Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.01 DraftCC 1-6-04 Min R ( UL R .M ETI ( - J_A UARY 6, gO04 A regular meeting of the Dublin City council was held on Tuesday, January 6, 2004, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:0:5 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers McCormick, Oravetz, Zika and Mayor Lockhart. ABSENT: Councilmember Sbranti PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the Council, Staff and those present. PROCLAMATION 7:04 p.m. 3.1 (610-50) Mayor Lockhart read and presented a Proclamation to Dr. Harvey Scudder in honor of his 20+ years of service to the community on the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Board of Trustees. APPOINTMENT TO ALAMEDA COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT 7:07 p.m. $.2 (110~30) Mayor Lockhart appointed Jim Kohnen to a term on the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Board, which expires January 2, 2006. On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Vm. Zika, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Sbranti absent), the Council adopted CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING January 6, 2004 RESOLUTION NO. 1 -04 MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES (JIM KOHNEN - TERM ENDING JANUARY 2, 2006) and directed the City Clerk to forward a certified copy of the Resolution to the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District. APPOINTMENT TO SENIOR CENTER ADVISORY COMMITFEE 7:10p.m. 3.3 (110~30) As a result of an opening on this Committee, Mayor Lockhart has appointed Elsie Jennings to fill the unexpired term which ends in December 2004. On motion of Vm. Zika, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Sbranti absent), the Council confirmed the Mayor's appointment of Elsie Jennings to the Senior Center Advisory Committee to a term ending in December 2004. PROCLAMATION TO LEE S. THOMPSON 7:11 p.m. 3.4 (610~50) Mayor Lockhart read and presented a Proclamation to Lee S. Thompson, "Engineering Professional Extraordinaire", who recently retired from the City of Dublin. Lee served as the City's Public Works Director since 1983. Lee thanked everyone for honoring him in this way. He stated he has attended over 500 City Council meetings in the last 20 years. We used to meet at the old library and had to put up and take down chairs and we also were in the old leased building down at 6500 Dublin Boulevard. The reason for Dublin's success is the forward thinking Council and dedicated staff. As enjoyable as it has been attending these 500 meetings, Lee stated he is really looking forward to spending Tuesday evenings at home with his family. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING January 6, 2004 PAGE 2 APPROVAL OF STREET NAME DESIGNATION "LEE THOMPSON WAY~ FOR AREA F NORTH, DUBLIN RANCH 7:16 p.m. $.5 (820-50) Mayor Lockhart advised that in recognition of Lee Thompson's 20 years of distinguished service as Public Works Director, the City proposes to designate a future street in Area F North, Dublin Ranch as ~Lee Thompson Way". There is no financial impact to the City. New street name signs will be installed by the developer of Area F North, when the street is constructed. Vm. Zika stated this is very very appropriate. On motion of Vm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Sbranti absen0, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 2- 04 DESIGNATING A NON-LOADED STREET IN AREA F NORTH, DUBLIN RANCH AS LEE THOMPSON WAY Mr. Thompson indicated his surprise and stated to have a street named after you Wl'thout having to die is really amazing. This is a great honor. 7:18 p.m. John T. Collins, Sr. Allegheny Drive stated he thought the historical preservation ordinance was to be on the last or this agenda. With regard to the oversize vehicle ordinance, he suggested the City invoke the Orchard Supply principle and do it yourself. The poem he read at the last meeting was somewhat serious. It is a bad law and please revoke it. Mayor Lockhart advised that the report related to the historical preservation ordinance will be coming back to the City Council at the January 20th City Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING January 6, 2004 PAGE 3 CONSENT CALENDAR 7:19 p.m. Items 4. I through 4.10 On motion of Vm. Zika, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Sbranti absent), the Council took the following actions: Approved (4.1) Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 16, 2003; Adopted (4.2 600-:30) RESOLUTION NO. 3- 04 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH DUBLIN FINE ARTS FOUNDATION AND BRYAN TEDRICK FOR DOLAN PARK ART IN THE PARK PROJECT Received (4.3 $90-20) Annual Report of Developer Impact Fee Funds Deposits: Pursuant to Government Code Sections 66002, 66006 and 66008 (AB 1600); Received (4.4 330-50) Financial Reports for the Month of