on the Secondary Building Frontage. A second scheme submitted by the Applicants, which was their preferred scheme, would drop the sign proposed for the south building elevation, while adding a sign to the west building elevation. The CM-7-13 Regular Meeting January 25, 1988 sign proposed on the west building elevation triggers the Sign Location Variance request. The Applicant indicates that under the second scheme, the total aggregate area of Wall Signage proposed would be less than the total which could be theoretically allowed through the Site Development Review process. Staff felt it should be noted that both schemes submitted indicate use of 40" high letters. At the December 1, 1987, Zoning Administrator meeting, the Applicants stated that their intent was to observe the 32" maximum letter height standard previously approved by the City for this center. Even without approval of the proposed non-contiguous Wall-mounted Sign, The Good Guys proposed tenant space would have Wall Signs which would be visible from both a major arterial roadway (westbound Dublin Boulevard) and an arterial street (Amador Plaza Road) . Staff felt that the Applicant ' s situation is no different than that of several other retail uses in the City which have "backs" or "sides" that do not qualify for signage. Other businesses with similar circumstances have , not been allowed to establish signs where they do not qualify for signage. Staff advised that prior to granting a Variance, 3 affirmative findings of fact must be made : 1) that there are special circumstances including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification. Staff felt there were no special circumstances related to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of The Good Guys proposed tenant space or Building B of the Enea Plaza Shopping Center which would warrant granting a Sign Location Variance. 2 ) that the granting of the application will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone. Staff felt there was nothing unique or special regarding the size, shape or topography of the proposed Tenant Space or Building B which would preclude the Applicant from maintaining a strict compliance with the locational requirements for Wall Signs. The granting of this Variance would constitute a special privilege and may set an inappropriate precedent for similar, future Sign Location Variance requests . 3) that the granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare. Staff felt that the granting of this Sign Location Variance would not be detrimental to persons or property in that establishing The Good Guys Wall Sign would create signage of a uniform design of that proposed for the remainder of Building B. Staff displayed slides of similar existing situations where signs are not allowed. Cm. Hegarty felt that in the Applicant' s report, site examples were somewhat different than what Staff displayed. He questioned if the signs were illegal and if the owners had been notified. CM-7-14 Regular Meeting January 25, 1988 !r' Planning Director Tong responded that some of them are illegal and non- conforming signs, subject to amortization for removal . Cm. Snyder questioned if any of the businesses shown had applied for a variance to display their signs. Mr. Tong stated that no one has actually filed for a variance, although Staff has reviewed the Ordinance with several. Gregg Steele, representing The Good Guys, passed out handouts to the Council. He indicated they are the largest retailer of electronic products in Northern California. They average $1, 316 in sales per square foot, with sales of $10 million annually per store. They employ about 35 people per store. Rather than competing with Staff, they hope to resolve this situation. They want visibility going in both directions on Dublin Boulevard. The Enea Plaza does not have a directory or monument sign. As a major tenant, they would rely on signage and they feel that you simply can't see the sign from Dublin Boulevard. Mr. Steele stated that if the Variance is not granted, this would jeopardize this particular location. Cm. Hegarty questioned what they would do if Crown Chevrolet went out of business and a building like Great western were built on the site which would cover the sign. Mr. Steele responded that they would have established themselves by the time this type of a scenario could occur. Mr. Pat Costello, President of Crown Chevrolet indicated that in talking with the Eneas and The Good Guys he has withdrawn his initial opposition. He thinks that the sign should be placed near the front corner of the building and they have agreed to spend an extra $40, 000 to put in brick arches which finish that side off nicer. