Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-09-1994 Adopted CC MinutesRE~UL~ MEETIN~ - MaT 9~ ~994 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, May 9, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:50 p.m., by Mayor Snyder. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: Coun¢ilmembers Burton, Houston, Howard, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. None. * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Snyder led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flago * * * * PRESENTATION OF EDAB REPORT "FROM RED TAPE TO BLUE RIBBONS: HOW TO DELIVER AWARD WINNING SERVICE (470-50) Planning Director Tong advised that last yearf a series of discussion meetings were held to look for innovative ways of cutting the red tape when doing business in Alameda'County. Mr. Ed Mullins, President of Edroni Enterprises in Hayward was introduced. Mr. Mullins gave a slide presentation and stated the economy in Alameda County has changed and we are in danger of being left behind. There are several reasons for this and there are several solutions. key solution is at the local level. A Mr. Mullins introduced Mary Ortendahl, Regulatory Affairs Coordinator with the Alameda County Office of Economic Development, who helped put the report together. Part I of the report looked at, "What is Red Tape?" They developed a mission statement, "To propose a clearer, easier, and fairer regulatory process to reduce the complexity of doing business within Alameda County." Their model for solutions suggests behaviors to change from "Business as Usual" to "Business for the Future". They are recommending that a task force be formed, under the leadership of EDAB, to address environmental compliance issues. They developed a self-evaluation questionnaire. Part II contains all the details of their report. Mr. Mullins advised that they will be making a report on the program to the Board of Supervisors in mid-December. Cm. Burton stated he felt an important objective is to make it more friendly to business. ,@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 130 Regular Meeting May 9, 1994 Mr. Tong stated the City had already implemented a number of suggestions contained in the report, and should continue to improve services. The Red Tape Advisory Board is asking the City to accept the report and complete the self-evaluation form. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council accepted the report and directed Staff to ~comPlete the self-evaluation form. CONSENTCALEND~%~ On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Houston, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: · Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 25, 1994; Received the City Treasurer's Investment Report as of April 30, 1994 (320-30); ApproVed Warrant Register in the amount of $406,802.82 (300-40). City Manager Ambrose advised that a miscommunication had occurred on the item related to the Village Parkway Reconstruction .Project and Staff had not intended for this to be placed on the Consent Calendar. Public Works Director Thompson presented the Staff Report and advised that excessive street failure occurred during the grinding phase of the project due to substantial underground water. Extra work was done on a time and materials basis. Several alternatives were reviewed in order to complete this work, and Staff suggested Alternate 1 which would completely repave the balance of Village Parkway to Amador Valley Boulevard as originally anticipated. This would necessitate an additional appropriation of $91,139. Staff is requesting an additional $24,442 in SB 300 funds from the State for this change order as a supplement to the original $11,339 grant and this loan would be repaid in 1994-95 from Measure B revenues, which are estimated to exceed $114,000. Cm. Burton stated the term, "borrowing" bothered him. We are borrowing it from our General Fund and it will be paid back by Measure B money. He asked what the chances were that Measure B money will not be available. Mr. Ambrose advised that this money is available every year. It is part of the sales tax program. We are in the fifth or sixth year of a 15 year program. Mayor Snyder pointed out that this was the carrot. Mr. Ambrose stated Staff will come back with a scaled down project next year. To set up loans between funds is not that uncommon a practice. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 131 RegUlar Meeting May 9, 1994 Cm. Burton asked if not doing overlaying next year could potentially have other costs down road. Mr. Ambrose assured the Council that Staff had asked the same question, "can the streets that were scheduled for overlay go another year ?" Mr. Thompson advised that the City has spent quite a bit of money in aggressively catching up with the backlog and we will have a smaller program next year. Cm. Moffatt asked how much money the City got from Measure B last year. Mr. Ambrose stated we got about $114,000 this year and expect about $116,000 next year. We have been putting about $165,000 in General Fund money into the program, and the balance comes from Measure B funds. Cm. Moffatt asked if this project could be delayed until the budget hearing. Mr. Thompson advised that the Contractor has been held off for an extra week, but they don't want to go much longer. Mr. Rankin advised that the SB 300 money is committed this fiscal year. