HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.1 Approve 08-24-1992 Minutes v
REGULAR MEETING - August 24, 1992
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held
on Monday, August 24 , 1992, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin
Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7: 32 p.m. , by Mayor
Snyder.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor
Snyder.
ABSENT: None.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (610-20)
Mayor Snyder led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of
allegiance to the flag.
PROCLAMATION (610-50)
Mayor Snyder read a proclamation declaring the month of September,
1992 as "School's Open - Drive Carefully" month and urged all
motorists to keep a watchful eye out for children and young adults who
will be returning to school during this time of year.
ThE! proclamation was requested by the California State Automobile
Association and was presented to Dan Downey, Manager of the Dublin
Branch Office.
Mr. Downey stated CSAA has long been committed to traffic safety.
EVE:ryone needs to be reminded to drive carefully, especially during
this time of year when children are returning to school.
CUSTOMER SERVICE AWARD FOR SEPTEMBER (150-90)
City Manager Ambrose presented the September Customer Service Award to
Kristin Uyeno, a seasonal Recreation Department employee.
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous
vote, the Council took the following actions:
Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 10, 1992;
Received a report related to an annual review of balances remaining in
developers fees for off-site improvements as required by AB 1600, GC
Section 66001 (300-20) ;
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
CM - VOL 11 - 317
Regular Meeting August 24, 1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO.
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 92
SUMMARILY VACATING A PORTION OF AN ACCESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY
EASEMENT WITHIN PARCEL MAP 3000 (SCARLETT COURT 670-40)
Cm. Burton requested that the City Manager give an explanation so that
people will be aware of why there is a proposal to expend more than
$5, 000 for a workshop, even though the City has a tight budget and we
don't know what the State will be doing.
City Manager Ambrose explained that a workshop would be held jointly
with the City, School District and DSRSD to look at long term
infrastructure needs for the next 20 years and various financing
possibilities which would also include the positive and negative
aspects of each financing mechanism. This information would be
prissented to the elected officials. The City had $5, 000 set aside for
this purpose last year which wasn't spent and, in addition, DSRSD will
pay for about half of the workshop.
Cm. Burton pointed out that the City is facing some potentially
serious cutbacks.
Mr. Ambrose indicated that this workshop is related to generating
additional economic development in our community.
Following discussion, the Council approved an agreement with The Davis
Company for an infrastructure financing workshop; authorized the Mayor
to execute the agreement; and authorized an additional appropriation
of $5,833 from additional revenues and unallocated reserves (600-30) ;
Received a Finance Report for period ending July 31, 1992 (330-50) ;
Adapted
RESOLUTION NO. 100 - 92
AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
TO SUBMIT AN AB 434 FUNDING APPLICATION TO THE
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (1060-90)
Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $1, 080,596. 35 (300-40) .
Cm . Moffatt requested that the Waste Management JPA amendment be
pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. He stated it should
be made clear that even though changes are occurring within the
County, the cities will continue to be responsible for any penalties
if they don't meet the State mandated goals. The City of Dublin could
potentially be fined $10, 000 a day. Some of the things the City is
doing is not because we are mean, but because we are responding to
mandated things.
Cm„ Moffatt also stated he was concerned about eminent domain for
areas like the western addition which could become a large landfill
■ 11 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
CM - VOL 11 - 318
Regular Meeting
August 24, 1992
because of their ability to have eminent domain. The City could lose
the ability to issue CUP's for that land if it were not annexed.
Mayor Snyder advised that for many years, the Authority has sought to
have the JPA amended to include eminent domain powers. An agreement
has just been negotiated with the Authority and Alameda County for the
property that the Authority hopes to acquire. It took many months to
get the County to come to agreement over how this will happen. He was
not aware of any agreement in the immediate future that will require
eminent domain.
Cm. Moffatt stated he felt that by having a regional body with eminent
domain authority, this restricts the local body.
City Attorney Silver stated unless specifically restricted, an
Authority has all the power of the cities. The JPA has the power of
condemnation because all the agencies have that power.
Assistant City Manager Rankin stated the JPA currently reads that they
aria able to hold property. Their legal counsel feels more comfortable
having eminent domain specifically listed. They have already used the
eminent domain power on the property they are acquiring out in the
Altamont. AB 939 has extensive requirements on the siting and the
process you have to go through.
Cm. Moffatt stated he was concerned that eminent domain would be a
higher authority than a CUP issuance.
Mr. Rankin advised that operations still have to go through the
process set forth by the State.
Cm, Moffatt stated he becomes rather concerned when regional type
agencies can come in and take over a piece of land for their use and
develop it without the express consent of the City.
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 101 - 92
APPROVING AN AMENDED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT
(ALAMEDA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 600-40)
* Ar Or
REQUEST FOR SUPPORT OF MAINTENANCE ROAD/BIKE PATH UNDER I-580
AT ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WC DISTRICT ZONE 7 CHANNEL (820-20)
Public Works Director Thompson advised that the City had received a
letter from Fredrick G. Doolittle, a Dublin resident, requesting
support for the construction of a Zone 7 maintenance road along Alamo
Creek, under I-580. This road may also serve as a bicycle/pedestrian
pathway in the future and provide a link between Dublin and
Pleasanton.
CM - VOL 11 - 319
Regular Meeting August 24, 1992
Mr. Thompson advised that at this time, Caltrans, BART and Zone 7 have
the plans and funds to construct such a roadway, but the Corps of
Enclineers has not yet given its approval. The monies will be set
aside for construction of the maintenance road so that BART can
proceed with the rest of the project pending receipt of the Corps
permit. Zone 7 and possibly the East Bay Regional Park District also
support the bike path project financially.
Mr„ Thompson stated the study done by David Gates has been completed
and will be presented to the City's Park & Recreation Commission in
the near future for recommendation to the City Council. This study
includes a trail along this corridor.
Cm„ Burton questioned if this will be the only pedestrian path under
the freeway without going on a street.
Mr.. Thompson responded yes, this was correct.
Cm,. Burton stated he was anxious to see this happen.
On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, the Council supported construction of the maintenance road and
directed that the drafted letter be sent to Zone 7.
Resident Jerry Kekos questioned what the cost would be.
