Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.1 Approve 09-07, 17-89. 12-21-1990 Minutes (2) ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - September 7 , 1989 An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Thursday, September 7, 1989 in the West Room of the Shannon Community Center. The meeting was called to order at 6:25 p.m. , by Mayor Paul Moffatt. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Moffatt. Planning Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Okun and Zika. * * * * City Manager Ambrose advised that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss the recent Management Audit conducted by the firm of Hughes, Heiss & Associates. Facilitator Arlene Willits reviewed the workshop format and asked for ideas related to adjournment time. It was the consensus of the Council and the Planning Commission that the meeting would go no later than 11: 00 p.m. , with everyone striving to complete the necessary discussion by 10: 00 p.m. It was agreed that if the items on the agenda were not completed at this meeting, that they would be carried over to the Team Building Workshop to be held on Sunday, September 17th at the Wente Brothers Conference Center. A set of handouts showing existing planning jurisdiction and existing application processing was distributed. Planning Director Tong reviewed the existing Planning Application process from the perspective of participation, responsibility and decision making authority of Staff, the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission and City Council. Consultant Gary Goletz, representing the firm of Hughes, Heiss & Associates, reviewed the existing conditions related to the Planning process at the time that the Management Audit commenced. Consultant Goletz then presented his executive overview of the Management Audit recommendations. A second set of handouts showing the policy recommendations was distributed. Planning Director Tong and City Manager Ambrose presented the policy recommendations of the Management Audit related to the processing of administrative conditional use permits and conditional use permits. Staff also discussed the quick check process as it related to Planning applications. There was a consensus of those present that the fee waiver process should not be changed. Staff indicated that the review of applications for basic document requirements under the quick check process would not indicate that the application was legally complete. A discussion ensued as to what was a CM-8-271 Adjourned Regular Meeting September 7, 1989 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: ITEM NO. /-/- 1 complete application. The Council indicated that if an applicant must be advised that application has been accepted and not approved, the signature of both the applicant and staff person handling the application should be required. Notification procedures regarding administrative conditional use permits and conditional use permits were discussed. Staff indicated that the required legal notification goes to the property owner. The City Council and Planning Commission noted that the lack of tenant notification was of potential concern. Staff was directed to provide examples of conditional use permits which could be approved by the Zoning Administrator (Items A, B & C on Page 3 of the second handout) at a future meeting. It was requested that Staff provide approximately 5 to 10 examples for each alternative. The Council indicated that dance floors should not be approved by the Zoning Administrator as a conditional use. Discussion ensued regarding the issue of renewing existing conditional use permits and the need to modify or adapt conditional use permits to changing conditions in the community, the desirability of having certain conditions as part of the conditional use permit be subject to review on an ongoing basis. The following direction was provided to Staff: 1) Staff was to provide a list of uses under the administrative conditional use permit, as well as specific conditions including standard criteria. 2) Maintain a running log of applications approved by Staff over the counter through Zoning clearance. 3) Monitor administrative conditional use permit compliance. 4) Provide examples of conditional use permits. 5) Conditional use permits should be open-ended and not have an expiration date. Staff should maintain a suspense file regarding these conditional use permits. * * * * ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:06 p.m. * * * * Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk * * * * CM-8-272 Adjourned Regular Meeting September 7, 1989 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - 'September 17 , 1989 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin . was held on Sunday , September 17 , 1989 , at the Wente Brothers Conference Center. in Livermore. The meeting was called to order at 9 : 00 a .m. , by Mayor Paul Moffatt . ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilhiembers Hegarty , Jeffery , Snyder , Vonheeder and Mayor Moffatt . Planning Commissioners Barnes , Burnham, Mack, Okun and Zika . Consultant Arlene Willits provided a recap of the action by the City Council at the September 7 , 1989 , Management Audit Meeting . Consultant Gary Goletz and Planning Director Larry Tong discussed the policy recommendations of the Management Audit as they related to processing planning applications . The Planning Director indicated that the Planning Department generally reviews the following items during the site development review process : 1 ) Handicapped accessibility 2) Lighting 3) Topography 4) Traffic S) Solar Energy 6) Landscaping 7) Signing 8) Three-dimensional analysis of architecture 9) Architectural details The Planning Director further indicated that those items that were generally not reviewed at the site development review state that were subsequently r.eviewed during the building permit processing were the following : 1 ) Detailed parking lot signage and striping 2) Detailed planting plans 3) Detailed irrigation plans 4) Detailed construction plans S) Detailed grading , erosion control and drainage plans 6) Building security details The City Council directed Staff to develop guidelines for site development review for City Council consideration and approval . With respect to the Planning Department ' s present policy to route all site development review applications to the various Departments and agencies within the City , the City Council indicated that it might be okay to not route site development reviews for small additions or @ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X@ CM-8-280 Adjourned Regular Meeting September 17 , 1989 alterations to all departments . However , the Council indicated that it would like Staff to develop a set