HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.01 Approve 07-24-1989 Minutes REGULAR MEETING - July 24, 1989
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on
Monday, July 24, 1989, in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The
meeting was called to order at 7 : 34 p.m. , by Mayor Paul Moffatt.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor
Moffatt.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle-
giance to the flag.
Guns
Zev Kahn, 11708 Harlan Road, stated that on May 21st he had presented a
request that the" City look into gun control for hand guns . He has not
heard any information on this request and expressed concern since his
request was made before the Mayor' s request for the issue on the agenda
this evening. If something happens in a home, and children are involved,
an ordinance should be put into place whereby the City can deal with
this . He passed out copies of an article from People Magazine regarding
an incident that occurred in Florida. In June, emergency measures were
carried out with legislation in Florida. Dr. Kahn suggested that Dublin
request a copy of Florida' s legislation in order to put our own ordinance
into effect.
Mayor Moffatt stated that the Council did discuss his request and
directed the City Attorney to study the issue.
Ken Johnson stated he was opposed to any kind of gun laws. We should be
pushing for more safety and start something beneficial to everyone.
There are trigger locks that could be put on guns . He asked if the
Council would consider banning rotary lawnmowers because they, too, are
dangerous . Cars also are a hazard, but Mr. Johnson stated his point was,
these things can be controlled. He is against gun control.
Weeds
Ron Holtman, Quartz Circle asked how long it would take under the City' s
beautification ordinance to clean up the weed area west of Stagecoach
Road between Quartz Circle and Amador Valley Boulevard.
@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@
CM-8-225
Regular Meeting July 24, 1989
Public Works Director Thompson questioned the exact location and advised
that the area was mowed about 6 weeks ago. In the master plan, this area
is shown as a parking area, however, there is no money in the current 5-
Year CIP available. The weeds are normally cut once a year.
Maintenance Superintendent Loweree advised that this area is now in the
chemical weed control area, and is scheduled for chemical weed control
twice a year.
Mr. Thompson further advised that this was originally part of the
Maintenance Assessment District area, but no longer. It is now under the
City' s control.
NEW EMPLOYEE
Recreation Director Lowart introduced Stephanie Alex, the City's new
Recreation Coordinator. Stephanie will be coordinating the swim program
and special events, as well as recreation classes.
The Council welcomed Stephanie aboard.
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, (Cm. Snyder abstained from voting on the minutes of the June 27th
meeting only) the Council took the following actions:
Approved Minutes of Adjourned Regular Meeting of June 27, 1989 and
Regular Meeting of July 10, 1989;
Received the Spring, 1989 Recreation Report;
Retained the firm of Singer & Hodges to provide Landscape Architectural
Services for Alamo Creek Park, Phase II and authorized the Mayor to
execute an agreement;
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 90 - 89
ESTABLISHING THE POSITION OF
ENGINEERING INTERN
Authorized the Mayor to send a letter to Assemblyman Cortese opposing SB
1258, which provides for mandatory acceptance of county approved
development agreements for annexed areas;
Authorized Staff to request bids for moving services to the new Civic
Center;
@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@
CM-8-226
Regular Meeting July 24, 1989
Accepted improvements constructed under Phase I of Contract 88-1A Major
Arterials Soundwalls (San Ramon Road, Amador Valley Boulevard and Arroyo
Vista) and authorized retention payment $39, 039 . 69 to B & B Concrete;
Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $806, 007 . 18.
REQUEST FOR FUNDING FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR WATER POLICY CONSENSUS
Staff advised that the Committee for Water Policy Consensus is requesting
funds to support various water conservation and protection programs and
activities . Based on population, Dublin' s requested contribution would
be $100-$250 .
Cm. Snyder expressed concern as to why the City is being asked to
contribute instead of Zone 7 and DSRSD. If they have been asked, then
this is a duplicity of efforts .
Laurie Griggs, Executive Director advised that this request is being made
to cities, as they seem to have a broader sense of the water problems and
solutions . Oftentimes, water districts have a narrow focus and sometimes
bring more of an engineering perspective rather than a public perspec-
tive. They have not made a funding request to either Zone 7 or DSRSD.