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Snyder questioned if the wall would be blank if this isn't approved. Mr. Tong stated that on the west elevation, the left hand side closest to Dublin Boulevard would have some articulation. The added archways are part of the sign variance request. Cm. Hegarty reminded everyone that Dublin has a Sign Ordinance which is less than 2 years old which says that this is not allowed. He clarified that the other signs discussed are illegal, non-conforming signs and will be corrected at some point in the future. He felt that this would be setting a precedent if the Council grants the variance. All the non-conforming sign owners could technically come to the City with requests for variances. If the Council grants this variance, Cm. Hegarty questioned how the City could bring these others into conformance. Mr. Tong stated that this proposal was predicated on 2 monument signs identifying the Enea Plaza which would be very definitive. . .* .* .* .* .* .*.* .* .*i* .* .* .*.* .* .*i*.* .*.* .* .* .* .* .* .*.*i*.* .* .* .*.* .*.*i*i CM-7-15 Regular Meeting January 25, 1988 Mayor Jeffery felt that when you have 'an anchor tenant that does not have frontage, perhaps the Sign Ordinance could be amended to take this into consideration. Mr. Tong stated that there are already provisions for this and the Eneas opted for the Enea Plaza monument signs. Another type of option would be a directory type sign whereby the shopping center would have 1 freestanding sign with individual tenant names . The Town & Country Shopping Center signs were discussed. Cm. Snyder felt that it will be quite a process to go through to get the non-conforming signs into conformance. He felt that as long as the signs are in good taste, it is reasonable to allow them to stay. Cm. Snyder cited Circuit City' s advertising policies with regard to signage and felt that this is a company that knows how to advertise. He did not feel their sign situation was much different than what was being discussed. Cm. Snyder felt that The Good Guys request could be viewed as a veiled threat that unless they get their signage, they won't locate here and they won't decorate the side of the building. Cm. Hegarty reminded everyone that Circuit City did extensive redesign to the front of the former Handyman site. Cm. Snyder questioned whether anyone could actually see the Dublin Boulevard sign from the east or the west. Cm. Vonheeder expressed similar concerns . Cm. Moffatt cited the example of Unisource which is one of the largest businesses in town, but has probably the smallest sign. He indicated he could agree to allow a sign on the west wall . If Crown Chevrolet were against it, he would be opposed also. He felt, however, that since Crown Chevrolet has no objections, it would be in the best interest of the City to allow the sign. He felt that location of a business is a very important par,- of being in business. He suggested putting the sign on the northwest corner. Cm. Snyder indicated he was not in favor of having the sign on the corner as this would give a false location of the business, as The Good Guys are not moving into the corner space. He stated he would further question the ability of the Eneas to lease a business with someone else' s sign on it. City Manager Ambrose questioned the Council 's intent if The Good Guys were to vacate the building. Would the Variance remain with the site or go with the business . Cm. Snyder felt the Variance would follow the business. Mayor Jeffery felt it should be tied to square footage. Mr. Tong indicated that the Sign Ordinance is geared to building elevation frontages. There are provisions in the Sign Ordinance that allow up to 10% of the building face and 7 1/2% of the secondary building face. This is probably more than the square footage being requested. i* . .* .* .* .* .* .* .* .* .* .* .* .* .* .*i* .* .* .* .* .* .* .* .*iii* .* .* .* .* .* .* .* .* .* .* . CM-7-16 Regular Meeting January 25, 1988 Assistant City Attorney Silver discussed the findings that must be made. If the Council feels that the findings can be made, then it can grant the Variance. Cm. Snyder stated that anyone can apply for a Variance and because of this, he did not feel -the Council would be granting a special privilege. . On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote, the Council agreed to allow the Variance request as indicated in Exhibit B and include a stipulation that the Variance is to stay with the business. The Council directed Staff to prepare the necessary reports and bring back before the Council at its next meeting with the findings in tact. The Council continued the item to the Council meeting of February 8, 1988. Cm. Hegarty voted against this motion. PUBLIC HEARING - SAN RAMON ROAD AND AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD SOUNDWALL, MASONRY WALLS AND WOOD WALLS Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff explained that in the 1987-88 Capital Improvement Program, the soundwalls were combined into one project because of the similarity of the proposed