Mr. Thompson advised that the City of Dublin will not be paying for
this.
PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHMENT OF BUS STOPS
ON AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD NEAR DOUGHERTY ROAD (1060-20)
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
Public Works Director Thompson advised that this is the second reading
of a proposed Ordinance that would locate bus stops on both the north
and. south sides of Amador Valley Boulevard near Dougherty Road.
No comments were made by members of the public relative to this issue.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous
vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 14 - 92
ESTABLISHING BUS STOPS ON AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD
WEST OF DOUGHERTY ROAD
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
CM - VOL 11 - 320
Regular Meeting August 24, 1992
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 96-84
ADOPTING FEES FOR CERTAIN MUNICIPAL SERVICES (180-50 & 450-10)
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
Associate Planner Carol Cirelli advised that in August, 1984, a
resolution was adopted which established fees and charges for certain
municipal services. In November, 1984, a resolution was adopted which
established the waiver of Planning Department and Police Services fees
and charges for specified activities sponsored by Dublin based non-
profit groups and organizations.
In. November, 1992 , the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6-92 which
amended certain provisions of the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance
relating to the Conditional Use Permit, Administrative Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Review process. Based on these revisions,
the fee resolution needs to be amended to include Zoning Clearance as
a new application processing procedure for temporary uses, such as
promotional signage.
Ms . Cirelli advised that Staff recommended a $25 fee for a Zoning
Clearance application, which is the same fee charged for ACUP
applications. Staff estimates that the cost of processing a Zoning
Clearance application is $59, exclusive of costs for copying the
documents. Zoning Clearance requests for temporary uses were formerly
handled under the ACUP process. Staff also recommended a waiver of
Zoning Clearance application fees for specified activities sponsored
by a Dublin based non-profit group or organization, similar to the
existing fee waiver policy for Administrative Conditional Use Permit
applications.
City Clerk Kay Keck advised that Staff was also recommending that the
photo copy fee charge of $ . 10 per page be increased to $1. 00 for the
first page and $ . 10 per page thereafter. Staff estimates that the
minimum cost of locating and copying a one-page document would exceed
the proposed charge of $1. 00 to copy the first page.
Ms.. Keck also advised that the California Government Code provides
that the City Clerk shall preserve and protect all official City
records. The City currently has no provision to provide for costs
incurred by the City Clerk to certify as to the official nature of
City records and/or documents. Staff proposes to implement a flat $5
certification fee for certifying official City documents, plus the
cost of photocopies. This amount is equal to or less than the cost of
actually certifying documents and is based on the City Clerk's salary,
average time for certifying documents and overhead costs.
Ms. Keck advised that public hearing notices were published twice in
accordance with the requirements of State Law related to fee
adjustments.
Cm. Moffatt questioned if neighboring cities charge for
Certifications.
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
CM - VOL 11 - 321
Regular Meeting August 24, 1992
Ms. Keck advised that the City of Hayward charges $7. 50 per
certification; the City of Fremont charges $1. 00 per certified page;
the City of Alameda charges only for copies, but may charge a research
fee; the Town of Danville charges only for copies @ $ .25 per page;
the City of Livermore is currently reviewing this and will be
proposing a $5. 00 fee; the City of San Ramon is currently reviewing,
with no fee yet determined. In addition, a Notary Public is allowed
to charge $5. 00 for a certification.
Cm. Burton questioned if he could add an item to this discussion to
provide Council packets free of charge to candidates for City Council.
City Attorney Silver advised that this would be two separate
discussions. In order to discuss providing copies free of charge, the
Council could by a 4/5 vote add this to the agenda.
Cm. Burton stated he would rather just put it on a future agenda to
discuss.
No comments were made by members of the public relative to this issue.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 102 - 92
AMENDING EXHIBITS 6 AND 7 OF RESOLUTION NO. 96-84
ADOPTING FEES FOR CERTAIN MUNICIPAL SERVICES
PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR DUBLIN BUILDING CODE VARIANCE TO
PERMIT EXISTING BRICK FIREPLACE & CHIMNEY TO REMAIN WITHOUT PROPER
REINFORCING AND TIES TO THE FRAMING AT 7884 TAMARACK DRIVE (450-40)
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
Chief Building Official Taugher presented the Staff Report and advised
that while making inspections in the neighborhood a situation came to
light that the house at 7884 Tamarack Drive was being remodeled
without a permit. Subsequently, the necessary permits were secured
and the remodel work was completed and approved. During the course of
the inspections, it was noted that a fireplace had been installed
without a permit by a previous owner. Upon inspection by the City, it
was determined that there is no horizontal reinforcing steel in the
chimney, and the chimney is not tied to the framing at the ceiling
line. Also, the fire box is open on three sides.
Mr. Taugher stated that Timothy Hyden, owner of the home indicated
that the fireplace was constructed by a former owner, possibly as much
as 20 years ago and to remove or reconstruct the fireplace would be a
great expense.
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
CM - VOL 11 - 322
Regular Meeting August 24, 1992
Mr„ Taugher explained that in order to grant a variance, the City
Council must find that the variance is consistent with the intent of
the code and that it will not lessen the protection to the people or
the property within the City. The need for properly reinforced
chimneys has been demonstrated in all of the damaging earthquakes that
have occurred in California. As Building Official, Mr. Taugher stated
it was his opinion that those findings cannot be made and he therefore
recommended that the variance be denied. He further recommended that
the applicant be directed to remove the chimney and fireplace and that
removal be commenced within 30 days and completed within 60 days.
Cm., Moffatt asked if the chimney is on the inside of the house.
Mr.. Taugher responded that it is and this fireplace is unique in that
the fire box is open on 3 sides.
Cm.. Moffatt asked if the chimney fell, would it fall within the house.
Mr. Taugher responded yes.
Cm.. Jeffery asked why this was not caught when the house changed
tittle. She asked if it was because there was no lending institution
involved.
Mr. Taugher responded that this is possible. A properly constructed
fireplace could probably survive an earthquake. Those that are not
properly constructed and reinforced have generally failed in
earthquakes.
Cm. Burton clarified that this was discovered by an inspector who was
looking at something else in the house.