Cm. Snyder stated that politically, he felt that the agency responsible
for the service should have the responsibility. What voice does the City
really have in this instance .
Ms . Griggs repeated that she feels cities have a broader perspective. A
lot of their emphasis goes into making the best use of water and they
encourage cities to develop guidelines for landscaping efforts in new
developments . There is a direct benefit to cities.
Cm. Hegarty felt that they could go to a political body as Cm. Snyder
pointed out. The City of Dublin really does not have control of the
water situation. He stated he would feel more comfortable if the other
agencies also contributed.
Cm. Snyder felt that as rate payers, the people are entitled to have
representation. This representation should come through the Boards that
they pay their dollars to. This is more of an issue regarding
representation to the constituency.
Cm. Jeffery felt that some of the arguments used for wanting DSRSD to do
this are the same reasons why she would like the City to do it. The City
would be making a statement as to the importance of the water situation.
Some of the water questions have gone unanswered and have been problems
because of parochial districts . The Council would be taking it out of
that arena and can say to the citizens that the City wants the problem
solved, and not solved at the expense of something like the Peripheral
Canal.
@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@
CM-8-227
Regular Meeting July 24, 1989
Mayor Moffatt asked if this is more of a lobbyist group.
Ms . Griggs stated they are a non-profit group. They are more focused on
finding regional as well as statewide solutions. They try to address
civic programs that can help make a difference. Water conservation is
just one part. Cities can provide input. Lobbying is a very small part
of what they do.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority
vote, the Council approved the request for a contribution and authorized
a budget transfer. Cm. Snyder voted against this motion.
Cm. Hegarty encouraged Ms . Griggs to convey Dublin' s concerns to the
Committee.
PUBLIC HEARING-TRACT 4719 LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING DISTRICT
NO. 1983-2 LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989-90
Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing.
Public Works Director Thompson advised that the City formed Landscaping &
Lighting Assessment District No. 1983-2 for maintenance of landscaping
within Tract 4719 (Stagecoach Road slopes, the "interior" landscaped
slopes, and the Stagecoach Mini-Park) at the request of the developer as
an alternative to a combined homeowners' association.
Mr. Thompson explained that the cost of maintenance of the Stagecoach
Road landscaping and Stagecoach Park is spread 60% to the Amador Lakes
development and 40% to the Dublin Hills Estates Development (divided
evenly among the 150 single-family lots) . All of the Dublin Hills
Estates interior slopes (Coral Way and Agate Way) maintenance cost is
spread to the Dublin Hills Estates lots.
The assessment to the single family property owners in the Beck
development is $212 and the assessment to the Amador Lakes property
owners is $30, 740 . The assessment is set up just to cover the expenses
for the next year.
Mr. Thompson advised that approximately 16 property owners attended an
informal neighborhood meeting held on July 12th, as well as 2 represent-
atives of Rafanelli & Nahas and Amador Lakes. Staff provided a copy of
the questions and concerns discussed at that meeting.
No comments were made by members of the public on this issue.
Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing.
Cm. Snyder stated he felt it was time that the City recognized its
responsibility to assume the maintenance costs of Stagecoach Park. He
did not feel that it was appropriate that the people who live in the area
@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@
CM-8-228
Regular Meeting July 24, 1989
are the sole supporters from a maintenance standpoint. Cm. Snyder
proposed that the Council accept the City Engineer' s recommendation, but
delete this portion related to park maintenance.
City Manager Ambrose advised that by removing Stagecoach Park from the
Assessment District, the total Assessment District costs will be
approximately $44, 908 . The impact on the single family homeowner in that
area would reduce their proposed assessment of $212 to approximately $165
per year per household. A budget transfer from the General Fund would be
needed to cover those additional park costs since they are presently
funded by assessments .
Cm. Hegarty stated he had concerns with having an assessment district
legally set up to handle certain things and now we are pulling something
out. He felt that now, anyone in that neighborhood could request the
City to take over more, rather than have it covered under the assessment
district. Technically, if we can do this, we can just do away with the
assessment district.
Mr. Ambrose advised that the assessment district was originally requested
by the developer in lieu of a homeowners association. This is a little
different than the park situation which in this case could be easily
severed from the assessment district.