November 2003; Adopted (4.5 570-20) RESOLUTION NO. 4 - 04 APPROVING DISABLED PERSONS PARKING ZONE ON HOBSTONE PLACE Approved (4.6 330-20) Budget Changes for Budget Carryovers from Fiscal Year 2002- 03 to Fiscal Year 200:3-04; Accepted (4.7 600-30) improvements under Freeway Underpass Art Agreement; CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING January 6, 2004 PAGE 4 Adopted (4.8 350-40) RESOLUTION NO. 5 - 04 DECLARING CERTAIN ITEMS AS UNCLAIMED AND SURPLUS PROPERTY (2 POLICE CARS) and authorized Staff to proceed with transfer of property to Nationwide Auction Systems pursuant to the current agreement with the City; Accepted (4.9 600~35) improvements constructed under Contracts 03-09 and 03-15 (Civic Center Front Counter Upgrade Projec0 and authorized final payment to RoSa Construction, less retention to be paid in 35 days if no subcontractor claims are received; Approved (4.10 300-40) the Warrant Register in the amount of $3,690,809.19. PUBHC HEARING VICIOUS DOG HEARING APPEAL - BISCHOFF FAMILY 7:20 p.m. 6.1 (500-40) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Administrative Analyst Amy Cunningham presented the Staff Report which included a detailed chronology of the events. A Vicious Dog Hearing was conducted on September 24, 2003, in accordance with the Dublin Municipal Code Section regarding Animal Control; findings from the hearing were issued on September 25, 2003. The findings declared the dog vicious and imposed restrictions on the dog. A second Vicious Dog Hearing was conducted on November 25, 2003, to address violations of the previous hearing conditions; findings from the hearing were issued on December 1, 2003. The findings declared that the dog should not be returned to his owner in order to protect the safety of the community. The Bischoff Family appealed the Hearing Director's determination on the following grounds: 1) Improper Service of Hearings; and 2) Cover-Up of Proof of Service by City and County Employees. The Bischoff Family has presented no evidence to the City to support the grounds for their, appeal. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING January 6, 2004 PAGE 5 In summary, Ms. Cunningham stated Staff recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing~ obtain any necessary information from concerned parties, deliberate and determine whether or not the findings and determination of the November 25, 2003 hearing should be upheld. If the City Council determines that said findings and determination should not be upheld, the City Council will need to issue alternate findings regarding the merits of the appeal and determine whether other restrictions should be imposed, or actions taken. Mayor Lockhart asked if there was any proof of vaccinations? Ms. Cunningham replied yes with licensing, the rabies vaccination has to be confirmed. Ms. Cunningham stated they attempted and were unable to get pictures of the second bite victim's injuries but he is here now and can show his injuries. Cm. McCormick discussed the code requirements for noticing. Vm. Zika commented that on page 21 there was a Vector Control Services District report which indicates the dog was vaccinated on November 8, 2003 and the vaccination was good for one year. Officer Potstada stated according to Animal Control records there is an expiration date of 11/12/06. He explained that the first shot as a puppy is good for 1 year and then the next is for $ years. Darrell Banks came forward and showed his November injuries which required antibiotics and for which medical treatment was sought. City Attorney Silver explained the rules for the hearing. The owner of the dog is Robert Bischoff and he indicated he wanted Michael Bischoff to speak for him. Hearsay evidence is not admissible and it is not direct testimony. The owner of the dog would have to testify in order for it to be direct evidence. The appeal is restricted to the basis of the appeal, which was improper notice. The appellant needs to produce somebody who has direct knowledge. Michael Bischoff stated with all due respect, he filled out a slip indicating he would speak on Robert's behalf. A packet of information was presented to the City Council this evening. The Council agenda packets were given to the City Council on Friday. He called Ms. McCormick this afternoon to try and give her his information. He stated he was served at 9 p.m. last night with notice of this hearing. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING January 6, 2004 PAGE 6 Ms. Cunningham advised that on December 0th, the Bischoff family was sent a letter notifying them that their appeal would be on the agenda tonight. Also, on January 2~d, the Staff Report was put in the mail and then an officer personally served it last night. He was unable to serve it on two previous attempts, as no one answered the door. Mr. Bischoff discussed his experience with the City related to a previous incident of a dog bite and vicious dog hearing which occurred with their dog, Buford. The City needs to take into account and address puppies. When they are well cared for and trained they can be good dogs. Our Ordinance is very restricted. If you lay the Food and Agriculture Code next to ours, it is extremely tough. They tried to locate the Banks, in order to make sure the kid was okay. The first incident, the kid said he was okay and he then rode off on his bike. He stated Robert is unable to give much testimony. Mr. Bischoff told the story of how he almost killed Buddy in April, 2002 on High Street, the day after his son's birthday. The people at the accident scene begged him to take the dog home and care for him. He took him home and stuck him in the garage. Buford had died just prior to this. Buddy became Robert's birthday present. Robert had to move to Phoenix last year and took Buddy with him and took care of him without any problems. He is 18 years old. The lawyers and judges want to take a kid and make him defend someone near and dear to his heart. Mr. Bischoff stated if you follow the Code and the CA Code of Civil Procedure, that piece of mail needs to hit the mailbox well before it did. He never got it and still has never received it. Buford got a blue ribbon at obedience school at the City's class. Buddy is scheduled for obedience school. They have fixed the fence even beyond the requirements. Somebody will be with Buddy 24/7. He expressed their concern that after being locked up for 2 months, it will be like starting from ground zero with him. Hopefully they can rehabilitate him. He urged the City Council to take a 5 minute recess and read the materials they submitted. Catherine Burk, Landale Avenue, stated she lives at the Bischoff house. They have never received any mail from the City, rather than what Robert was served. It doesn't seem fair that you can have a hearing, find results and then he is found in violation of the results. They should be given an opportunity to correct the problems at hand and make sure it doesn't happen any further and should be given their dog back. It isn't fair. Justin Nofchisey, Starward Drive, stated the dog has never hurt him. The dog is very playful. He never barks at anyone and would never hurt anyone. Taking the dog away would be wrong. When he first met the dog, it wasn't trained, when Robert got back from AZ, the dog was well trained. It would be wrong to take the dog from him. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING January 6, 2004 PAGE 7 Erin Aguilar, Ironwood Drive, stated her husband is an Oakland firefighter. He is the one who found Buddy. They kept him at their house trying to find the owner. He is a sweet dog, very playful He didn't scare her at all. She read a letter from her husband: ~TO WHOM IT MA Y CONCERN~ MY NAME IS RICHARD A GUILAR AND I LIVE A T 7678 IRONWOOD DR WHICH IS NEXTDOOR TO WHERE THE INCIDENT WITH BUDDY HAPPENED. ON THAT DA Y BUDDY WAS WALKING INFRONT OF MY HOUSE. I TRIED TO CALL BUDDY O VER~ BUT HE WAS SCARED OFME. I WAS FINALL YABLE TO MAKE CONTACT WITH BUDDYAFTER GIVING HIM A FEW TREATS. I CHECKED BUDDY'S TAG, AROUND HIS NECK, BUT WAS UNABLE TO FIND OUT WHERE HE LIVED. I FIGURED HE WOULD BE ABLE TO FIND HIS WA Y HOME. AROUND THAT TIME THE KIDS NEXTDOOR BEGAN TO PLA Y BASKETBALL. BUDDY WENT OVER TO THE KIDS AND BEGAN TO PLA Y. THE KIDS WOULD HOLD THE BALL OUT~ BUDDY WOULD LEAP FOR THE BALL~ AND THE KIDS WOULD PULL THE BALL A WAY. I WARNED THE CHILDREN ABOUT PLA YING WITH AN UNKNOWN DOG. THE CHILDREN CONTINUED TO PLA Y WITI-I BUDDY. I WAS WORKING IN MY GARAGE WHEN OSCAR~ M Y NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR~ CAME 0 VER AND TOLD ME A KID WAS BIT B Y BUDDY. I WENT 0 VER TO BUDDY WHO WAS SITIING NEXT TO THE BALL. I HELD HIS COLLAR AND LEAD HIM TO MY BA CKYARD AFTER I SECURED BUDDY IN MY BA CKYARD I WENT OVER TO OSCAR'S HOUSE TO CHECK ON THE BO Y. I AM A PARAMEDIC/FIREFIGHTER WITH THE OAKZAND FIRE DEPARTMENE I HA VE TRAINING FOR TRA TING WOUNDS LIKE THIS. THE BOY HAD A WOUND APPROX. 1 INCH LONG TO THE SIDE O£ HIS ABDOMEN. THE WOUND WAS NOT DEEP AND IN MY OPINION DID NOT SEEM SERIOUS. I CALMED THE BO Y DO WArAND ASSURED HIM HE WOULD BE 0t0t Y. IT WAS HARD TO TELL IF THE CUT ON THE BOY'S ABDOMEN WAS CAUSED BYA TOOTH OR THE DOGS NAILS. IF BUDDY WERE A VISClOUS DOG HE WOULD HA VE CA USED A LOT MORE DAMA GE TO THE BO Y. AFTER CHECKING ON THE BO Y I WENT BA CK TO MY HOUSE TO CHECK ON BUDDY. BUDDYIS A WELL BEHAVED DOG. I HAD A BALL INMYBACKYARD. I WOULD KICK IT AND BUDDY WOULD CHASE FL. ATNO TIME DID BUDDY GROUL~ BARK OR TRY TO BITEME. I EVEN CONSIDERED TAKING BUDDY IN FOR MY 0 WN~ BUT MY WIFE AND I ALREADY HA VE TWO DOCS. I LEARNED FROM BUDDY'S 0 WNERS THAT THE CITY OF DUBLIN WANTS TO PUT BUDD Y DOWN. I WROTE THIS BECAUSE I FELT THE NEED TO HELP BUDDY. THE LI77ZE AMMOUNT OF TIME I