Mr. Taugher stated after an investigation, it was determined that
thEtre were no ties.
Cm. Burton questioned if ties were necessary at the time it was
constructed.
Mr. Taugher explained what was necessary to make it safe.
Cm. Burton felt that a lot of things will happen in this town in the
event of a 6. earthquake. He expressed concern with the inspector
going back and looking at a single fireplace in a home. This will
coat several thousand dollars and he felt the City should consider
allowing what an engineer says could be done to make it safe.
Mayor Snyder stated the foundation was also in question.
Tim Hyden stated he was not attempting any type of subterfuge when he
remodeled the house. He obtained a permit when he was informed he
needed one and everything passed inspection. The City's Building
Inspector suggested that he contact TEI Engineers. He did this and
their conclusion was that there were vertical steel reenforcing bars,
but. no horizontal bars. It was not tied to the rafters. The Building
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
CM - VOL 11 - 323
Regular Meetinq August 24, 1992
Inspector did not go in the attic as Mr. Taugher stated. Adding ties
will greatly enhance the structure of the fireplace. Mr. Hyden felt
that in his neighborhood, only about 50% of the houses originally had
fireplaces. It is unfair that he is being punished for something he
did not do. He did not build the fireplace. He has no recourse. He
cannot go against the seller. He stated he hoped the City Council
does not blindly apply this without thinking about the equity of the
situation.
Cm. Moffatt stated the unique design of this fireplace indicates it
might have been built by a master fireplace builder. He questioned if
it smokes.
Mr. Hyden stated he did not know, because he promised the Building
Department that he would not use the fireplace.
Cm. Jeffery stated she thought there were fireplaces in all the homes
in this area.
Cm. Moffatt questioned if he would be willing to put in lateral
supports.
Mr. Hyden stated he would put in steel bars which would be tied to the
rafters and this would be much less expensive.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
Cm. Burton felt there were a lot of things in this town that could not
withstand a 6. earthquake. If Mr. Hyden were to tie it to the roof,
he should be able to keep the fireplace as is.
Cm. Jeffery questioned if the City Council approves this and there was
an earthquake and someone was hurt in the house, would there be a way
to legally come back against the City for allowing this.
Ms. Silver stated someone could always sue the City, but she did not
feel there would be liability on the City's part. She did not feel
there was any constitutional violation in a situation like this.
Cm. Burton made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Moffatt to approve
the Variance with a modification that it would be subject to having to
be tied to the rafters.
Mr. Taugher stated if the Council approves the Variance, a condition
could be added that the ties be installed
Mayor Snyder felt the adequacy of the foundation seemed to be a very
important key to this whole thing. He felt it was important to have
some type of cursory inspection done.
Cm. Burton asked if there were any cracks in it and also how you would
inspect it.
CM - VOL 11 - 324
Regular Meeting August 24, 1992
Mr. Taugher stated it would be necessary to crawl under the house and
probe to see how deep the footing is.
Cm. Jeffery suggested that this be tabled until the next Council
meeting in order to allow for an inspection.
Cm. Burton stated he would include in his motion that the approval is
subject to having an inspection of the foundation.
Cm. Moffatt questioned what would happen if this inspection determines
that it is not up to the code.
Mayor Snyder stated the City Council is looking for a way to resolve
the issue without making him tear the fireplace down.
Cm. Moffatt agreed to change his second to the motion.
On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous
vote, the Council with the changes discussed, adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 103 - 92
APPROVING VARIANCE TO SECTION 3704-C OF THE DUBLIN BUILDING CODE
TO PERMIT AN EXISTING BRICK FIREPLACE AND CHIMNEY TO REMAIN
AT 7884 TAMARACK DRIVE
PU13LIC HEARING
APPEALS FOR EXEMPTION FROM MANDATORY GARBAGE SERVICE (810-20)
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
Management Assistant Bo Barker advised that in January, 1992, the City
Council passed an Ordinance requiring Mandatory Garbage Service and
the program began March 16, 1992 for all residents of the City. A new
class of service was initiated at the same time which provides for a
20 gallon container, curbside recycling and the 4 special Saturday
pick-ups for $6. 65 per month.
The law provides for an exemption and an appeal process and an
exemption is allowed when solid waste is not produced, accumulated in,
upon, or from such property. Mr. Barker explained the process whereby
the City Manager makes a determination to approve or deny an applica-
tion for exemption. A denial can be appealed to the City Council.
Cm„ Moffatt stated he wanted to reemphasize that this is a State
mandated situation and AB 939 says that each City must eliminate 25%
of its garbage going to the landfill by 1995; otherwise we will be
fined at a rate of $10, 000 per day.
Cm. Burton stated he wished to clarify that in all 5 cases, Staff's
denial of an exemption was because there is solid waste generated at
the location.
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
CM - VOL 11 - 325
Regular Meeting August 24, 1992
Mr. Rankin advised that Staff presented a status report to the Council
on July 13th and the Ordinance states that Staff can only grant
exemptions if someone shows that there is no solid waste generated or
produced at the address. The City Council may grant other exemptions.
Mr. Barker explained that 5 appeals were being presented and public
hearings should be conducted for each applicant with a determination
made by the City Council for each.
Mayor Snyder opened public hearing #1: Sergio Hernandez, 7081
Allegheny Drive.
Basis of Exemption: The applicant states his waste is taken to work
or to a relative's house in Hayward. The resident also has access to
a utility trailer for the removal of bulky yard debris.
Staff Review of Exemption Request: The applicant submitted an
application for exemption from Mandatory Garbage Service. An on-site
inspection of the property was conducted. The inspection noted that
s o'Lid waste is produced on the property.
Basis for Staff Denial: The inspection of the property revealed solid
waste is produced on the property. According to Ordinance No. 2-92,
Section 5. 32 . 080, all solid waste produced on the property shall be
removed by the collector at the minimum level of service.
Cm. Burton stated he was having trouble with the City Council
involving themselves with such a small issue. Most cases are brought
before the Council based on complaints. He felt very uncomfortable
dealing with this. The Council is speaking about some pretty
intrusive issues.
Cm„ Jeffery reminded Cm. Burton that it was he who had this section
included in the Ordinance.