Cm. Hegarty questioned what would prevent them from coming in next year
and asking for the City to take over more.
Mr. Ambrose advised that they can come and ask but it would not be
appropriate. The City does not own all the slopes, but it does own the
park.
Cm. Jeffery stated that when this was discussed last year, it was
determined that this was the only area that was paying for a park.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote,
with the deletion of Stagecoach Park, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 89
APPROVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM
AND ASSESSMENT, AND ORDERING LEVY OF ASSESSMENT
LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1983-2
(Tract 4719)
and authorized a budget transfer from the General Fund.
@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@
CM-8-229
Regular Meeting July 24, 1989
PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR COMPENSATION OF COMMISSIONERS
Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing.
Staff advised that during the Budget deliberations, the Council
determined that it would be appropriate to compensate Commissioners
serving on the Planning Commission and the Park & Recreation Commission.
The Council conceptually approved payment in the amount of $30 per
meeting for both Commissions with a 3 meeting per month limit for the
Planning Commission and with a 2 meeting per month limit for the Park &
Recreation Commission.
Cm. Jeffery stated that there was another part to her motion when it was
made at the budget hearing meeting. Cm. Jeffery questioned even though
it was defeated if she could bring this up again.
Mr. Ambrose advised that according to the rules, it would have to be
brought up by one of the Councilmembers who voted against the motion.
No comments were made by members of the public related to this subject.
Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing.
Cm. Snyder stated that the request originally came from him and he was
glad the Council agreed to compensate the Commissioners, but he was sorry
it was not a higher amount.
Cm. Vonheeder stated that the amount was not determined by a unanimous
vote.
Cm. Jeffery questioned if the ordinances were to be introduced at this
time, if amendments could be made at the next meeting.
Assistant City Attorney Silver stated that it would be desirable to make
any amendments at this time. Amendments could be made at the next
meeting, however, it would delay the adoption of the ordinance.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous
vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance relating
to compensation for Planning Commission members and INTRODUCED an
ordinance relating to compensation for Park & Recreation Commission
members .
BUS SHELTER LOCATIONS, DESIGNS
& ALTERNATIVES TO BUS BENCHES WITH ADVERTISING
Staff advised that this item combines a request from LAVTA for final
approval of bus shelter locations and design and a response to the
Council' s request to look at replacing the Bench-Ad Company's benches
with City-owned bus benches .
@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@
CM-8-230
Regular Meeting July 24, 1989
LAVTA has (with input from City Staff) prepared a final list of shelter
locations and a generic shelter design. The design will allow for minor
revisions based on the manufacturer who is awarded the contract.
LAVTA will pay for, maintain, and pick up trash from their proposed bus
shelters .
The City receives $6 . 00 per bench per year from the Bench-Ad Company.
There are currently 27 benches located in Dublin, for a total of $162 per
year. LAVTA plans to install their bus shelters early in 1990, which
will replace approximately 14 of the 27 benches that are currently in
place. LAVTA will also be placing shelters in other locations which do
not presently have benches.
Staff provided an exhibit illustrating a number of types of benches
available. Staff advised that it may also be possible to have a bench
designed specifically for the City of Dublin.
Cm. Vonheeder questioned what would be done with the other 13 or so
benches .
Mr. Thompson stated that at this time Staff was asking only if the
Council wanted Staff to proceed. If so, then Staff will identify all
potential locations . Some of the bus companies involved could not even
advise where the bus stops were. This did not, however, apply to LAVTA.
Mr. Thompson gave a brief explanation of what was being proposed.
Zev Kahn questioned if the City was discussing the bus benches currently
in place which have advertising.
Mr. Thompson responded yes, that the City will replace those currently in
place with benches containing no advertising.
Mayor Moffatt asked if Staff needed direction with regard to the types at
this time.
Discussion related to the pluses and minuses of the different types of
benches ensued.
Mr. Thompson stated that Staff will bring this back with samples at a
future meeting.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous
vote, the Council approved LAVTA' s proposed bus shelter locations and
design and directed Staff to undertake further study regarding style,
cost, and quantity of bus benches and bring back a recommendation at a
future Council meeting.