SPENT WITH BUDDYI COULD TELL HE WAS A GOOD DOG. ALL HE DID WAS GETA LITTLE EXCITED WHILE PLA YING BALL WITH THE KIDS. I TRUEL Y BELIEVE HE NEVER MENT TO HURT THAT BOY. THIS WAS NOTBUDDY'S FAULT. THIS IS THE FAULT OF THE OWNE~ FOR NOTSECURING BUDD Y~ AND IS ALSO THE FA UL T OF THE KIDS~ FOR PLA YING WITH AN UNKNOWN DOG. PLEASE DO NOT FUT BUDDY DO WN~ HE IS A GOOD DOG AND HE DOES NO DESERVE THIS. SINCERLEY~ RICHARD A G UILAR 1/6/04 ~ Heather Horton, Harvest Road, Pleasanton, stated she is Robert's girlfriend and has known him for 3 years. All she has ever known from Buddy is affection. He gets excited to see you. He is one of the sweetest dogs she has ever known. This dog does not deserve to be put down. Even ff he is not returned to his owners, he does not deserve to be put down. Give him a chance. Give him to another family. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING January 6, 2004 PAGE 8 Mayor Lockhart stated she had gone through the table of contents and read the statements submitted by Mr. Bischoff. Vm. Zika and Cm. Oravetz indicated the same thing. Vm. Zika commented the information doesn't speak to the issue of proper service. Cm. McCormick clarified that they are to deal with the issue of service and notification. City Attorney Silver explained that initially there is a hearing held before the director and the Staff Report indicates there was such a hearing. The second step is the owner of the dog can appeal to the City Council. Provisions that relate to an appeal are not actually in the Animal Control Chapter, but earlier in the Dublin Municipal Code. Section 1.04.050 provides that a hearing date is set after there has been an appeal and there must be at least 5 days notice. Tonight's hearing is limited to the grounds for the appeal, which were notice and cover up. Michael Bischoff says he did not receive notice, but they have not heard from the dog's owner, Robert Bischoff. Vm. Zika read the findings, "To protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community, "Buddy" shall not be returned to his owner, any family member, or associate. The dog shall remain in the care of Animal Control staff until it has been determined if the dog should be re-adopted by an unassociated party; sent to a rescue organization; or humanely destroyed." Ms. Cunningham stated she has spoken to the animal shelter people and they feel because the dog has bitten 2 people they would not adopt it out, due to liability issues. Cm. Oravetz asked about rescue people and what they do. Ms. Cunningham stated in this case it would be rescue people who would be able to have the dog in some type of farm area in a restricted area where it would not injure anyone. Buddy is a 95 pound, 2 year old Rottweiler. He was about a year old at the time they found and adopted him. Mayor Lockhart stated she feels bad about this but explained that our codes are to protect the people of Dublin. People who want to have pets have a responsibility to protect people. She said the biggest problem is the family has not protected the community. She does not harbor any ill will for a 95 pound dog that gets out and bites people, but stated she does not feel the family has done its job. A young man who has a scar on his back certainly doesn't feel protected. The dog gets out. It is hard to believe these documented times are the only times Buddy has gotten out. Your neighbors have a CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING January 6, 2004 PAGE 9 right to feel safe and to not have to worry about a 95 pound animal coming after them. She doesn't want to turn this dog loose on the streets in Dublin again. She stated she did not feel Alameda County has any reason to pick on this dog and she did not buy the argument that there has been any attempt to cover up as there is no reason to do this. If the dog had stayed in their yard as he was supposed to, there would not be 2 people with bite marks on them. She would not like to hear from a third person. She will support the recommendation of Staff on this issue. Vm. Zika stated we know at least 3 times that Buddy has gotten out. If we support letting Buddy go back and he bites someone else, we subject the citizens of Dublin to a massive lawsuit. This poor puppy is going to be punished because you didn't take care of it. Hopefully they will be able to place him out on a farm where he can run free and not injure anyone. He stated he was not willing to give them another chance when they have blown it 3 times. He will deny the request. Cm. McCormick stated she could not find any compelling evidence that the mail did not go out, whether the Bischoffs received it or not. They were mailed and this is the basis of the appeal. She stated she is a dog lover and agreed they were really remiss in taking care of the dog. Unfortunately, poor Buddy will have to pay for this. She stated she could not