Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-24-1992 Adopted CC Minutes
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: ABSENT: Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. 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. Everyone 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 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 presented 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 o 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); Adopted 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 CM - VOL 11 - 318 Regular Meeting August 24, 1999- 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 are 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 939has extensive requirements on the siting and the process you have to go through. Cmo 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 Cmo 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 WASTEM~,NAGEMENT (ALAMEDA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 600-40) REQUEST FOR SUPPORT OF MAINTENANCE ROAD/BIKE PATH UNDER I-SS0 AT ~LAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WC DISTRICT ZONE 7 CHANNEL (820-20) Public Works Director Thompson advised that the City had received a letter from Fredrick Go Doolittle~ a Dublin resident, requesting support for the construction of a Zone 7 maintenance road along Alamo Creek, under 1-580o 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 Engineers 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 t~e second reading of a proposed Ordinance that would locate bus stops on both the north and south sides of Amador Valley Boulevard near Dough~rty 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 Cmo Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 14 - 9Z ESTABLISHING BUS STOPS ON AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD WEST OF DOUGHERTY ROAD CM - VOL 11 - 320 Regular Meeting August 24, 1992 PUBLIC HE~,.RING - AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NOo 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 certificationse CM - VOL 11 - 3Zl 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 PER~IT 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 constructedby a former owner, possibly as much as 20 years~ago and to remove or reconstruct the fireplace would be a great expense. CM - VOL ~1 - 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. 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 title. 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 there 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 cost 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 Meeting August 24, 1992 Inspector did not go in the attic as Mro Taugher stated. Adding ties will greatly enhance the structure of the fireplace. Mro 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° Mro 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. Cmo Burton felt there were a lot of things in this town that could not withstand a 6o earthquake. If Mro 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 J 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 - 39-4 Regular Meeting August 24, 1999- 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 t© resolve the issue without.making him tear the fireplace down. Cm. Moffatt agreed to change his second to the motion. On motion of Cmo Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous voter the Council with the changes discussed~ adopted RESOLUTION NO. ~05 - 92 APPROVING VARIANCE TO SECTION $704-C OF THE DUBLIN BUILDING CODE TO PERMIT AN EXISTING BRICK FIREPLACE AND CHIMNEY TO REMAIN AT 7984 TAMARACK DRIVE PUBLIC HEARING APPEALS FOR EXEMPTION FROM MANDATORY GARBAGE SERVICE (8~0-Z0) 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 adetermination 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 ~ - 325 Regular Meeting August 24v 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 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 5o32.080~ 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. Mro 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 have to tell him to subscribe to garbage service. CM - VOL 11 - 326 Regular 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 dOo Moffatt stated he asks the same thing° Mr° Hernandez stated if he has to pay, he will pay, but he will not put 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 rule 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 voted the Council adopted CM - VOL 11 - 327 Regular Meeting August 24, 1992 RESOLUTION NO, ~0~ - 92 DENYING AN EXEMPTION FROM MANDATORY GARBAGE SERVICE SERGIO HERNANDEZ, 7081 ALLEGHENY DRIVE Cm. Burton voted against this motion. MaYor Snyder opened public hearing #Z: 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 NOo 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. Mro 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 himselfa~ 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 Z4~ 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. Cm~ 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 BENHAMOUv 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 weeko 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 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 notrequire citizens to have garbage pick up. Ms. Tanya Clark stated they see messy garbage pickups on their street all 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 recyclableso 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. Cmo Burton questioned if she was a lawyer as she made an impressive presentation° However~ he stated he got a mixed message. He was sympathetic at first and then they brought all these other things up and 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 $60 Ms. Tanya Clark responded yes because she only works i day each week and her mother's social security is all they get. Ms. Ella Clark stated they will pay no more. CM - VOL ~1 - 330 Regula= 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 Halle 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 olosed the publio 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 Cmo Jeffery, Cm. Howard and Mayor Snydero 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: Drive° Edward Bressinck, 11657 solana 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. CM - VOL 11 - 331 Regular Meeting August 24, 1992 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 Ramono 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 - 9Z GR~NTING AN EXEMPTION FROM MANDATORY GARBAGE SERVICE EDWARD BRESSINCK~ 11657 SOLANA DRIVE Regular 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 5~32o080, all solid waste produced on the property shall be removed by the collector at the minimum level of service. MSo 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. Cmo 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. MSo 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. CM - VOL 11 - 333 Regular Meeting August 24, 1992 Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm~ Jeffery made a motion, which was seconded by Mayor Snyder to deny the exemption° Cmo 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 Cmo 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 heres 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'v 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 vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 108 - 9Z DENYING AN EXEMPTION FROM I~%NDATORY GARBAGE SERVICE HELEN FONTAINE~ 8656 BEVERLY LANE Cmo 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 retain 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. 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 improvementso 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 ito 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. Burtons 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 - VOL 11 - 335 Regular Meeting August 24, 1992 DECLARIN~ ILLEGAL ON-PREMISES ADVERTISIN~ DISPLAY SI~N 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; howeverg 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 displayg 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 o 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. Cmo 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 form. 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 toapprove 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~ H°ward, and by unanimous vote~ the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 110 - 92 DECLARING AN ILLEGAL ON-PREMISES ADVERTISING DISPLAY SIGN AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE (ANERICAN BUILDING COMPONENTS - 6Z47-53 DOUGHERTY ROAD) AMENDMENTS TO CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO CHANGE QUORUM FOR CMA BOARD 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. Mro 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. Cmo Burton questioned how compensation would be established. Cm. Jeffery stated she thought it would probably be the same as for regular meetings, which she thought was about $75. Cm. Moffatt asked if there is a cap on the number of meetings° Cm. 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 A~ENDING THE CFa% JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO CHANGE QUORUM TO CMA BO~%RD AND PAY REASONABLE SUM TO ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR ATTENDING MEETINGS 1-580/Z-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 1-680 traffic to eastbound 1-580. 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 August 24, 1992 Jim Oberin with Bissell & Karn gave an overview of the project. firm was selected as the designers for the Measure B project. showed computerized video graphics of the proposed project. His He Cm. Jeffery asked when the project would be qompleted. 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 1-680 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 1-680 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 Pleasantono Mr. Satow advised that Caltrans is doing the environmental work for the 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. There isn't any way our community can pay for this. A1 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 Bo ~M - VOL 11 - 339 Regular Meeting August 24, 1992 Mr. Gallardo stated they go out of business 6 months after the last bill is paid Or by the year 2002. 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 EIR, we are backed up against a wallo 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 an 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. Mre 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 1-580 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, CM - VOL 11 - 340 Regular Meeting August 24~ 1992 those ramps were part of the overall concept, for east and west. The flyovers would provide access to adjacent interchanges from 1-680. 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. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 112 - 92 REGARDING 1-580/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 SRREo 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 11 - 341 Regular 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 Californiav et al. vs. Rosendin Electric, Inc., in accordance with Government Code Section 54956.9(a) o ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 pom. Mayor CM- VOL 11 - 342 Regular Meeting August 24, 1992