@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@
CM-8-232
Regular Meeting July 24, 1989
SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN - REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION OF AN AMENDMENT
TO ALLOW PUBLIC STORAGE ON 1 . 4+ ACRE MORET PROPERTY - 7436 SAN RAMON ROAD
John Donahoe explained that the San Ramon Road Specific Plan was adopted
in 1983 and established guidelines regarding the land use, development
regulations, and circulation system for a 40+ acre area north of Dublin
Boulevard west of San Ramon Road and south of Silvergate Drive.
The 1 . 45 acre Moret property is located at the northern limit of the 13 . 0
acre area identified as Area 3B. Area 3B (a sub-area of Area 3) was
created through a previous Specific Plan Amendment which was not viewed
as having a high potential for the development of retail shopper stores.
The property's size, configuration and proximity to adjacent residential
development, Martin Canyon Creek, and an active earthquake fault serve to
restrict the site's potential for retail commercial use. In light of
this, Area 3B was established to permit occupancy by office, financial
institution, and personal service uses subject to the limitation that 50%
of the total gross floor area of any development can be for retail
shopper and eating and drinking establishments .
The Applicant has requested the amendment of the San Ramon Road Specific
Plan to allow a retail shopping facility on the front portion of the
property facing San Ramon Road and locate a self-storage facility on the
rear portion of the property. Staff advised that if the Council
authorizes the request, specific site review of the proposed project
would take place after the Specific Plan Amendment has been reviewed and
approved by the City Council.
Jerry Lemm advised that Public Storage had a presentation to make but
they had not yet arrived at the meeting. He requested that this item be
delayed on the agenda.
After a query of the Council Mayor Moffatt announced that the Council
would come back to this item when everyone arrived.
RECESS
The Mayor called a short recess . When the meeting reconvened, all
Councilmembers were present.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC STORAGE REQUEST
John Knott with Public Storage displayed an aerial photograph of the
subject site. He advised that their headquarters in Dublin covers the
entire northern United States operation of Public Storage. They have
watched this particular parcel for a long time, and have noticed that it
has stayed vacant.
Mr. Knott presented their proposal for potential development of the site.
They felt the physical constraints of the lot were interesting, but more
of a problem for businesses which require visibility. They feel that
@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@
CM-8-233
Regular Meeting July 24, 1989
their proposed use could enhance some of the wonderful natural amenities
currently there; the most obvious being the lovely creekside setting.
There are trees along the creek that are 100 to 200 years old. They
would propose a circulating pathway to run along the creek and link up
and loop back towards the restaurant. Currently, the site is an eyesore.
They are proposing a nice retail building in the front with a reciprocal
parking plan to link up with the Hayward Fishery. They would try to
match the style, materials and flavor of the property next door. The
household storage use portion would be in the rear. Mr. Knott summarized
. by saying that City Staff has been very nice to work with and have
remained very neutral. The main concern presented by Staff is that
whatever development goes in utilize the natural amenities presently
there, and not limit any access to the creek or the park in the back.
They felt this would be a good transition between existing commercial to
the south and residential to the north.
The Council questioned the square footage necessary for the public
storage and also how many stories.
Mr. Knott advised they propose in the neighborhood of 50, 000 sq ft. The
front building would be a single-story retail building and the back
building would be 2-story, but the roof design would be such that it
would have a single-story look to it. From an aerial view, the roof
would look flat with no unsightly roof mounted equipment. There would be
a sliding security gate to the back portion. There will be 24 hour on-
site security and management.
Cm. Snyder questioned the number of storage units and traffic generation
counts. Mr. Knott estimated there would be about 400. With regard to
traffic estimates, CalTrans has added their use to an adverage daily trip
generation count that they do for all kinds of facilities. The traffic
count would be small, with roughly a 10 to 1 ratio between their proposed
use and a restaurant of any size. A small restaurant would generate 10
times more traffic than their facility.
The Council and the Applicant discussed the building security system, the
earthquake line and creek access.
Cm. Snyder asked if there had been conversations with the Rivers family.
Mr. Knott stated they had spoken with Bart Heller, one of the owners of
the Hayward Fishery, and he had no problems with this.