support the grounds for the appeal. Cm. Oravetz stated he agrees with his esteemed colleagues. Their job is to protect the community. He stated he is also a dog lover and explained how he takes care of his dog. Unfortunately, they haven't taken care of Buddy. He stated he would not support destroying Budd~ it would be a great thing to send him to a farm, but he doesn't want to see him destroyed. Ms. Cunningham again stated Animal Control would not adopt him out in the community because he is too much of a liability. She stated they can look into rescue, but can't guarantee that a group will take him. Officer Potstada stated there is no guarantee that a rescue organ will take Buddy due to his history. We can explore this. He and the animal shelter people have spent time with Buddy and they feel he is a threat to the community. They will not adopt him out. Ms. Silver suggested the Council take a straw vote and she can then prepare a resolution for adoption at the next meeting. The appeal was based on improper service of hearings and cover-up of proof of service by City and County employees. The record indicates the dates and times of noticing for the Vicious Dog hearings and findings, as well as notice of tonight's appeal hearing. The Bischoff appeal was based on the fact that notice wasn't properly provided. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING January 6, 2004 PAGE 10 Mayor Lockhart and Councilmembers McCormick, Oravetz and Zika agreed by straw vote to support denial of the appeal. A Resolution will be placed on the agenda of the next City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ~ UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT 2003-01 DOUGHERTY ROAD FROM SIERRA LANE TO DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND DUBLIN BOULEVARD FROM DUBLIN COURT TO DOUGHERTY ROAD 8:17p.m. ¢.2 (1020-30) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. City Engineer Melissa Morton presented the Staff Report and advised that this is the first of two public hearings regarding the establishment of an underground utility district on Dougherty Road from Sierra Lane to Dublin Boulevard, and on Dublin Boulevard from Dublin Court to Dougherty Road. The cost of undergrounding the utilities will be paid by Rule 20A Funds. There will be some associated costs, such as installation of street lighting, which will be paid through the Dougherty Road Improvement project. No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Vm. Zika, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Sbranti absen0, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED the Ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 8 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) PA 03~052 8:20 p.m. 6.3 (450-20) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Assistant Planner Marnie Waffle presented the Staff Report and discussed in detail the various proposed changes. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES vOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING January 6, 2004 PAGE 11 On September 2, 1997, the City Council adopted a comprehensive revision of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Implementation of the Zoning Ordinance over the past few years has revealed some areas where the Ordinance requires clarification, improvement, and further revision. Staff is recommending amendments to the following Chapters for clarification and internal consistency: Chapter 8.08.020, Definitions; Chapter 8.40, Accessory Structures and Uses Regulation; Chapter 8.64, Home Occupation Regulations; and Chapter 8.116, Zoning Clearance. Vm. Zika asked why we had the original requirement of 6' fence for automobile/vehicle storage lots. City Manager Ambrose stated we inherited the County Zoning Ordinance and this was fairly common in the 70's for things stored outside. Vm. Zika stated he was under the impression that the 6' fence was a security issue. Mayor Lockhart stated she was concerned about the message we are sending. She doesn't want our car dealers to get in the habit of thinking parking lots are storage lots. We have shopping centers we are trying to improve. If they are getting money for parking spaces where is the incentive? This could be okay on a temporary basis occasionally. Cm. Oravetz stated he has noticed this also and does not disagree. We should put a time limit on. Mayor Lockhart stated this may not be the proper forum for this discussion. She doesn't want them depending on this as a permanent solution for storage. Mr. Ambrose stated the City Council can look at this with a CUP process on a case~by~ case basis. Mayor Lockhart clarified that the Council could look at the Ordinance in the future and decide where they might be. Planning Manager Jeri Ram discussed various situations in town and stated Staff has been able to deal with 4. They've had discussions with public safety and the Police Department related to see-through fence versus totally screened. Discussion ensued related to the definition in the code, which says it shall be screened. We are somewhat limited because of this definition. The City Council could bring forward on appeal a specific site they did not feel is appropriate. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING January 6, 2004 PAGE 12 Vm. Zika stated he would like to put a time limit on automobile storage lots. Ms. Ram stated more permanent lots are in industrial areas. We are encouraging the more permanent ones in other areas. Mayor Lockhart stated she felt this is setting us up for problems down the road. Mr. Ambrose stated a CUP goes away when you approve a new zoning. Mayor Lockhart asked if there is any way to limit the location or distance from a main road or any way to discourage these lots from popping up on mail arterials within the community. Ms. Ram stated we could conceivably say we wouldn't allow it in certain areas even with a CUP. Locations which might be further back could possibly be considered on a temporary basis. They look at this on a case~by~case basis. The Planning Commission will look carefully at this and if the City Council is not in agreement with a Planning Commission decision, they can appeal it. If an applicant comes in, Staff can communicate to the development community the way the City Council feels. Vm. Zika suggested if an applicant comes in for a temporary storage without a 6' fence, we can tell them to put a time limit on the CUP. Staff advised that they will look at a Zoning Ordinance amendment and see what we can do with a temporary CUP. Mayor Lockhart commented on Chapter 8.64 which talks about home occupation regulations and says indoor is limited to one room. How do we enforce this? Ms. Waffle explained the business license process and a required supplemental questionnaire. They also sign the form and attest that they are providing correct information, so we use this to ensure they are abiding by the regulations. Violations are investigated on a complaint basis. Child care is exempted from this. The regulation is basically to ensure that it remains a home. Mayor Lockhart inquired as to where and how we address business vehicles parked in neighborhoods? Ms. Waffle stated the home occupation regulations only allow for one vehicle under SA ton. Violations would be a code enforcement matter. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING January 6, 2004 PAGE 13 No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. On motion of Vm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Sbranti absent), the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED the Ordinance. AWARD OF BID, CONTRACT 03-17, DUBLIN SENIOR CENTER 8:48 p.m. 7.1 (600-35) Parks & Facilities Development Manager Herma Lichtenstein presented the Staff Report. In November 2003, the City Council authorized Staff to advertise the Dublin Senior Center for bids. A total of 10 bids were received with the low bid of $4,581,101 being submitted by McCrary Construction Company. One bid protest was received but it was determined that there is no merit to the alleged protest. City Attorney Silver explained why we rejected the protest. We originally had alternates included, but we removed them. City Manager Ambrose stated the City has designated reserves for this project. In Fiscal Year 2004-05 the adopted CIP scheduled about $1.6 million in General Fund monies to fund the cost of this project. If the City doesn't receive VLF funds in 2004-05, the City Council will have to look at this. Mayor Lockhart stated she is more afraid of facing the seniors rather than the VLF situation. On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Vm. Zika, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Sbranti absent), the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 6- 04 REJECTING THE PROTEST RECEIVED AND AWARDING CONTRACT 03-17, DUBLIN SENIOR CENTER, TO McCRARY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ($4,581,101) Paul Silvas asked when this will start. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING January 6, 2004 PAGE 14 Ms. Lichtenstein advised that Staff will have a pre~construction meeting with the contractor on Friday and we anticipate, weather permitting, starting toward the end of this month with construction. There will be a 14-16 months required for construction. Mr. Ambrose stated regarding groundbreaking, Staff will determine when the most appropriate time will be, and will then get back to the City Council. Mayor Lockhart asked about deconstruction, and if we have a good plan in place. Ms. Lichtenstein replied they are required to meet the Alameda County recycling requirements. A lot of the building is not reusable, but we will do as much as we can with recycling. ADOPTION OF COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN 8:56 p.m. 8.1 (520-30) Administrative Analyst II Jason Behrmann presented the Staff Report. The Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan addresses the City's responsibilities as they relate to natural disasters, human-caused emergencies and technological incidents. It provides a framework for coordination of response and recovery efforts within the City in coordination with local, State and Federal agencies. The Plan establishes an emergency organization to direct and control operations during a period of emergency by assigning responsibilities to specific personnel. This is an update to the existing Plan. Mayor Lockhart questioned the section on succession of officers and asked if this is something we do. Mr. Ambrose stated it has been a while since we've done this. In the event of a disaster and you can't put together a constituted Council, you put together other officers. Mr. Behrmann discussed the fact that temporary officers are appointed by the County. We will have to look into this. There is a whole line of succession established by state law. Mayor Lockhart asked if we have any way for residents in the community to register if they have special needs? CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING January 6, 2004 PAGE 15 Mr. Behrmann stated the City doesn't have any kind of special registration, but often individuals participate in special organizations that may look after people who need additional assistance. This would have to be something voluntary and many people don't want to be on any City list. Mr. Ambrose advised that in some cases fire and police agencies have information of special needs. Staff can check into this. Cm. McCormick commented that it says the plan meets requirements of Alameda County. Did this go before the County officially and formally and they checked it off? Mr. Behrmann replied the information doesn't have to be approved by the County, but rather this is based on a model by the state and a lot of the information comes from the state. The basic premise is the SIMS model, which requires that in order to receive funding, cities must follow this protocol. Mayor Lockhart asked ff we are working on an agreement with Camp Parks for emergency services? Mr. Behrmann stated we still need to explore some of the issues. On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Sbranti absen0, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 7- 04 ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN AS THE CITY OF DUBLIN'S OFFICIAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN NEW SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING FRANCHISE AGREEMENT OPTIONS 9:11 p.m. 8.2 (810-10) Administrative Analyst Jason Behrmann presented the Staff Report and advised that the current Franchise Agreement for solid waste and recycling services with Waste Management is set to expire June $0, 2005. The city Council has :5 options: 1) seek competitive proposals; 2) negotiate exclusively with current provider, Waste Management; or $) extend the current Agreement 12 months through June $0, 2006. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING January 6, 2004 PAGE 16 Mr. Behrmann explained that the timing for this decision is important. The City has approximately 18 months before the current Franchise Agreement expires. If the City Council chooses Option 1 or 2, the City would need to hire a consultant to perform a program assessment, prepare a Request for Proposal, solicit and review proposal(s), and negotiate a contract. The total annual value of the City's current franchise is $5,O10,633. If the Council elects to hire a consultant to assist with this process, it is estimated that the cost for services could be as high as $100,000. We are not required to necessarily take the lowest bid. Waste Management District Manager Patrick Gavin stated for the programs that were in place and the people supporting this City on a regular basis, they have cut this in half and they have made improvements. We have all the services that are out there. His people do a great job on a regular basis. Their rates are appropriate for the service. They would like to negotiate and get a new contract. They are very respectful of their relationship and would certainly like to continue it. Mayor Lockhart stated she has been working with Waste Management Authority as a representative for a number of years. She stated she does not have a problem with WM; they have been really helpful in a number of ways and working hard and starting new programs. Sheila Fagliano, Recycling Coordinator, has done a lot of work in the community. She stated she recently heard an interesting quote from WMA. Their Staff feels that right now we are experiencing in Alameda County the most competitive bid atmosphere they have ever seen. There are 5 major companies bidding for services