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Houston, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved as Alternate #1, a change order of up to $125,393 on the Village Parkway Reconstruction Project (600-30) to replace base failures; directed Staff to prepare the 1994-95 budget documents to reduce the 1994-95 overlay program; appropriated $79,800 in Measure B funding which will become a loan from the General Fund to be paid back in FY 1994-95; and appropriated $11,339 in Fund 220 (SB 300) from additional revenues. PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SECTION 2516(m) OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (440-40) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Chief Building Official Taugher presented the Staff Report and advised that the heirs of the Estate of John Young are requesting a variance to allow the posts supporting the floor of the dwelling at 7852 Starward Drive to remain without a connection to the foundation pier. Mr. Taugher explained that potential buyers of the property requested that a Code Compliance Survey be made. The results of the inspection were included in a letter from the Building Inspection Department dated February 17, 1994, and a permit was secured by the owner's contractor on March 3I, 1994. All of the items were corrected except *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 132 Regular Meeting May 9, 1994 securing the posts to the foundation. The owners are requesting a variance which would allow the floor supports to 'remain as is and their rationale is that they believe this condition exists in the entire tract. Mr. Taugher explained the importance of the posts being anchored to the piers in order to prevent the posts from shifting off the foundation in an earthquake. If the posts shifted off the piers, the floor could drop 6" to 24" and this could also cause the interior bearing walls to drop, causing damage to the ceiling and roof. Mr. Taugher advised that in order for the City Council to grant a variance, the Council must make a finding that the variance is consistent with the intent of the code and that the granting of the variance will not lessen the protection to the people of the City or the property situated therein. Mr. Taugher did not feel that this finding could be made and therefore recommended that the request for the variance be denied. Cm. Burton asked how the code specified that the posts were to be fastened at the time it was built. Mr. Taugher read from the code that was in effect in 1960 and stated the wording was a little different in the 1991 code, but the general idea is contained in both codes. Positive connection needs to be provided to ensure against uplift and lateral displacement. Cm. Burton stated he had built quite a few houses and in most cases, you have to put in shims. Sometimes you get a lift of 1/4" or so. Mr. Taugher agreed that it is not unusual to have to put in a few shims. Cm. Burton asked if the foundations were bonded around the peers. Mr. Taugher stated he assumed so. Cm. Burton questioned how the City got into the business of inspection when there are people out there that do this professionally. Mr. Taugher advised that there are provisions in the code with fees listed to do this. Cm. Burton felt it didn't seem right to make them comply when the City inspects. He expressed concern that we are stepping into an area where we really don't belong. Cm. Moffatt stated he was concerned that down the road, if this Variance is not granted, a new home owner could say they bought this house and come back and get the City involved in a legal hassle about whether the house, was in shape to sell. This seems to be a precedent setting situation. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 133 Regular Meeting May 9, 1994 Mr. Taugher stated the owner must disclose the fact that there is a Variance if this is approved. Cm. Houston stated the report would have to be disclosed as well. Typically, an inspection report is 20 or 30 pages long. He also questioned if the City is getting into something where they should not be. Mayor Snyder clarified that this is a Code Compliance Report. Cm. Houston stated it appeared that this report was used because it was cheaper. Mr. Taugher indicated that their inspection deals with code compliance only; it is not the type of inspection that a home inspection firm would do. It only determines whether the house meets code. Cm. Moffatt thought they should get some kind of certificate if a code inspection is done and if anything is wrong, they have to get it repaired. He understood the concerns in that as an owner, you don't anticipate these things. There was apparently a lack of communication between all the parties involved. Cm. Houston asked if it appeared that the foundation had been altered in any way since the house was built. Mr. Taugher stated it didn't look so. The problem is that the shims are not fastened to the foundation; there are no nails. There is no connection to the concrete. The posts could slip off the piers in an earthquake. Cm. Houston stated so could several hundred others. He felt the City should not ~require this to be done unless some kind of a retrofit program is enacted. Cm. Burton stated he felt shims are not that bad of a deal. Stan Young indicated that everybody said they were notified and he commented if the City is getting into the inspection business, why can't the City send him a notice. They bought the house 3 years ago for their elderly father who recently died. They are now trying to sell the house and it is a nightmare. The City should not be in the inspection business. Where was the City when it was built? Mayor Snyder advised that it was approved under the County prior to the City's incorporation. The City Council cannot speak for the County. Mr. Young stated the City doesn't want them to put in nails; they want them to put in jacks. They feel this is an overkill. They also fixed stuff that the City inspector missed. ,@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 134 Regular Meeting May 9, 1994 Cm. Burton stated they must realize now that it is a matter of record. He asked if they would put in ~some 16 penny nails and fasten it so that it doesn't slip off. Mr. Young responded yes, they could do this. Cm. Burton questioned if this would meet code. Mr. Taugher explained that typically you have a concrete pier that is nailed to the post, but you don't have this here. They discussed this with Mr. Young's contractor. They indicated that there are screw nails that could be put in and adjusted. Mr. Young stated if you start shooting concrete nails in, the concrete will likely fall apart. Cm. Moffatt asked if an epoxy or cement material could be used to fasten them. Mr. Taugher stated he was not aware of anything, but if it works, it could be acceptable. Mr. Young stated there are probably a lot of ways to deal with this, but they are out of money. They have no problems disclosing ~this situation to buyers. His sister lives across the street and her house is the same way. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Burton asked what a Variance will do long term; what will it accomplish? Mr. Taugher stated if a Variance is granted, it would allow the house to stay the same; the condition does not have to be corrected on just this one house~ Cm. Burton felt this was more complicated than just this one situation. The City is considered deep pockets. People or firms doing inspections are not as deep as the City. We should look at getting out of this business entirely. We are getting into an area where the risk is simply not worth it. Cm. Burton made a motion to grant the Variance because the method of construction was generally accepted at the time the house was built. He also wanted to include a statement that the City remove themselves as potential inspectors for resale of houses. No one seconded this motion. Mayor Snyder pointed out that the inspection was a separate issue. Ms. Silver pointed out that the City Council will need to make findings. Findings could be summarized and brought back to the Council at the next meeting. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 135 Regular Meeting May 9, 1994 Cm. Houston questioned the need for a Variance. They have to disclose this to any future buyer anyway, so what is accomplished with a Variance? Ms. Silver'stated the City Council implemented a policy that City Staff does not go looking around to find things that do not comply with codes, but if Staff finds something that is not in accordance with policies, they have an obligation to enforce it. It may well be that this house was not in compliance when it was built. Cm. Houston asked if the City Council was going to put in a retrofit requirement for foundations on all homes sold in Dublin the way the Council did for spark arrestors? Mr. Taugher stated he understood the problem with equity. Cm. Moffatt felt that technically, every time a water heater is put in, the City could go out and inspect piers. Mr. Taugher stated they would not necessarily be crawling under the house to do a water heater inspection. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Houston, and by majority vote, the Council agreed to continue this item to the May 23rd meeting to allow findings to be drafted supporting this Variance. Mayor Snyder voted against this motion. Cm. Burton made a motion to have Staff review and bring before the Council the option of whether or not the City should be in the house inspection business. He did not feel it was worth the long term liability of omission on resale houses. Mayor Snyder presented a scenario whereby if he wanted to buy a house and he came down to the City and aSked them to inspect it and now the City will refuse to do this. Cm. Howard felt the seller could refuse. Cm. Houston stated there are licensed property inspectors that do this. Cm. Burton reiterated it's not worth it; $200 is nothing in a house when it comes to overlooking something~ The real estate industry has gotten so nit-picky, the attorneys are coming back and making it miserable for real estate peoplee Mr. Ambrose requested clarification if this would be all situations such as if he were a property owner and he wanted to see if his property is up to code before selling it. Cm. Burton stated it is a risk and it's just not worth it. Code compliance is one thing, but if, for instance, there was a fire caused by an overload in a junction box and nobody looked at it, but because it's our code, we've got a problem. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 136 Regular Meeting May 9, 1994 Mr. Ambrose said his understanding was that we had not provided this service that frequently, but it was an attempt to provide good customer service to residents° Cm. Burton stated it was a good idea, but not worth the cost. There's a lot more to it with the real estate business getting very tough on this. We don't have trained personnel for that. Cm. Moffatt felt that not doing this relieves the City of notifying the eventual payee who would be responsible. Mr. Ambrose asked if the Council was saying that a seller could not request this inspection to make certain that their property is up to code before selling. Cm. Burton said no, unless they come in for a permit for something specific. Another thing that bothered him was that the City told them they couldn't sell the house until all the corrections were made. That puts us in the box of being liable for everything we required them to do. Mr. Taugher clarified that all the City said was that the violations had to be corrected within a reasonable time. Mayor Snyder stated someday, the City Council must make up their minds whether they want to run the City for the benefit of all the residents in the City or to run it for the benefit of certain businesses in the City or those that want to profit by businesses in the City. There comes a time when you need to respect the interests of those people that want to reside here and if it means they want to have a safe residence to reside in, what's the problem with that? What is so bad about making an exposure? Cm. Burton responded nothing, but it's the exposure you don't make that proves to be the problem. We are not trained to do all the building inspection. Mayor Snyder stated we are only doing code compliance. Cm. Burton felt in court we'would have a tough time. this subject to come back before the Council. He just wanted Mr. Ambrose stated Staff's understanding was clear and the issue was whether or not the City provides code compliance. Cm. Moffatt felt the concept was do we want to go from red tape to blue ribbons. Mayor Snyder stated there is a public safety issue here and he hoped the Council did not lose sight of this. It's not red tape, it's public safety in his opinion. CM- VOL 13 - 137 Regular Meeting May 9, 1994 Cm. Burton stated his personal feeling was that he did not think a house would fall down if the perimeter