Cm. Jeffery asked if they propose to build the whole plan at one time.
Mr. Knott responded that they did.
Cm. Vonheeder felt that with a broad intepretation of the allowed
personal services, an amendment to the Specific Plan would be
unnecessary.
@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@
CM-8-234
Regular Meeting July 24, 1989
Mr. Tong stated that typically public storage facilities would fall into
a General Commercial and/or Light Industrial type zoning category, as
opposed to a C-1 type use which was the basis for the Specific Plan.
Cm. Vonheeder stated that what is being proposed is not the typical drive
up garage door type storage facility, and commented that from the outside
you can' t even tell this is a storage facility. It would be more like
entering a commercial building.
Mr. Tong advised that what Staff looked at was the types of personal
services that were listed in the Specific Plan Amendment, things such as
beauty shops, barber shops, shoe repair, and those types of small shops
that offer a service to the individual. Staff's interpretation was that
the public storage type of concept would be more aligned to a general
commercial or light industrial type of zoning.
Mr. Knott indicated that the public storage business, which has been
around for about 12 years, is changing trememdously. The type of
facility they propose would have no outdoor vehicular type access. There
are no roll up doors. This is primarily for household storage. They are
currently building one in Marin County and one in San Jose. You will not
be able to tell what the building is from the architecture.
Cm. Jeffery stated that the issue before the Council at this time was
simply the usage and not the look of the facility.
Cm. Snyder questioned the definition of "public facilities and uses"
under the conditional uses that are allowed for this site.
Staff advised that this could include a fire station, or in essence,
governmental facilities.
Zev Kahn questioned if there were any restrictions as far as the
closeness to the streambeds or buildings overcasting onto the streambeds.
A 20' building which is close to the streambed with a southern exposure
will take light off of an area that has has sun for hundreds of years.
His idea of walking in a natural area is not walking by a wall 20' tall
that may be 75 or 100' long. Development that close will have some
impact of the trees. Development of the Town & Country Center killed 2
huge oak trees that weren' t even shadowed.
Cm. Jeffery stated she felt that if businesses are to survive, you need
to put in businesses that fit together. She did not feel that public
storage would necessarily support a restaurant or other kinds of
businesses that may go in. She stated she would like to hang onto the
concept of having businesses that are compatible. She indicated she had
a problem with utilizing such valuable space at one of Dublin's entrances
for something like public storage. She did not feel that most cities
have, on a per capita basis, the amount of public storage that Dublin
currently has. It is nice to have adequate public storage, but she felt
there were other areas where it would be more suitable.
CM-8-235
Regular Meeting July 24, 1989
f
3
Cm. Vonheeder felt there is a definite need for more public storage in
Dublin. The restaurant is doing very well, in spite of the fact that the
entire plan has not developed the way the Council had originally hoped.
The Council was unsuccessful in getting the various property owners to
cooperate. This particular parcel has only a small amount of frontage,
but if it is integrated with a design similar to The Fishery, it could
look the way the Council would want. The City may be achieving its long
range goal.
Cm. Jeffery stated her main concern is what is the best usage on this
property for serving Dublin.
Cm. .Snyder stated he felt that Cm. Jeffery was beating this issue to
death, and had every time a proposal came up on the property. Mr. Moret
has tried to market this piece of property for 7 years under the guise of
the City' s Specific Plan. He was never in favor of the Specific Plan and
felt that it has not allowed the site to develop as it should have. He
felt that the City could have put this in a redevelopment area, bought
the land and done it themselves.
Cm. Vonheeder felt that the City Council needed to recognize that what it
did with the Specific Plan did not work.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote,
the Council authorized Staff to initiate the Specific Plan Amendment
process and prepare the necessary documentation for said amendment. Cm.
Jeffery voted against this motion.
ASSAULT WEAPONS ORDINANCE
State Legislation prohibiting 56 specific assault weapons will become
effective on January 1 , 1990 . Mayor Moffatt has requested that the
Council consider an ordinance which would prohibit the sale or transfer
of assault weapons locally until the State Legislation becomes effective.
Al Bolla, a 15 year resident of Dublin, questioned how much it would cost
Dublin to enforce this type of ordinance.