of criteria as to when small additions or alterations subject to site development review would or would not be routed out to other agencies and City Departments . Staff was directed to develop this criteria and present it to the City Council at a future meeting . It was agreed that these criteria should be included in the site-development review guidelines . It was suggested that Staff consider a planting list as part of the guidelines . The Council agreed that the City should state very clearly what is to be reviewed when . The City Council concurred that it 'was acceptable to utilize a design review consultant to assist with criteria and site development review for projects on an as-needed basis . The cost for the consulting services should be passed on to the applicant . Staff should develop a pool of possible consultants . Consultant Goletz and Planning Director Larry Tong discussed those policy recommendations of the Management Audit which related to parcel map applications . The City Council concurred that approval of parcel maps could be delegated to Staff . However , the council requested that any actions regarding parcel map approval be included in a log which identi- fies Staff ' s actions on various projects . Consultant Goletz and Planning Director Tong discussed the policy issues related to the Management Audit recommendation regarding minor amendment to planning applications . The Council concurred that Staff should have the authority to act on .minor amendments . However , Staff must be sensi- tive to the Planning Commission and City Council in taking actions on minor amendments to planning applications . Approval of minor amendments by Staff should also be added to the log of planning actions . Consultant Goletz and .the City Manager reviewed the policy recommenda- tions of the Management Audit related to cost recovery . The Council agreed that residents who are owner/occupants of property should be given a lower fee on planning application fees . Council agreed that a flat fee should be charged to residents who are owner/occupants of property as opposed to the actual cost . The City Council concurred that the non-owner/occupant- should pay the full actual cost on the processing of variance and conditional use permits . With respect to filing appeals on planning applications , it was agreed that the fee for appeal should be charged ; for example , a $50 appeal fee to the Planning Commission and a $25 appeal fee to the City Council . The City Council discussed the cost of the building. permit surcharge to cover Planning Department review of building permits . The City Council concurred with a surcharge . The City Council considered the overhead charges of the City and asked Staff to re-evaluate and bring back a suggested change to the overhead charges . @ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X@ CM-8-281 Adjourned Regular Meeting September 17, 1989 The City Council indicated that it would be appropriate to increase the standard deposits for planning applications . The City Council also directed Staff to prepare a revised fee resolution for City Council consideration at .a future meeting . Facilitator Arlene. .Willits recapped the decisions made by the City Council regarding the Management Audit recommendations . The City Council and Planning Commission recessed for lunch at 12 : 00 noon. The City Council and Planning Commission resumed their discussions regarding the Team Building Workshop portion of the agenda . Consultant Willits initiated an exercise for the Staff , Planning Commission and City Council to discuss expectations of each group . As a result of that workshop discussion , the following expectations were developed . Planning Commission ' s comments on roles and expectations for Staff : 1 . Provide complete information 2 . Provide agenda packets to the Planning Commission earlier when items involving environmental impact reports or major developments are to be considered on an agenda 3 . Provide quality information 4 . Do not use Xerox photos in the agenda packets 5 . Use video presentations or actual photographs at meetings where appropriate 6 . Use .letter size paper for reports 7 . Do not reduce type on reports when possible 8 . Provide history and analysis on important projects 9 . Have all information available at the Commission hearings 10. Avoid use of acronyms and use terms which are easily understood by the public 11 . Before citations are issued on zoning violations , more preliminary studies should be done 12 . Consider weekend enforcement of violations 13 . Provide consistent information 14. Include the Planning Commission ' s rationale for votes in the Commission ' s. minutes . The Planning Commission had the following comments regarding its expectation of the Commission: I . Commissioners should do their homework and ask necessary questions 2 . Be in tune with the public opinion 3 . Know what is expected from the Commission by the City Council 4. Be aware or cognizant of City policies 5 . Know the reasons for the City Council reversing Planning Commission recommendations 6 . Work well with one another @ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X@ CM-8-282 Adjourned Regular Meeting September 17 , 1989 7 . Make certain that all sides are heard on issues considered by the Commission 8 . Attend as many meetings as possible , including field trips and City functions (be fully committed) 9 . Deal openly with one another 10. Communicate Commission ' s rationale for its recommendations The Planning Commission had the following comments regarding its expectations of the City Council : 1 . More communication is needed between the City Council and Planning .Commission 2 . The City Council should communicate its decision-making rationale 3 . The Council . should understand the rationale for the Planning Commission ' s recommendations . 