Mr„ Rankin pointed out that when the Ordinance was adopted, an
obligation was placed on the garbage company to continue service to
all residents. Residents who have appealed have not been charged for
the service.
Mr., Hernandez stated he did not mind paying the $6, but he personally
felt he was being forced to do something. He is not in favor of
having a dirty house. He did not feel he should be forced to pay for
something when his house has not been inspected. If someone found
garbage laying around at his house, he would be willing to pay. The
money is not the issue.
Mayor Snyder clarified that the issue is does he generate garbage.
Mr. Hernandez stated he does generate garbage, but there has been no
complaints. He likes to keep everything clean and the City doesn't
haNre to tell him to subscribe to garbage service.
■ �� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
CM - VOL 11 - 326
Regfular Meeting August 24, 1992
Cm. Moffatt questioned if he owned his home and if his income was over
$25, 000 per year. This is a State mandated program and the City could
be fined and would then have to charge everyone in the City an extra
$5 to pay the fines.
Mr. Hernandez answered yes to both questions. He asked why the State
tells us what to do.
Cm. Moffatt stated he asks the same thing.
Mr. Hernandez stated if he has to pay, he will pay, but he will not
putt his garbage out. He will continue to do what he is doing now.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
Frank Ruskey stated he wanted to comment.
Mayor Snyder reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Ruskey stated he has no kids going to school but he still has to
pay school tax. Garbage is a part of living in the City. We have a
ru:Le and each house must pay the fee. Whether or not they have
garbage they must pay the costs. He felt this debate was a total
waste of taxpayer money.
Lee North stated as a neighbor, he could state that Mr. Hernandez's
property is clean, but there are 3 houses on the street that are not
clean and he has turned them in for various infractions. He was
concerned that if the City allows Mr. Hernandez to not pay the fee,
then the other houses will attempt to get exemptions also.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
Cm,. Burton asked if in granting an exemption a paragraph could be
added that says if circumstances change, this would be invalid.
Mr. Barker stated the City would be required to put a time period on
the approval.
Cm„ Jeffery stated she felt there is a price for being a responsible
citizen in the community and garbage service is a part of this.
Cm,. Burton stated if they produce solid waste they come under the law.
The City Council can decide whether they need a pickup. Staff can
waive the requirement if there is no one there and the property is
vacant. The 5 cases before the Council feel it is unjust to force
them to have garbage service. He felt the City Council is involving
themselves in some nitpicking things.
Cm. Jeffery stated the point is that solid waste is produced on site.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority
vote, the Council adopted
CM - VOL 11 - 327
Regular Meeting August 24, 1992
RESOLUTION NO. 104 - 92
DENYING AN EXEMPTION FROM MANDATORY GARBAGE SERVICE
SERGIO HERNANDEZ, 7081 ALLEGHENY DRIVE
Cm. Burton voted against this motion.
Mayor Snyder opened public hearing #2 : Nessim Benhamou, 7529 Kilrush
Avenue.
Basis of Exemption: The applicant indicates that he hauls the waste
to the Pleasanton Transfer Station himself and also redeems recyclable
material at the Pleasanton Buy Back Center. Trash is disposed of
twice each month and the resident indicates he did not typically
accumulate more than one trash can per week.
Staff Review of Exemption Request: The applicant submitted an
application for exemption from Mandatory Garbage Service. An on-site
inspection of the property was conducted. The inspection noted that
solid waste is produced on the property.
Basis for Staff Denial: The inspection of the property revealed solid
waste is produced on the property. According to Ordinance No. 2-92,
Section 5. 32 . 080, all solid waste produced on the property shall be
removed by the collector at the minimum level of service.
Mr. Benhamou stated he has lived in his house since 1962 and has had
problems with the trash company before. He has a vacuum and uses it
on his property every week. He prefers to take his garbage himself.
He makes money on his recyclables; more than it costs him to go to the
dump. He would like to apply for a permit to haul his own garbage.
An inspector can come and look at his property at any time.
Cm. Moffatt pointed out that he can still take his recyclables if he
has his garbage picked up at his house. He may even make more money.
He asked if he owns the house and if his income is over $25, 000 per
year.
Mr. Benhamou stated he owns the house and is currently unemployed.
Mayor Snyder stated he felt the income question might not be
appropriate.
Cm. Moffatt stated the reason he asked is to know whether the
individual would have an economic hardship.
Cm. Jeffery stated she also did not feel that it was appropriate to
ask this question.
Cm. Burton stated he felt the problems he had in the past with the
garbage company could be dealt with. This is not justification for
not paying the fee. This is different than what is being discussed.
CM - VOL 11 - 328
Regular Meeting August 24, 1992
Mr. Benhamou stated if the Pleasanton dump were to close, he would
have to take the service.
Dan Borges, General Manager of Livermore Dublin Disposal stated it is
very unfortunate that this resident had problems 10 years ago. He
assured Mr. Benhamou that they do take care of any problems now. Any
customer may call their office and they will send a route supervisor
out to the house and/or he will also deal with any problems.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
Cut. Moffatt stated he felt there might be an economic hardship problem
here as Mr. Benhamou indicated he did not make the minimum household
type of wages.
Mayor Snyder pointed out that he stated he spends as much going to the
dump, but there is no indication of financial hardship.
Cm. Burton stated he felt his main complaint was because of sloppy
pickup.
On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 105 - 92
DENYING AN EXEMPTION FROM MANDATORY GARBAGE SERVICE
NESSIM BENHAMOU, 7529 KILRUSH AVENUE
Mayor Snyder opened public hearing #3: Tanya Marie Clark, 7832
Gardella Drive.
Applicant's Request for Exemption: The applicant explains that a very
small quantity of waste is produced on the property. The disposal of
the waste is shared with a friend and the garbage is removed twice a
week.
Staff Review of Exemption Request: The applicant submitted an
application for exemption from Mandatory Garbage Service. An on-site
inspection of the property was conducted. The inspection noted that
by the owner's admission, a small quantity of solid waste is produced
on the property.
Mr. Barker advised that Staff also evaluated several issues related to
garbage service which were raised in Ms. Clark's letter of appeal.