in Alameda County. She felt it would be due diligence for residents to find out what is out there. Since our next goal is 75%, it is really important that we have a good grasp on what we are doing. We need to know what's out there. She would support our going out to bid at this point. Cm. Oravetz stated he agreed with the Mayor. They've done a good job, but as a Councilmember looking at what's best for our City, we do need to see what's out there. WM has done a great job. Vm. Zika asked what programs others have that we don't? Mayor Lockhart mentioned commercial food waste programs and residential ones that are doing very well. Oakland is picking up 50% of residential food waste now. If it is a good bid atmosphere, this is a good opportunity to take advantage of. A lot of cities have CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING January 6, 2004 PAGE 17 split their service and have one hauler for recyclables and one for waste. There are a lot of different ways to cut this pie and a lot of cities are doing a lot better than 52%. Vm. Zika stated a couple of years ago one of our neighbors got a fantastic quote and then shortly after, they came in and told them they must raise their rates 40%. Cm. McCormick stated she felt it is probably healthy after 8 years to look at this. Can't we just go out to bid the way we do other things? She stated she hates the idea of spending $100,000. Mayor Lockhart stated the consultant will involve WMA and this is a complicated issue. Assistant City Manager Joni Pattillo stated it is standard practice that you have a consultant look at it from a different perspective and look to make sure we are comparing apples to apples. This would be good due diligence on our part. Mr. Behrmann advised that we can use a portion of the money from our Measure D reserves. Cm. McCormick asked if our School District cafeterias are a part of the commercial food waste program? Mr. Behrmann stated they are not listed. Sheila was working very hard with Murray School and the last he heard they were to be a pilot program. The problem with schools is the maintenance staff and they perceive sorting food as a labor issue. They've spent many hours with the School District and it has been a struggle to get them onboard. Cm. McCormick stated she was looking at the restaurants included and noted that a lot of her favorites are not included. Can we mandate participation? Have other cities done this? Mr. Behrmann advised that we can charge them for it, but we can't make them do it. Mayor Lockhart stated she felt it is important for our hauler to work with planning to make sure locations are convenient and we can plan for it to be convenient for that facility to use a recycling bin. Mr. Behrmann stated they recently picked up Santa Rita Jail and this greatly increased our numbers. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING January 6, 2004 PAGE 18 On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Sbranti absen0, the Council agreed to move forward with Option 1 and seek competitive proposals. OTHER BUSINESS 9:36 p.m. City Manager Ambrose reminded everyone of the Strategic Planning Workshop on Friday, January 16th from $ a.m. - 5 p.m. Cm. Oravetz reported that the LAVTA Chair changed some committee assignments. They are still searching for a Director. The City got a grade A on their housing element. Other cities around us didn't get the same grade. Money Magazine said we were I 0th on the list for best cities under 100,000 in the west. Vm. Zika gave the Council each a copy of letters from the Th-Valley Transit Authority and BART which indicate that a lot of our Congestion Management money seems to be disappearing and going to SF. They don't address any of the projects on the top 20 list in the Tri~Valley. Cm. McCormick brought to the attention of the City Council that we are about to lose our direct BART link to the SF airport. We were not notified in advance. Mayor Lockhart stated she was disappointed that we did not know this was coming. Cm. McCormick suggested we could communicate with BART leadership and protest this. Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff can prepare something for the next meeting. Cm. Oravetz stated this is important for visitors coming to Dublin. He stated he felt the Th-Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau should be complaining for us. Maybe we could also talk with Mayors Pico, Kamena and Wilson as they might support this along with US. Vm. Zika sug,~;ested we could request the data they are usin$. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING January 6, 2004 PAGE 19 Mayor Lockhart stated she is happy Dublin is doing well and looks forward to a good 2004. 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:44 p.m. Mayor ATI~EST: City Clerk CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING January 6, 2004 PAGE 20