Mayor Moffatt stated there would not be much of a financial impact.
Alameda County as a whole is interested in speeding up the process.
Mr. Bolla thought it would be better to have some kind of request for
public safety. He questioned how Dublin would enforce it and felt that
this would be mostly a symbolic gesture. Dublin would simply be, stacking
laws on top of laws, which won' t actually mean anything until January
1st. He felt the City would be getting into an unnecessary bucket of
worms .
Assistant City Attorney Silver advised that, as with any law, it is
uncertain as to how much any law will cost to enforce and impossible to
predict.
@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@
CM-8-236
Regular Meeting July 24, 1989
Forest Smith, a business associate of Wayne's Gun Shop stated that
anytime you try to draw lines that restrict people's individual rights,
you create problems. Before the Council does this, they need to identify
a pressing need. There is one gun shop in town that currently does not
deal with these types of guns. He questioned the Police Chief as to
whether or not there is a pressing need for this type of legislation in
Dublin. He did not feel there was.
Jim Bosse, owner of Wayne' s Gun Shop stated that he stopped selling
assault rifles on June 1st, because the State made it harder to register
them. He did not understand why the City would expend the time, effort
and money to adopt this type of an ordinance for only 5 months. He
contacted the Police Department and they did not indicate there is a
problem in Dublin. He questioned the reason for this. They sell many
weapons to police departments, plus they sell them to Hollywood. He was
not aware of any weapon that has been used for a crime incident or
shooting in Dublin. He also questioned how the City would enforce this
and how they would even know it is happening. Mr. Bosse stated it was
his understanding that the City did not even have enough money to take
care of maintenance concerns brought up earlier in the meeting, let alone
try to enforce this type of an ordinance.
Zev Kahn questioned if this was a model ordinance that came from the
County. He also questioned statistics in the last 5 years. He felt the
Council was making a big deal out of nothing and he would rather see gun
lock control.
Ryan of Dublin stated he would like answers to the questions also. He
•7 asked if the City had looked into this and if so, what did they find. He
suggested that the City ignore it.
Wayne Jackson, part owner of Wayne' s Gun Shop stated he would like to
hear from the Police Chief. He stated handguns and rifles don' t kill
people, but the people behind them do. There are books available
instructing children so they don' t pick up a gun and shoot each other.
He stated he was familiar with Florida' s law, which provides for the
arrest of a parent of a child who has been killed. To put them in jail
and fine them $10, 000 seems to be a little over zealous. He recommended
education. He has been in the gun business for 12 years. Mr. Jackson
: recited various statistics from large cities. He felt that Dublin needs
to get facts and figures.
Ken Johnson stated it is people' s rights to bear weapons. He urged the
Council to make a law that when you sell a weapon, the buyer must buy a
trigger lock and must be made to go to a class and read up on the subject
before they can buy a weapon.
Chief of Police Lt. Rose advised the Council that if they had any
specific questions, he would try to answer.
Cm. Jeffery felt it was more appropriate for the Council, rather than the
audience, to direct questions to Staff.
@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@
CM-8-237
Regular Meeting July 24, 1989
•i
City Manager Ambrose clarified that this discussion was only to determine
if the Council wanted to set a public hearing for this issue.
Cm. Snyder stated he felt it was ill advised to have been brought forward
in the manner in which it was presented. He also had problems with how
statements in the draft ordinance applied to Dublin.
Cm. Vonheeder stated she thought this item was agendized by Mayor Moffatt
as a courtesy to Supervisor Don Perata. She did not think it was a
problem in Dublin.
Cm. Hegarty stated he did not feel there is a problem and hopes there
never is a problem in Dublin. You could go on and on on the issue of gun
control. There was no information available at this meeting. The
answers to some of the questions could be brought forth on a future
agenda. Since the issue had come up, he felt it would be appropriate to
bring it back. However, this will become State law in 5 months.
Cm. Jeffery suggested moving on to the next item on the agenda with no
further discussion.