Information was presented in the Staff Report clarifying the record
related to 3 issues raised by Ms. Clark.
Basis for Staff Denial: The inspection of the property revealed solid
waste is produced on the property. According to Ordinance No. 2-92,
Section 5. 32 . 080, all solid waste produced on the property shall be
removed by the collector at the minimum level of service.
CM - VOL 11 - 329
Regular Meeting N August 24, 1992
Ms. Tanya Clark stated she had done research on AB 939 and the State
mandate says we have to cut back waste going to the landfill by 25% in
1995 and by 50% in the year 2000. She has actually cut her waste by
50%. What little waste they have is picked up twice a week and never
begins to fill even a small plastic bag. The State mandate left it up
to the cities on how to get these reductions. The State really can't
be blamed because. the City signed a contract with a monopoly that says
everyone must comply. There are other cities that do not require
citizens to have garbage pick up.
Ms. Tanya Clark stated they see messy garbage pickups on their street
all-1 the time. The Ordinance is very poorly written. Even if a house
is vacant, it produces solid waste. Bulk mail is also a problem. She
cannot see paying a company which is a nationwide monopoly to pick up
recyclables. This is an infringement on her civil rights. Also, the
information which the City obtained related to her account is confi-
dential. Several people were sent copies of the letter. It would be
like her calling the bank and asking if we had ever bounced any
checks. Her character has been defiled. She has lived here for 28
years and has cooperated by cutting down. She just could not
understand why it is becoming harder and harder to be a good citizen
in Dublin.
Ms. Tanya Clark also complained that cars are parked in front yards
and recreational vehicles are all around, even though people should
have a right to have these vehicles. Some people take their cars
apart right in their yards.
Mayor Snyder pointed out that these other issues have nothing to do
with the matter being discussed.
Ms. Tanya Clark summarized that if her application for an exemption is
denied, the City will have to put a lien on her property.
Ms, Ella Clark stated she would file charges against the City for
violating their rights and would name everyone who has a copy of the
letter that the Assistant City Manager sent.
Cm. Burton questioned if she was a lawyer as she made an impressive
presentation. However, he stated he got a mixed message. He was
sl(mpathetic at first and then they brought all these other things up
atzd this is not the purpose of the hearing tonight.
Ms. Tanya Clark stated she only brought this up because it was brought
up by the Councilmembers.
Cm. Moffatt asked if they would consider it an economic hardship to
pay the $6.
Ms. Tanya Clark responded yes because she only works 1 day each week
and her mother's social security is all they get.
Ms. Ella Clark stated they will pay no more.
CM - VOL 11 a 330
Regular Meeting August 24® 1992
Ms.. Tanya Clark stated she knew 2 other people who would like to
appeal, but they did not write letters because they didn't think they
could fight City Hall. Citizens should have some say in this matter.
She questioned how the City could contract for 10 years with a
monopoly. Other companies would come forward who can provide services
if they could get a chance to bid on the contract.
Ms . Ella Clark stated she is almost 89 years old. She has never had
to do things people tell her to do and she is not about to start now.
Mr. Rankin clarified a couple of points that were brought up. With
regard to mail, there is a process whereby you can have delivery
stopped. With regard to yard debris, a landscape contractor is
authorized to remove waste from individual lots in the City. A person
could literally have yard debris taken away in the context of the
Ordinance.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
Cm.. Burton made a motion which was seconded by Cm. Moffatt to grant an
exemption with a stipulation that there be some provision down road
that they are complying. They felt there was a definite hardship in
this case. This motion failed due to dissenting votes cast by Cm.
Jeffery, Cm. Howard and Mayor Snyder.
Cm. Jeffery stated she did not feel that this is the issue. The issue
is whether or not they produce garbage. They have the option of a
lower cost service.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by majority
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 106 - 92
DENYING AN EXEMPTION FROM MANDATORY GARBAGE SERVICE
TANYA MARIE CLARK, 7832 GARDELLA DRIVE
Cm. Burton and Cm. Moffatt voted against this motion.
Mayor Snyder opened public hearing #4: Edward Bressinck, 11657 Solana
Drive.
Basis of Exemption: The applicant states that there is a very small
quantity of waste which is taken to a friend's house in San Ramon.
The applicant also uses a chipper to mulch yard debris.
Staff Review of Exemption Request: The applicant submitted an
application for exemption from Mandatory Garbage Service. An on-site
inspection of the property was conducted. The inspection noted that
solid waste is produced on the property.
■ in ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ e ■ ■ ■ s ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
CM — VOL 11 — 331
Regular Meeting August 24, 1992
e
Basis for Staff Denial: The inspection of the property revealed solid
waste is produced on the property. According to Ordinance No. 2-92 ,
Section 5. 32 . 080, all solid waste produced on the property shall be
removed by the collector at the minimum level of service.
Mr . Bressinck stated it was a great pleasure for him to appear and
state his case. His place is not a mess. He consumes no food in
Dublin; his refrigerator is not even plugged in. He stays and cares
for a friend who lives in San Ramon and they get a 90 gallon can
picked up weekly.
Cm. Jeffery asked if he lives in San Ramon.
Mr. Bressinck stated he goes there every day to care for his friend.
She is in really bad condition and has had 4 911 calls. Her doctor
advised her not to stay alone. His house in Dublin is in a trust for
his children and he just goes there every day to pick up his mail.
Cm. Moffatt questioned if the house is essentially vacant.
Mr. Bressinck stated yes, but from time to time his kids come into
town and sleep there, but they don't eat there. The garbage company
is probably the same one used in San Ramon, so he is already paying.
He questioned the City Attorney as to whether his civil rights are
being violated by having to sign up for garbage service when he
doesn't want it. In his 75 years, he has always been able to say he
will buy this or he won't buy it. He is not asking for charity; he
has a good income. He is here to say what he will spend his money
for. The Ordinance should be changed. If someone doesn't have
garbage service, they should be able to say what they do with their
garbage.
Ms. Silver advised that courts have upheld requirements for mandatory
garbage service for public health and safety under a city's police
power. Many cities do have mandatory service. San Ramon also has
mandatory service.
Cm. Moffatt pointed out that in some areas, you pay for garbage
service through your property tax.