foundations are bolted and there are shear walls in the house. Mayor Snyder stated he was thankful that the City of Dublin has people like Mro Taugher who disagree with this. Mayor Snyder restated that the Variance would be brought back to the Council at the next meeting and the code compliance inspections issue would also be brought back in the future for discussion by the Council. AUTHORIZATION TO OBTAIN SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL SERVICES RELATED TO REPAYMENT OF FUNDS USED ON DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT (600-30) Assistant City Manager Rankin presented the Staff Report and advised that the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton and the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority entered into an agreement in 1991 which provided for the construction of a two-lane access road between the Southern Pacific Railroad and Tassajara Road. The intent of the original agreement was to have future assessment districts within Dublin's jurisdiction repay the cost of the project. Since that time, there have been changes to tax laws regulating the issuance of tax exempt assessment bonds, and the City Attorney has suggested that given the complexities and specialization in this field, it would be beneficial to have legal expertise from a firm which specializes in bond transactions. The purpose of this project is to assure that the agreement continues to reflect the original intent. Cm. Burton felt it was a good idea to get expert advise, but he questioned the kick back. Mr. Rankin explained that it is typical for firms to take on this tYpe of project on a contingency basis, but City Staff feels the issues are important enough so that it is not a probono situation. The credit back is because they would have a better knowledge of what's involved with the assessment district, if it were formed. Cm. Burton clarified that it basically gives them a foot in the door pricewise o Mr. Rankin advised that this clause could be excluded from the contract. Cm. Burton felt $7,500 was a reasonable figure, with the credit allowance° Cmo Moffatt asked if we would be splitting this with the NPID. Mr. Rankin stated Pleasanton indicated they would probably be using another firm that just recently refinanced their assessment bonds. The City of Pleasanton is requesting the amendments. ,@,@,@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 138 Regular Meeting May 9, 1994 Mr. Ambrose stated the City of Dublin wants to make sure that issuing bonds is an option, and we need to have our own legal counsel to determine this. Cm. Moffatt asked if this was leading to litigation. Mr. Ambrose advised that there is no intention in that direction. We have a mandatory payback of the loan 15 years from the date of acceptance, If we don't get the money from the development community, we simply have to look at what our options are. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm, Houston, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to secure legal services from the firm of Brown & Wood not to exceed $7,500. PROPOSED MEASURE D RECYCLING PROGRAM FY 1994-95 EXPENDITURES (810-30) Assistant City Manager Rankin presented the Staff Report and advised that the legislation implementing Measure D contains specific formulas for the distribution of a portion of the fees back to individual agencies to support recycling and source reduction programs. The Measure D fee collected at the landfill is $6/ton of garbage disposed of in the landfill. Alameda County Waste Management Authority estimates that approximately $8 million per year will be generated from this revenue source. Under the legislation, 80% of these monies are distributed back to cities on a population basis. This formula will change in March of 1995 and at that point, only 50% of the revenues collected will be returned to cities. Mr. Rankin discussed anticipated new programs in the future, as well as prior use of Measure D monies. The City will experience a significant reduction in Measure D revenue beginning in FY 1995-96. Proposed programs to be supported by Measure D funds in 1994-95 included: Christmas Tree Mulching Program - $2,500; Commercial Recycling - $3,000; New Program Development Project - $42,000; and Proposed Residential Recycling Subsidy - $48,500. Residential customers would be charged $ .85/month or $10.20/year for recycling services which represents a savings of 38% on recycling fees and an overall savings of 5.5% on a residential customer's annual garbage/ recycling assessment. It appears that the City Council will be able to levy an annual assessment in FY 1994-95 for single family customers of $104.50 (a 5.5% decrease). Cm. Burton congratulated Staff for the fact that Dublin .is returning money to the citizens. This is unusual in this day and age. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 139 Regular Meeting May 9, 1994 On motion of Cmo Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to establish a public hearing date for the Council to set revised garbage/recycling fees and directed Staff to prepare any necessary agreements with Livermore-Dublin Disposal to implement the multi-family recycling subsidy. OTHER BUSINESS Meeting Reminder (610-05) Mr. Ambrose advised that Supervisor Campbell's Livermore Valley Leadership Group (LVLG) group will be meeting at the Fairgrounds on May lSth at 5:00 p.m. On the agenda for this meeting will be a discussion of Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Transportation Issues (1060-40) Cmo Moffatt distribUted copies of a letter from the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) to MTC expressing concerns with the current policies and emphasis for the region as they related to MTC's vision for the foreseeable future° Cm. Burton commented that he thought this was a good approach to take. Mayor Snyder requested that Cm. Moffatt report back to the Council when anything happens° ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. / M~yor 6~~ ATTEST'. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@.@,@,@,@,@ CM - VOL 13 - 140 Regular Meeting May 9, 1994