Mayor Moffatt announced that the issue was dropped.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE BENEFIT ASSESSMENT INCREASES
Staff advised that on August 8, 1989, the Alameda County Board of
Supervisors will consider increasing the benefit assessment for Emergency
Medical Services. The increase will exceed the $10 cap approved by the
voters in a 1982 Countywide election. The proposed $9 .04 increase per
benefit assessment in Dublin will bring the total assessment up to
$15 . 58, well in excess of the $10 limit voted on in 1982. County Counsel
has determined that the $10 limit has no legal weight and that the County
can, in fact, increase the assessment without a vote of the electorate.
Staff felt that the proposal for raising the assessment from $6. 54 to
$15 .58 seems appropriate if the goal of the assessment is to provide for
an integrated EMS Program. However, exceeding the $10 voter endorsed
limit does cause concern, because of the moral commitment which was made
to the voters to not exceed the $10 amount.
Staff felt that it would be more appropriate to submit the increase to
the voters for approval.
Cm. Jeffery stated that it should be noted that the information which
came from the County was dated June 14th, which was prior to the Governor
passing the state budget. At that time, counties were in a panic because
the Governor had suggested cutting a lot of the healthcare fundings, but
the funds were restored so the needs might be changed. Cm. Jeffery also
expressed concern for taking the lack of funding for a project like this
when Alameda County priorities have not necessarily been for trauma
centers, but for other things which don' t necessarily affect Dublin
CM-8-238
Regular Meeting July 24, 1989
residents . She felt that the promise to the voters is important. A
slight increase could be supported, as long as it stayed under the $10
amount.
Cm. Vonheeder felt there definitely is a moral commitment. The timing of
this should be looked at with regard to the Governor's budget. The
trauma centers are critically important, however, because of Dublin's
outlying location.
Cm. Snyder asked for a legal opinion. His main concern was the
interpretation that the CSA is not a tax, but rather a service charge.
Assistant City Attorney Silver stated that while she had not had a chance
to read the report, she did indicate that an advisory election is not
binding. Ms. Silver stated that in general, there is a difference
between a tax and an assessment. An assessment is not a tax.
City Manager Ambrose pointed out that the County does use a County
Service Area for a number of services.
Cm. Snyder felt they were using the CSA as a means to get a tax base and
assess to subsidize a trauma center.
Mr. Ambrose stated that cities have the ability to impact the County
Service Area.
Cm. Hegarty felt that since they originally said they would not go for
more than $10, they should now use the same procedure to ask for more.
The County should be honest about it, and the people should decide.
Cm. Snyder pointed out that the Board is made up of 5 different
individuals than when this was originally approved.
Mr. Ambrose stated that it was primarily created for paramedic and
ambulance services and now things have changed.
Ms. Silver felt that the question is what is the service area and what is
the benefit provided. If the Board, in creating the County Service Area,
determines that residents of this area are receiving a benefit from the
trauma center, then that is a legislative decision that can be made.
.. Cm. Snyder felt the trauma center should have been identified as a part
of the CSA initially.
By a consensus, the Council directed that a letter be sent to the Alameda
County Board of Supervisors urging that this supplemental assessment be
placed before the voters, plus requesting justification in light of the
state budget which was adopted.
' @%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@
CM-8-239
Regular Meeting July 24, 1989
1
ALAMEDA COUNTY OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY PLANNING UNIT GENERAL PLAN
i
Planning Director Tong advised that Alameda County has prepared revisions
to the Alameda County Open Space Element and Livermore-Amador Valley
: Planning Unit General Plan that would allow consideration of urban
development outside of existing cities and up to a mile away from public
roads .
The Alameda County Planning Commission has recommended a new Policy 1 .2 .3
which reads:
"Consider urban development ouside existing cities for approval and
amendment of the General Plan only when it provides its own services and
is located in close proximity to an existing urbanized area, and/or
utilizes urban services available from :existing entities" .
Mr. Tong advised that the new policy is potentially significant in
Dublin' s Extended Planning Areas where the City is currently preparing
General Plan Amendment studies. Existing policies provide for urban
development that conforms to the City' s General Plan and which takes
place through annexation to the City.
The Alameda County Planning Commission has also recommended additions to
Policy 2 . 2 which would allow residential development up to one dwelling
unit/20 acres up to 1 mile away from a public road. Such development
could create undesirable development patterns that conflict with the
amendments being studied for Dublin' s General Plan.