walls along San Ramon Road and along Amador Valley Boulevard. Because of the two types of materials, Staff has divided the project into two contracts; one for masonry walls and one for wooden walls. The Council has previously chosen the design of the masonry walls. Staff has solicited and obtained easements for the construction of masonry walls along the rear yards on Amador Valley Boulevard between Village Parkway and Stagecoach Road. With regard to the San Ramon Road masonry soundwall along the east side of the street, it is proposed that this soundwall range in height from 6' to 9' 4", with the bulk of the wall being 8' high. Where the grade of the houses is much lower than the street, the wall ceases to be effective, as the traffic noise would pass over the wall and impact the houses. At these locations, the wall being constructed would be discontinued and a 3' barrier placed along the edge of the roadway section to serve as both a sound barrier and safety barrier to prevent cars from going over the top of the slope. The 3 ' wall would be installed with the road widening project. Staff displayed slides of the design selected for the masonry walls along the east side of San Ramon Road. Cm. Moffatt questioned if these would be only on the east side. City Engineer Thompson responded that masonry walls were approved for the east side only and that the west side selection of materials would be discussed later in the meeting. . .* .* .* . .* .* . . .* .*.* . .* .* .* t*i* i* t*i*t*i* ►*i*.*.*S* t*.*t*i*.*.*.*t*i* . CM-7-17 Regular Meeting January 25, 1988 Ms. Dolores Telesco lives on the west side of San Ramon Road and questioned when the neighborhood meeting was held. She also questioned how many vehicles had run off the side of the road. Mr. Thompson responded that the meeting was held about 6 months ago at Shannon Community Center. There were about 75 people in attendance. Notices were sent to the homeowners. Mr. Thompson stated he was not aware of any vehicles which had run off the side of the road. Mr. Gerald Ellis questioned if the wall itself is going to be on the existing location or will the grapevine fences be removed. Mr. Thompson advised that about 6" of the fences will be on City property. Mr. Thompson explained that the Amador Valley Boulevard masonry soundwall is being proposed to be of the same design as the San Ramon Road wall and to be 8' high. Some of the back yards are above the grade of Amador Valley Boulevard, so the wall height from the property owners ' side would be between 6 ' and 81 , depending upon location. One property owner has requested that a gate be installed in the wall to allow access to Amador Valley Boulevard. Staff felt that such a gate would impair the effectiveness and continuity of the soundwall and would set a precedent for others along both San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. Because the City will have several thousand feet of soundwall under con- struction, it would not be appropriate to allow a gate. Mr. William Mohondro stated he is requesting an opening, but not a gate. He reviewed the past history of the gate which was installed in 1969, and is used daily by his 7 children and grandchildren. He compared this situation to somewhat like the Berlin wall if an opening is not allowed. Dublin is a progressive City and looks toward the future, so he requested that the Council grant his request. They will have a commercially built gate installed which will blend with the wall . Mr. Thompson advised that the San Ramon Road wooden soundwall (west side) will replace the existing rear yard fences with a heavy solid wooden fence. The height will be 6' 6" except for 3 locations where the existing fences are taller because they are located on a slope somewhat below the level of the dwelling. The wood walls would be placed on private property and would belong to the property owner. The City will need a construction easement with agreement by the property owner to maintain the fence in the location in which it was constructed by the City. Staff will send easement agreements prepared by the City Attorney' s Office to the owners, giving them a reasonable time to respond. Staff would then bring the plans and specifi- cations to the City Council and request authorization to solicit bids for construction of the wood walls on those properties for which easement agreements have been received. Cm. Moffatt questioned if these fences are to be built on the people ' s private property, will they be able to have access down the hill . Mr. Thompson responded that gates will be put in to allow access. CM-7-18 Regular Meeting January 25, 1988 Mr. Joseph Martin, a Woodren Court resident indicated that several people met at his house last night regarding this wall. They have been waiting for a masonry wall for a long time. They are mainly concerned with the appearance and durability of the