Mayor Snyder clarified that it is put on the tax bill. There are many
cities that have mandatory service. Oakland has had it for years and
years.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 107 - 92
GRANTING AN EXEMPTION FROM MANDATORY GARBAGE SERVICE
EDWARD BRESSINCR, 11657 SOLANA DRIVE
■ �■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
CM - VOL 11 - 332
Re4�ular Meeting August 24, 1992
The exemption is granted for one year, or until such time that the
property is occupied.
Mayor Snyder opened public hearing #5: Helen Fontaine, 8656 Beverly
Lane.
Basis of Exemption: The applicant indicates that all her solid waste
is taken away by her daughter twice each week. The resident indicates
that the amount of waste which is generated is too small to warrant
regular service.
Staff Review of Exemption Request: The applicant submitted an
application for exemption from Mandatory Garbage Service. An on-site
inspection of the property was conducted. The inspection noted that
solid waste is produced on the property.
Basis for Staff Denial: The inspection of the property revealed solid
waste is produced on the property. According to Ordinance No. 2-92 ,
Section 5. 32 . 080, all solid waste produced on the property shall be
removed by the collector at the minimum level of service.
Ms. Hirsch was present speaking on behalf of her elderly mother. She
stated she debated whether or not to come tonight. She thought
appeals would be granted if they had a good case. It seems absurd to
have a locked in law. Trash service is a good thing if it is needed.
Her mother gets Meals on Wheels delivered and she takes her mail away.
There just isn't anything. She questioned if this was just assurance
for the trash collectors. It would also be very difficult for her
mother to get the trash out to the curb every week.
Cm. Burton stated since the meals are delivered, it would only be a
question of other garbage.
Cm. Moffatt pointed out that we have back yard collection, not curb
collection. The garbage company will come into the back yard and pick
up the can. He questioned if this would be an economic hardship.
Ms. Hirsch stated it would be as her mother gets very little money.
Mayor Snyder advised that never in the consideration of this Ordinance
was the welfare of the trash company considered. We did this to
reduce the garbage collection to a 20 gallon can for those who did not
generate that much garbage. The City is not building a profit
situation for the garbage company.
Ms . Hirsch stated she takes her mother's garbage to her house in
Danville.
Cm. Jeffery advised that our service is a lot cheaper, so she should
bring hers to Dublin.
Mayor Snyder advised that all cities in the State are mandated to
track the garbage in their cities. He felt that Danville would be
upset to know that she is taking Dublin's garbage into Danville.
■ Y! ■ ® ■ ■ ■ ® ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ U
CM - VOL 11 - 333
Regular Meeting August 24, 1992
Maxtor Snyder closed the public hearing.
Cm., Jeffery made a motion, which was seconded by Mayor Snyder to deny
the exemption.
Cm., Burton made a substitute motion, which was seconded by Cm. Moffatt
to grant an exemption.
Cm„ Jeffery felt this motion was inconsistent with what has been done.
Solid waste is produced at this address and she can qualify for the
lowest rate.
Cm., Moffatt felt the Board should have some compassion and there is an
economic hardship in this case.
Cm.. Jeffery stated she was upset over the discussion of an economic
issue because it has nothing to do with denying or asking for an
exemption. If it is an economic issue, there is a low cost service.
Mayor Snyder stated he agreed with Cm. Jeffery. The only basis for
exemption is whether or not solid waste is generated at the site. In
4 of the cases, the answer is that there is. There is no economic
question here, and it is ludicrous to bring this up at this point.
Cm. Burton stated he felt this was a bad law originally but he did at
least get the appeal process put in. "If solid waste is generated" is
an ambiguous statement.
This motion was defeated due to dissenting votes cast by Cm. Howard,
Cm. Jeffery and Mayor Snyder.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Mayor Snyder, and by majority
voice, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 108 - 92
DENYING AN EXEMPTION FROM MANDATORY GARBAGE SERVICE
HELEN FONTAINE, 8656 BEVERLY LANE
Cm. Burton and Cm. Moffatt voted against this motion.
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
FOR FINANCING CONSTRUCTION OF EAST COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER (600-40)
Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that the City of Dublin in
conjunction with the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton and Alameda
County have been developing a mechanism to jointly develop a new
Animal Shelter. A JPA has been developed which provides for the
agencies to jointly share the development cost. In return, they will
remain an equity interest in the facility. The proposed facility will
be constructed by Alameda County on County property adjacent to their
Corporation Yard on Gleason Drive.
® 16 a ■ a ■ a ® ■ ■ o ■ s 0 ■ ■ e e ■ ■ ■ a ■ ■ ■ s ■ ■ ■ e a ■ ■ ■ a
CM — VOL 11 — 334
Regular Meeting August 24, 1992
Mr. Rankin advised that the annual debt service required to be paid by
each agency will fluctuate based upon the percentage of live animals
handled from a particular jurisdiction. The City of Dublin's
estimated annual debt service beginning in Fiscal Year 1994-95 is
projected to be $71,412 . This cost would be in addition to the City's
share of the operating expense. Fiscal Year 1992-93 Shelter operating
costs are budgeted at $34, 605.
Mr. Rankin stated the financing summary and estimates were based upon
a ;project cost of $4,750, 000. The costs associated with financing the
project would result in a total estimated issue of $5, 685, 000 in tax
exempt instruments.
Mr. Rankin pointed out that the City of San Ramon has elected not to
participate so costs have shifted a little. Also, after further
discussions with the County regarding title to the property, the
County reconsidered their position and is now proposing no charge for
the land and the City would not have any interest in the land, only
the improvements.
Cm. Moffatt questioned if we will have the ability to determined if
dogs picked up in the City have licenses.
Mr. Rankin advised that this is the current practice and it will not
change. This issue, however, deals only with construction of the
shelter.
Cm. Burton questioned if we are agreeing to participate in this
without seeing it.
Mr. Rankin explained the process. He has been designated to
participate in the process on the City's behalf. He will look at it
to make sure the design comes in economically.
Cm. Burton stated he was on the committee for the new jail and a lot
of things get added which drive up the costs.