Alameda County Staff has suggested an alternative to Policy 2 .2 which
would allow between 1 DU/20 acres to 1 DU/40 acres in Residential
Agriculture areas up to 1 /4 mile away from a public road, and 1 DU/160
acres in large-parcel agriculture areas .
Cm. Vonheeder felt this was very frightening and we need to loudly scream
our disapproval. Also, we need to get Pleasanton and Livermore involved.
Alameda County should not be in the development business. This is a
major threat to cities .
Cm. Snyder questioned if this was in any way connected to SB 1258.
Mr. Tong stated he was not sure if there is a link or not.
Cm. Jeffery stated that in a meeting with the Alameda County Board of
Supervisors, it was confusing as to how they will solve their monetary
problems . It is probably connected in some way.
Cm. Hegarty felt this was coming from Bill Fraley.
Cm. Snyder asked if Dublin had a policy like Pleasanton that says you
can' t use their services unless you annex to the City. Mr. Tong advised
that we did not specifically have that type of a policy.
@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@
CM-8-240
Regular Meeting July 24, 1989
i
By a consensus, the Council directed Staff to notify Alameda County of
the City of Dublin' s strong opposition to the new Policy 1 .2.3 and to
request additions to Policy 2 . 2 within Dublin Extended Planning Areas
identified in Dublin' s General Plan Amendment studies. Copies of the
correspondence should also be sent to Livermore and Pleasanton.
OTHER BUSINESS
Freeway Improvements - Groundbreaking
i
City Manager Ambrose advised that a groundbreaking related to the I-680
Measure_ B freeway improvement project had been scheduled for July .31st at
8: 30 a.m. The map which was distributed was incorrect and the actual
meeting location will be at the main gate on Dublin Boulevard where I-680
` crosses over. This gate is on the west side next to where the old Bubble
Machine station is located.
League of CA Ciies Conference in San Francisco
City Manager Ambrose advised the Council that they needed to advise Staff
as soon as possible if they wished lodging reservations during the San
Francisco Conference which is being held in October.
Fire Service in San Ramon
City Manager Ambrose advised that he had a copy of the City of San
Ramon's Staff Report regarding the issue of fire service protection in
San Ramon. San Ramon is committed to DRFA and are not planning on ending
this relationship. A lot of opposition is being felt from the San Ramon
Valley Fire Protection District. Mr. Ambrose advised that he would
distribute copies of the report to the Council.
Chamber of Commerce Directory
Cm. Vonheeder advised that the Chamber of Commerce is preparing an update
to their directory and any changes in addresses and/or telephone numbers
for Councilmembers needed to be reported to the Executive Director not
later than the following morning.
@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@
CM-8-241
Regular Meeting July 24, 1989
Tri-Valley Transportation Council
Cm. Vonheeder advised that MTC has started to do some preliminary work.
The Council' s recent suggestions have been put into the bylaws. Each
City has been asked to donate about 40 staff hours. Other arrangements
will be worked out for Dublin as Dublin will be unable to do this because
of the upcoming move into the new Civic Center.
Sister City Reception
Mayor Moffatt stated the Council needed to discuss the final details of
the events for Monday evening. He stated he would be unable to get away
from work early enough to go on the tour of the Civic Center with the
guests from Bray.
After discussion, it was determined that the dedication of the Bray Room
would occur at the end of the tour at approximately 5:30 p.m. Mayor
Moffatt stated he would try to arrive by that time. If he could not, he
would coordinate with Vice Mayor Vonheeder to have her make the
presentation.
Cm. Snyder reported that he had heard that a local men' s choral group had
offered to sing at the reception at Shannon Center. He thought there
were about 25-30 people in this group.
The reception was scheduled to begin at 6: 30 p.m. The Council advised
' that transportation had been arranged for getting the delegates back and
forth between the Civic Center and Shannon Center. The reception will
only last one hour. A display ad will be placed in the newspaper this
week inviting the public to come and meet Dublin' s guests from Ireland.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting
was adjourned at 10 : 22 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@
CM-8-242
Regular Meeting July 24, 1989