wooden fence. He questioned the possibility of the City building a higher soundwall on the property lines. Wooden fences do weaken and fall down. Ms. Dolores Telesco, 7757 Woodren Court voiced her opposition to having a wooden fence. She also expressed concerns related to access because of her swimming pool. Ms. Barbara Machardi expressed her view that notification of some of these events is not well publicized. They would like a second wall at the property line which would be high enough to offer some protection and sound deflection. She indicated that the higher people on Woodren Court are opposed to having a solid wall which will give a closed in feeling. She hoped the Council would consider something more lasting than a wooden fence. Ms. Liz Collier suggested building it about 10' from the existing fences. Mr. Mike Costello, Augusta Court, indicated that he likes the looks of the fence and does not want a masonry wall. He questioned how high the fence would be. Mr. Thompson responded that it would be about 6 1/2 ' to 7 1/2 ' . Mr. Costello indicated that he has a nice view of the valley with a 5' fence, so he would not want one higher that that. Mr. Thompson indicated that the City could work with him. Mr. Mike Cashardi indicated that he doesn't want a fence in his back yard. Mr. Pete Petersen questioned what would happen if the people couldn't agree on a wooden or masonry fence, or if people don't want anything. Mr. Thompson indicated that Staff will be flexible with regard to height, but a wooden fence is being recommended. The City, however, is not going to force a fence on anyone. An unidentified member of the audience felt that moving the bike path closer would encourage kids to play on their property, thereby increasing their liability. Ms. Laurie Martin indicated that all of the property lines do not go all the way down the hill. She questioned if the City will be taking care of its responsibility with regard to maintenance. Mr. Thompson indicated that the City does take care of the City's lands. With Phase III, San Ramon Road from Alcosta Boulevard to Vomac Road would be widened to 4 lanes and will include landscaping on both sides of the road. . .* .*i*.*.* .* .* .*.*.* .* .*.*.*.* .*.*.*.*.*.*.*i*i*.*i*i*.*i*.* i*.*i* i* . .. CM-7-19 Regular Meeting January 25, 1988 Mr. Mike Rose, 8735 Augusta Court indicated that he appreciated the trouble that the City has gone through to try to come up with something in this area. Mr. Rose had questioned related to the height of the fence. Mr. Ed Collier, Woodren Court questioned how far into the property would the fences be built: Mr. Thompson responded that it would be a few inches. Mr. Bill Carter, Woodren Court questioned if the City would replace the fence when it blows over in 5 to 10 years. Mr. Thompson indicated that the City will maintain the outside of the fence, with the interior maintenance being the responsibility of the homeowner. He also advised that the fence will be 6' into the ground and will be very sturdy. City Manager Ambrose indicated that a noise study was done regarding the widening of San Ramon Road and the City is attempting to mitigate the added noise. Cm. Hegarty advised the residents that if the majority of the property owners don't want the City to build this fence, then tell us . An unidentified member of the audience stated he hoped that it doesn't get into a situation where no one benefits because a few are not in favor. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Hegarty stated that the entire purpose of the City building this fence is to cut down on the noise. If the entire project is not done, he questioned what the value would be. Cm. Vonheeder felt that residents do not feel they got enough chance to provide input into this process. It took forever to get the Village Parkway wall done and it looks like this proposed project is having problems already. It should be up to the property owners as to whether or not they want a fence. Cm. Moffatt did not feel that there were enough people represented in the audience to decide whether or not a wall should go up. We could look at other options as he felt there is not enough of a consensus to proceed with the wall on the west side of San Ramon Road. The general consensus of the Council was that another neighborhood meeting be held. With regard to the gate on Amador Valley Boulevard, Cm. Moffatt questioned if Mr. Mohondro would be interested in having this as a public easement. Mr. Mohondro indicated that he would need to talk to the City Attorney regarding what this means to him. He felt it would mean liability. Cm. Vonheeder questioned if there was room for a corridor. Cm. Snyder reminded the Council that Mr. Mohondro stated that his request was not a matter of a life or death situation. CM-7-20 Regular Meeting January 25, 1988 Mayor Jeffery expressed concerns from an insurance standpoint in pursuing this line of thought since there is a swimming pool in his back yard. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to advertise Contract 88-1 for bids, masonry soundwall for east side of San Ramon Road. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to advertise for bids for backyard fence replacement on Amador Valley Boulevard between Village Parkway and Stagecoach Road) , and denied Mr. Mohondro' s request for a gate in wall on AVB. The Council directed Staff to hold an additional neighborhood meeting related to the proposed fence on the west side of San Ramon Road. RECESS A short recess was called. All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened. ACQUISITION OF DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT TO COMPUTERIZE CITY RECORDS The City Council previously authorized Staff to request bids for the City's Data Processing needs . The City received 19 responses to its request for bids and after evaluating these bids over the last several months, City Staff collectively determined that the software available with IBM hardware best met the City' s data processing needs . The criteria agreed upon by Department Heads for judging the bids were: 1) price; 2) degree to which the bids met the needs of the departments; 3) proximity of the software companies; 4) proximity of the hardware manufacturer' s service department; 5) number and quality of references; 6) ease to which the system could be learned; 7) number of other California cities that are using the same system. Staff ' s recommendation was to purchase the IBM System 36 with the software for the Finance Department from DLH and software for the City Clerk' s functions from Munimetrix, Inc. The software for Planning, Building, Engineering and Recreation has been identified and could be acquired in the next 2 fiscal years . Finance Director Phillip Molina introduced Ken Madsen and Barry Bauer, representatives from IBM; Bruce Rector, representing Munimetrix; and Russ Skustad and Doug Dowden, representing DLH/INE. Mr. Madsen thanked Staff and indicated that they looked forward to setting up a system for the City. Cm. Snyder questioned what the System 36 would do for the City and how long it will serve the City' s needs . * i* . .* .* .*i* .* .* .* .*.* .*i* .* .* .* .*i* .* .* . CM-7-21 Regular Meeting January 25, 1988 IBM representatives indicated that there are over 300, 000 System 36's installed worldwide. This system can grow easily to over 5 times its present capacity. This particular system has been in IBM's product line for approximately one year. The bids were requested based on a 5 year projection of the City's needs. This system will accommodate up to 26 local terminal devices and up to 64 remote devices. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to purchase the IBM System 36, the software from DLH for Finance, and from Munimetrix for the City Clerk, at a total cost of $77,114. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTIONS RELATED TO FIREWORKS ADVISORY BALLOT MEASURE & SPECIAL ELECTION ON JUNE 7, 1988 Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. ! City Manager Ambrose advised that in accordance with City Council direction, the City Attorney has prepared Resolutions calling a special election for a Fireworks Advisory Ballot Measure for June 7, 1988. The City Attorney has also prepared an Ordinance for Council consideration which would amend Ordinance No. 10-82 by noticing potential fireworks applicants for 1988 of the potential repeal of Ordinance No. 10-82 and No. 12-82 prior to June 28, 1988. Staff advised that this ordinance would need to be adopted as an urgency ordinance after the election. Mr. Dave Burton, 11396 Dillon Way, President of the Rotary Club indicated that groups such as this have enjoyed the privilege of selling fireworks to raise funds for a number of projects which benefit the community. This source of income cannot be matched in any other way. Mr. Burton felt that safe and sane fireworks are not the cause of -the problems, but rather it's the illegal ones. Mr. Burton requested that the City Council reconsider having an election and leave the fireworks issue as it is . If the Council proceeds with an election, and if fireworks are outlawed, Mr. Burton requested that the groups at least be allowed to sell them this year. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Hegarty indicated that several years ago when this came up, the Council was unable to ban fireworks completely. He questioned what the City would be accomplishing if it banned the sale but could not ban the use. This situation has now been changed and the City could ban them altogether. Even though non-profit groups are able to raise a lot of money, the fact remains that fireworks are dangerous. Since the last election, Dublin has gained a lot of new residents and the Council doesn't know how they feel about the fireworks issue. CM-7-22 Regular Meeting January 25, 1988 Cm. Moffatt questioned at what point does the Council decide to allow fireworks or not. How many times do we go with an election. Cm. Vonheeder questioned Mr. Burton with regard to how far ahead of time organizations typically have to begin making arrangements to sell fireworks. Fire Chief Ritter stated that groups contact the fireworks vendors and they generally walk them through the process. Chief Ritter was asked if DSRSD would issue refunds if the ban is passed this season. Chief Ritter responded that the way it is currently written, guidelines specify that if you don't get a permit, you are refunded 50%. Cm. Moffatt suggested limiting the sale and use for a period of 5 or ten years. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm: Snyder, and by majority vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 10-82 regulating the sale and use of fireworks. Cm. Vonheeder voted against this motion. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 88 SUBMITTING A BALLOT PROPOSAL TO THE VOTERS FOR AN ADVISORY VOTE; DESIGNATING THE FORM IN WHICH THE ADVISORY MEASURE SHALL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT; CALLING AN ADVISORY ELECTION TO BE HELD IN CONSOLIDATION WITH A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON JUNE 7, 1988; CONSOLIDATING THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE ELECTION TO BE HELD ON JUNE 7, 1988 On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 13 - 88 REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY TO PERMIT THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR THE DUBLIN SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD JUNE 7, 1988 On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 88 RELATING TO BALLOT ARGUMENTS AND IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS . .*.*.*.*i*.*.*. . . .*.*.* .* .* r* .*.* . CM-7-23 Regular Meeting _ January 25, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE ADOPTING ALAMEDA COUNTY CODE TITLE 3, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 14, BY REFERENCE (CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR, RECONSTRUCTION, DESTRUCTION OR ABANDONMENT OF WELLS Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that the purpose of this ordinance is to incorporate the provisions of Article 14 of Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Alameda County Code, per Section 3-160.2 of the County Code. That Title pertains to the construction, repair, reconstruction, destruction, or abandonment of wells, to the end that groundwater will not be contaminated or polluted, and sets up a permit procedure and standards for the work. Alameda County Flood Control (Zone 7) would be the administering and enforcing agency for this ordinance. This particular portion of the Alameda County Code was not adopted by reference when the City incorporated. No members of the public spoke related to this issue. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and introduced an ordinance adopting Alameda County Code Title 3, Chapter 6,. Article 14, by reference. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE INCREASING CITY COUNCIL SALARIES Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. In accordance with Council discussion in January, 1987, the City Attorney's Office has prepared an Ordinance for Council-consideration, which would increase Councilmembers salaries by 5% for calendar year 1988. However, incumbent Councilmembers would not be eligible to receive the increase until after the November, 1988 election. If this Ordinance is adopted, Councilmember ' s salaries would be $347.29 per month after the November, 1988 election. Mr. Dave Burton laughingly indicated he had seen the newspaper headline related to this increase and feels that the Council definitely earns the money they are paid. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and introduced an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 6-82 and providing for an increase of the salary for members of the City Council . CM-7-24 Regular Meeting January 25, 1988 FIRE AUTHORITY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT & BYLAWS City Manager Ambrose reported that on July 15, 1987, a Memorandum of Understanding approving the transfer of parks, aquatics and fire responsi- bilities from the Dublin San Ramon Services District to the Cities of San Ramon and Dublin was approved by all three agencies. The transfer of these services was primarily contingent upon: 1) Alameda and Contra Costa County approving property tax transfers from the District to the Cities; 2) the Cities forming a Joint Powers Authority for the provision of fire and other emergency related response services . Both Counties have approved a transfer of property tax to the Cities equal to the property tax which was received by the Dublin San Ramon Services