Mr. Ambrose advised that the purpose of the agreement was to give us
some say in this. Mr. Rankin will basically look over the County's
shoulder and we will be looking at this project very carefully.
Cm. Jeffery stated it was very good to put Mr. Rankin on this because
he has a lot of experience.
On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 109 - 92
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
AND THE CITIES OF DUBLIN, LIVERMORE AND PLEASANTON
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ANIMAL SHELTER
CM v VOL 11 m 335
Regular Meeting August 24, 1992
DECLARING ILLEGAL ON-PREMISES ADVERTISING
DISPLAY SIGN AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE (400-30)
Associate Planner Ralph Kachadourian presented the Staff Report and
advised that on July 27th, the City Council directed Staff to begin
nuisance abatement procedures for the 3 remaining non-conforming signs
identified on the list.
Staff contacted the 3 business owners (Shamrock Ford, Gallagher's Pub
and American Building Components) by telephone and by on-site visits
to discuss their existing non-conforming signs and the reasons for
them not responding to the reminder letters.
Mr. Kachadourian explained that enforcement action and nuisance
abatement proceedings are being held in abeyance for Shamrock Ford,
pending completion of the Sign Ordinance Amendment Study relating to
automobile dealership/automobile produce line signage as directed by
the Council on April 27, 1992. The owner of Gallagher's Pub has
removed the non-conforming sign from the building and this location is
now in compliance. The owner of American Building Components has
indicated that he would submit an application; however, no application
has been submitted to date.
Mr. Kachadourian advised that a draft resolution was prepared which
would give a 20 day time period to abate the remaining illegal on-
premises advertising display, either by removal of the sign or by
submittal of the proper permit application.
Cm. Burton questioned if the City was down to just this one sign for
compliance.
Mr. Kachadourian advised that as of the City's last memo, this is the
last and only applicant who has not responded. Eight other signs are
in the process of review.
Cm. Burton congratulated Staff as this whole sign issue had been a
hard nut to crack.
Mr. Omernik representing American Building Components stated he had a
problem understanding why this is a problem. His sign is 2/3 of the
size allowed. It fits in properly with the building and he couldn't
understand why the sign should be condemned.
Cm. Burton questioned if he tried to get a Variance.
Mr. Omernik stated the sign as designed is too long to put in letter
f olrm.
Cm. Burton pointed out that there is a process if he wants to keep his
sign.
Mr. Omernik stated if he gives the City some more money and they then
say the sign is okay, he could not understand this. The process is,
CM - VOL 11 - 336
Regular Meeting August 24, 1992
give the City a $105 check and they will look at it and everything
will be fine.
Cm. Burton reminded that there were a lot of signs that caused this
City to look pretty trashy. We narrowed it down and the point is
there was a process developed where he could make his sign legal. He
is now a public nuisance.
Mr. Omernik questioned why it is necessary to approve something that
is already there.
Cm. Burton explained that Staff had to go by some regulations.
Mr. Omernik stated there are a lot of signs in the City that are ugly
in his opinion. His sign has been there for 20 years.
Mr. Ambrose advised that the same avenue is open as was 'open prior to
this process for Mr. Omernik.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 110 - 92
DECLARING AN ILLEGAL ON-PREMISES ADVERTISING DISPLAY SIGN
AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE
(AMERICAN BUILDING COMPONENTS - 6247-53 DOUGHERTY ROAD)
AMENDMENTS TO CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO CHANGE QUORUM FOR CMA BOARD (1060-40)
Public Works Director Thompson advised that on July 23, 1992, the CMA
Board considered several potential amendments to the JPA which would
address quorum problems at the Board meetings and its committee
meetings. The CMA Board is requesting that the City of Dublin, along
with the other member agencies, consider amending the JPA to address
the problem by changing how a quorum would be defined, authorizing
compensation at standing meetings, and specify the vote needed to
approve certain matters.
Mr„ Thompson stated the amendment would change the quorum and voting
system by giving each CMA Boardmember one vote, rather than the number
of votes assigned to each agency, and to determine a quorum by simple
majority of agencies. Decisions which would still be based on the
majority of votes based on votes assigned by population were
discussed.
Mr,. Thompson advised that a second issue that has come up is the fact
that the JPA is silent on payment to Boardmembers at committee
meetings. A proposed amendment would allow the Board to fix a
reasonable sum of money to be paid for attending committee meetings.
CM - VOL 11 - 337
Regular Meeting August 24, 1992
Mr. Thompson summarized that in order for this amendment to be
approved, it will take a majority of the agencies representing a
majority of the population to concur.
Cm. Jeffery stated she concurred with this recommendation as there
have been meetings where she traveled all the way to Berkeley only to
have less than a quorum present. They are actually doing a lot of
planning things now. They are spending a lot of time on things that
could be handled by a personnel committee and many people have to take
off work to do this. She felt there would probably end up being one
meeting per month.
Cm. Burton questioned how compensation would be established.
Cu.. Jeffery stated she thought it would probably be the same as for
regular meetings, which she thought was about $75.
Cu.. Moffatt asked if there is a cap on the number of meetings.
Cu.. Jeffery stated this is at the call of the CMA. The personnel
committee was directed to look deeper into certain things. They would
then bring back recommendations to the Board. There is only one
standing committee.
On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 111 - 92
AMENDING THE CMA JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
TO CHANGE QUORUM TO CMA BOARD AND PAY REASONABLE SUM TO
ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR ATTENDING MEETINGS
I-58011-680 FLYOVER PROJECT (800-30)
Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that the City Council previously
appointed a Business Task Force to review issues related to the
Business Community. The Circulation and Land Use Subcommittee of the
BTF recently reviewed plans for improvements to the interstate
freeways which could have a detrimental impact on the City of Dublin.
The Alameda County Transportation Authority and Caltrans are currently
planning for the construction of a direct connection "flyover" for
southbound I-680 traffic to eastbound I-580. The proposed sponsors
recently announced that it was their intent to process the project
with a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts. If an EIR was
proposed, the City would have a formal opportunity to comment on the
scope of the study. The BTF representatives have identified the
importance of identifying appropriate mitigation measures to be
incorporated in the original project in the event that a Negative
Declaration is pursued.