District. This property tax transfer will be effective July 1, 1988. During the last few months, Liaison Committee members, City staff and legal counsel have discussed and worked towards the development of a Joint Powers Agreement and Bylaws which would: 1) facilitate the effective administration and operation of fire services in each City; 2) coordinate the growth of the fire services with the growth of the Cities; and 3) equitably serve the interests of each City. In preparing these documents, Joint Powers Authority documents for three other agencies in California were reviewed and Staff met with the Chief Executive Officer and Fire Chief of the San Gabriel Valley Fire Authority in order to identify the best aspects of each agreement. The Committee made recommendations related to: 1) Organization of the Board of Directors of the JPA; Three members from each City Council . The JPA provides that the affirmative vote of at least two members from each City is required for the JPA to take action. 2 ) Officers of the JPA; The Board would appoint a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, one being from each City. These two positions would be rotated annually between each City. Recommendation was also to appoint a Management Committee consisting of the City Managers of Dublin and San Ramon, as well as designate a Chief Executive Officer who would be the City Manager of the City whose Councilmember is presently serving as the Chairperson. The Chief Executive Officer would also function as the Secretary to the Board of Directors. An Organization Chart was presented. 3 ) Operation Date; The JPA would become operational in assuming responsibility for fire services on July 1, 1988, or the effective date of the Authority' s contract with the Public Employees ' Retirement System. 4) Term of the Agreement; The Agreement could not be terminated by either agency unless that agency gave 12 months notice prior to June 30th to the other City. Termination is further limited until such time that the JPA no longer has any bonded indebtedness . 5) Meetings of the Board of Directors; The JPA provides for regular quarterly meetings, as well as any other special meetings which would be called on an as-needed basis. . . .* . . .* .*.* .* . .* .*.*. . .* .* i* * i*i* t*i*i* t* t* i*.* .* t*i* t* .* i* t*i* t* i CM-7-25 " Regular Meeting January 25, 1988 6) Provision of Support Services to the JPA; Recommendation was for the Cities to provide support services consisting primarily of financial, personnel and legal services, rather than creating new positions within the JPA. The Bylaws provide that the City of Dublin would be responsible for Workers ' Compensation administration, administration of all employee benefit programs, employer/employee relations, and administration of all other personnel activities. The Bylaws provide that the City of San Ramon would be responsible for all financial services, as well as administration of liability and property insurance. Legal services would be provided by the City Attorney whose City Manager was presently functioning as Chief Executive Officer. The Authority may also appoint special legal counsel and labor relations consultants as required. 7) Funding of the JPA; Funding of the operations and maintenance of the fire services, as well as the replacement of capital equipment would be borne by each agency, based on their share of the total assessed value served by the Fire Authority. The issue of acquiring or constructing new facilities or equipment would be approved by each member agency to the JPA at the time of construction of facilities or acquisition of new equipment. 8) Disposition of assets upon termination of the JPA; If the JPA were to be terminated, the assets would be distributed to the member agencies based upon the total amount of maintenance, operating and capital replacement costs paid by each member agency to the JPA. Real property would be conveyed back to the Cities in which the property is located. New facilities and new equipment would be conveyed as agreed upon at the time of construction or acquisition. 9) Transfer of real property and personal property fire assets from the District to the Cities ; Real property and improvements at the Fircrest Station site will be transferred to the City of San Ramon and real property and improvements at the Donohue Fire Station will be transferred to the City of Dublin. Once these properties are transferred to the Cities, the Cities will transfer them to the JPA. 10) Name of the Authority; The proposed name is the Dougherty Regaional Fire Authority. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 15 - 88 APPROVING A JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE "DOUGHERTY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY" approved the Bylaws in concept; and authorized the Mayor to execute the JPA Agreement. The 3 members of the City Council appointed to the Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors are: Cm. Snyder, Cm. Vonheeder and Mayor Jeffery. The alternate member is Cm. Moffatt. CM-7-26 Regular Meeting January 25, 1988 City Manager Ambrose indicated that both San Ramon and Dublin Staffs will be affected. We may be coming back with the specifics at a future meeting. ACQUISITION OF STRIP OF LAND ADJACENT TO MAPE PARK The City received a letter from the Alameda County Tax Collector's Office advising that a small (20 '+ wide) strip of land along the northern boundary of Mape Park, running between the cul-de-sac bulb of Plata Way at San Sabana and the rear property line of Nielsen School, is being sold at auction because of nonpayment of taxes. The minimum bid for this property is $250 and a response must be submitted no later than January 29, 1988. Cm. Vonheeder questioned who owns the other similar easements near other schools . Staff indicated that they believe they are probably owned by the School District. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 16 - 88 AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS APN 941-101-1-23 PLATA WAY FOR THE SUM OF $250 AND EXECUTION OF PROPOSED CHAPTER 8 AGREEMENT and authorized a budget transfer from the Contingent Reserve in the amount of $250. PROPOSED SOUNDWALL FOR ARROYO VISTA The City Council approved the soundwall construction along the residential portion of the Arroyo Vista Housing Development as part of the 1987-88 Capital Improvement Program. It was also anticipated that the cost of the wall would come from the General Fund. The Community Development Block Grant program has been extended, and Dublin will be receiving these funds over a 3-year period. As Arroyo Vista qualifies as an "impacted" area under the .CDBG program, it is anticipated that City Staff will recommend that Block Grant funds be used for this Arroyo Vista soundwall . The Housing Authority Staff has advised City Staff that clearing of a 4 ' wide path for the wall in the landscaping fronting the development would be done by the Housing Authority in one of two ways: 1) if the cost of the work were within the allotted expenditure limit, the Housing Authority would contract for the work; or 2) if the cost of the work were over that limit, the Housing Authority would request that the City contract for the work and would then reimburse the City. CM-7-27 Regular Meeting January 25, 1988 Staff reported that the Dublin Housing Authority met just prior to the Council meeting, and made the recommendation as to the type and style of soundwall to front the residential portion of the Arroyo Vista project. The soundwall will be of the same materials and design as the soundwall selected along San Ramon .Road and on Amador Valley Boulevard. The DHA has also recommended that the City close off the sidewalk access to Dougherty Road except at street intersections to keep children from wandering out next to traffic when lanes are constructed directly adjacent to the curb. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to include the construction of the Arroyo Vista wall with the San Ramon Road and the Amador Valley Boulevard wall project and authorized Staff to solicit bids as soon as plans and specifications have been integrated. GOALS & OBJECTIVES STUDY SESSION In accordance with Council direction, an annual special meeting is held generally in February to define the City's goals and objectives for the upcoming year. Council consensus was that the meeting be held on Tuesday, February 23, 1988, at 6:30 p.m. , at the Shannon Community Center. The Council requested that Staff arrange for food. OTHER BUSINESS Civic Center Groundbreaking City Manager Ambrose advised the Council that groundbreaking ceremonies for the Civic Center has been set for 9:00 a.m. , "Saturday, January 30, 1988. The Contractor was given the notice to proceed on the project today. The dedication festivities for Stagecoach Park will begin at 10:00 a.m. Mayor Jeffery reported that Ivan Morse will be acting as "Mayor for a Day" at the park dedication and will ride in the stagecoach with the Council to th,- dedication. Tri-Valley Joint Council Meeting Mr. Ambrose reminded the Council that Thursday evening, January 28th, at 6: 30 p.m. , Dublin will be hosting the joint meeting of the valley cities at The Hayward Fishery. All Councilmembers indicated that they will be in attendance. . .* .* .* .*.* .* .* ... .* .* .*. . .*i*.* .*i*.* t* CM-7-28 Regular Meeting January 25, 1988 League of CA Cities Meeting Cm. Vonheeder reported that the League of CA Cities will hold a quarterly division meeting in Danville on February 25th. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11 :16 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk *. .*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*. .* .*.* .*.*.* . CM-7-29 Regular Meeting January 25, 1988