CM - VOL 11 - 338
Regular Meeting a m m m m N m m a m m H m m m m m m m August 24, 1992
Jim Oberin with Bissell & Karn gave an overview of the project. His
firm was selected as the designers for the Measure B project. He
showed computerized video graphics of the proposed project.
Cm„ Jeffery asked when the project would be completed.
Mr. Oberin stated there really isn't a date set.
Mr„ Rankin advised that this improvement will eliminate direct access
to the Dougherty Road exit for I-680 traffic. This will result in
economic and traffic impacts. The economic impacts would result from
the loss of a direct connection to the City's retail business area.
One possible mitigation measure would be hook-ramp connections
allowing traffic from I-680 to exit directly into Dublin. The project
designers have reviewed this concept; however, it is not currently
considered to be part of the project.
Also of concern to the BTF is the current position by the Alameda
County Transportation Authority that all matching funds for the
flyover project ($10 million) must come from local sources.
Mr.. Rankin advised that there will have to be public hearings on the
hook-ramp connections at the appropriate time. There have been
discussions regarding mitigation measures.
Ernie Satow with Caltrans stated they would be looking at southbound
button hook-ramps as a mitigation measure.
Mr, Ambrose clarified that hook-ramps are not funded. He questioned
what the benefit would be to the community if you have this flyover
and cut off access to Dougherty Road.
Cm. Jeffery stated she felt that without the ramps, this will be a
disincentive to Dublin and Pleasanton.
Mr. Satow advised that Caltrans is doing the environmental work for
thES project. Final ownership would be Caltrans and they would
maintain it. If no flyovers were being required, it would cut off
access to San Ramon Road. This is a separate environmental process.
Mayor Snyder felt we must all be realistic. Where will the money come
from? There has to be local money; it can't be State or Federal.
ThE!re isn't any way our community can pay for this.
Al Gallardo with the Transportation Authority stated he has been more
pragmatic than many others on this. It will take 2 or 3 years to
design this project. They must move forward with certain parts of the
project. He is preaching patience. If we don't interface with BART
right now, we have lost the project. They have been as flexible as
they can be. They also have an obligation to seek other monies.
Cm. Jeffery asked what the timeline is on Measure B.
Mr. Gallardo stated they go out of business 6 months after the last
bill is paid or by the year 2002 .
CM - VOL 11 - 339
R @g'ulaz Meeting 0 0 a 0 a E 0 0 0 0 0 0 E N 0 E E a m August: 24, 1992
Cm. Burton questioned what happens if we say we won't support the
project without the hook ramps. They are really isolating Dublin.
Cm. Jeffery stated it appears that Pleasanton came in and negotiated
all this and Dublin was left out of the process. If there will be no
EI:R, we are backed up against a wall. We want to see the best thing
done here. The City of Dublin is asking for consideration as they
gave consideration to Pleasanton, and then try to work out the
financing.
Mr. Gallardo stated the level of document doesn't mean we can't have
input. They are looking for input and this type of document will be
ark advantage. They had a kick-off meeting for this project about 2
years ago and then they had an informational meeting. It does not
preclude input. This type of a document is really an advantage
because it will be approved by the State rather than full Federal
going through the Washington, D.C. , office.
Cm. Jeffery questioned if money was available through ISTEA for this.
Mr. Gallardo stated they tried once this year and the answer was no.
Mr. Rankin advised that they are looking at the southbound hook-ramps
as; part of their current studies and if the environmental studies show
that there is a significant impact, then in order to adopt their
negative declaration, they would have to do a mitigated negative
declaration instead of a full EIR. The Task Force was simply saying
from their point of view, southbound and northbound hook-ramps needed
to be looked at in the environmental stage. There is apparently some
flexibility with regard to the 1-mile spacing requirement.
Mr. Gallardo advised that we have 4 interchanges within a freeway to
freeway interchange which has a lot of local access so these ramps
were part of the original approval process in the mid-1980s.
Cm. Jeffery questioned with regard to the way all the ramps are does
this take into consideration a rail project north/south and how it
would connect with BART. Will it be necessary to move roads and
ramps, etc.
Mr. Gallardo stated there is a project that is doing construction of
high occupancy vehicle lanes toward Walnut Creek. The interchange as
is presently laid out does not provide for a BART-type facility
running through the interchange, other than for I-580 which is under
design now.
Mayor Snyder stated he did not think the hook-ramps were a new
thought.
Mr. Gallardo stated when the original concept was discussed and they
started nailing down what would be fundable and could stand alone,
those ramps were part of the overall concept, for east and west. The
flyovers would provide access to adjacent interchanges from I-680.
CM - VOL 11 - 340
Regular .Meeting August 24, 1992
Mayor Snyder stated he just wanted to make sure everyone understood
this was not something the City just dreamed up. He has seen these
drawings for years and always assumed they would be a part of the
plan.
Jim Kohnen, representative on the citizens advisory committee stated
this discussion had been very enlightening and he will keep the
thoughts and comments in mind.
Orr motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 112 - 92
REGARDING I-580/I-680 FLYOVER
URGENT NEED TO ADDRESS POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND PROJECT FINANCING
OTHER BUSINESS
Russian Visitors (515-60)
Cm. Howard advised that there would be a potluck at the High School
for the Russians on Tuesday evening at 6: 00 p.m.
Recycling (810-60)
Cm. Burton questioned the City's policy on purchasing recycled paper
products.
Mr. Ambrose advised that we will be looking at this as part of our
SERE.
Cm. Burton stated he would like to see the City make a sincere effort
in this regard. He is using the paper for his catalogs and flyers and
it: is of good quality.
Policy on Providing Photocopies @ No Charge (180-50)
Cm. Burton requested that Staff place on the next agenda for
discussion the question of whether to furnish candidates with City
Council meeting packets at no charge.
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
CM - VOL li - 341
RE:gular Meeting August 24, 1992
CLOSED SESSION
At 11: 15 p.m. , the Council recessed to a closed executive session to
discuss Pending Litigation (640-30) , Case No. 880011 State of
California, et al. vs. Rosendin Electric, Inc. , in accordance with
Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) .
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
CM - VOL 11 - 342
Regular Meeting August 24, 1992