4 . The Commission would like to know the City Council ' s goals and objectives for the new areas of Dublin which are under general plan study 5 . The City Council should be more sensitive and aware of citizen ' s concerns and input 6 . The City Council should be more consistent in its decision-making 7 . More information should be provided to the .citizens via City newsletter and public media A discussion ensued regarding the comments by the Planning Commission . As a result of that discussion, the City Council directed Staff to : 1 ) schedule a presentation by the City ' s Traffic Engineer on the big picture for transportation issues in the City at some. f.uture date ; 2) develop some concepts .for a future dinner meeting between the Planning Commission and the City Council to discuss the future vision and quality of life issues for the .City ; 3) identify those areas that had not been resolved for further discussion at a future meeting . The Council indicated that individual members of the Commission and Council should work at improving their working relationship . The Staff identified those comments regarding their expections for Staff : 1 . To present options to the Planning Commission and City Counci regarding 'policy issues 2 . To facilitate growth and development through existing policies , ordinances , . etc . , adopted by City Council 3. To provide clear , concise and thorough information , analysis and presentations to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding planning issues 4 . To interpret Council policy and ordinances 5 . To disseminate information , resources and services to the public Staff had the following comments regarding its expectations of the Planning Commission : @ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X@ CM-8-283 Adjourned Regular Meeting September 17 , 1989 1 . The Commission should interpret Council policy regarding specific situations 2 . The Commission should make policy recommendations regarding land use planning 3 . The Commission should act as a sounding board for Council in order to sift the issues at hand 4 . The Commission should provide clear direction to Staff as to their interpretation of City Council policy 5. The Commission should express its rationale for decision 6 . Commissioners should come prepared to the meeting by doing their homework 7 . The Commission . should call Staff with questions before Commission meetings 8 . The Commission should focus on planning issues and not issues that do not relate to the Planning Commission ' s role Staff had the following comments regarding its expectations of the City Council : 1 . The Council should do its homework 2 . The Council should be specific and clear in giving its rationale for decisions 3. Councilmembers should call Staff regarding questions they may have before the Council meetings 4 . The Council should focus on issues 5 . The Council should provide a long-term . vision for the community 6 . Councilmembers should work within the established Council/Manager system in dealing with Staff 7 . The' Council should make policy 8 . The Council should act as a body and not as individuals The City Council discussed its expectations for Staff : 1 . Staff should assist the City Council in the planning process and assisting with long-term policy decisions 2 . Staff should provide clear , concise information and clearly identify issues 3. Provide summary sheets for Planning hearings 4. Avoid duplication of material 5 . Eliminate some of the Planning Commission agenda information which is repetitive 6 . Provide equal communication to all Councilmembers 7 . Project and represent a user-friendly image 8 . Provide service with a can-do attitude 9 . Do not use "buzz words" 10. Handle the .day-to-'day business of running the City 11 . Be available and return .calls 12 . Don ' t be afraid to . say , "I don ' t know" 13 . Provide coffee and beverages at meetings 14 . .Follow up in a timely manner The City Council had the following expectations for the Planning Commission : @ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X.@ X@ X@ X@ X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X@ CM-8-284 Adjourned Regular Meeting September 17, 1989 1 . Clarify the issues related to Planning items 2 . Follow Council policy 3. Be knowledgeable of the community direction , i . e . goals and needs 4 . Distinguish fact from emotion during Commission hearings 5 . Conduct meetings in a businesslike manner , stay .on the track with respect to issues and serve as a positive forum for gathering information 6 . Understand the Planning process 7 . Be able to participate in a teamwork attitude with City Council and City Staff 8. Never allow personalities to influence decisions 9 . Be prepared , do Commission homework City Council had the following expectations regarding the City Council 1 . Do homework , read reports , and understand issues 2 . Give clear guidance 3 . Don ' t let personalities influence decisions 4. Strive for consistency 5 . Be a team player , disagree on issues only 6 . Keep other members of the Council informed 7 . Conduct ourselves publicly to encourage confidence in government at a local level 8. Act in the public ' s best interests , balancing personal and public concerns 9 . Always be open to the public 10. Do not individually direct Staff The Commission and Council discussed the availability of meeting facilities and file space for Planning Commission members . It was also agreed that teamwork issues may need further exploration in that the participants did n.ot have time to complete this item on the agenda . ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council , the meeting was adjourned .at 4 : 30 p .m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk @ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X@ X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X @X@ CM-8-285 Adjourned Regular Meeting September 17 , 1989 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - December 21, 1989 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Thursday, December 21, 1989, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7: 03 p.m. , by Mayor Paul Moffatt. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Moffatt. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. PROCLAMATION Mayor Moffatt read a proclamation honoring Liz Schmitt for her 6 years of service on the Park & Recreation Commission and thanked her. In November, Ms. Schmitt was elected to the Board of Trustees for the Dublin Unified School District. The Council congratulated Ms. Schmitt on her election to the School Board and stated they looked forward to continuing a good working relationship.. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 11, 1989; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 135 - 89 APPROVING TWO SAFETY-RELATED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND DIRECTING STAFF TO APPLY FOR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDING Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 136 - 89 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES ON DOUGHERTY ROAD BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD CM - 8 - 368 Adjourned Regular Meeting December 21, 1989 and authorized additional appropriation of $50, 680. 57 for the Dougherty Road Underground Utility Project. (This additional appropriation will be offset by an equivalent amount of revenue paid by the developer. ) The Council also authorized payment to PG&E in the amount of $176, 181.57 under this agreement; Rejected an Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim submitted by Ed Longhorn and directed Staff to notify the claimant; Waived the competitive bidding requirement of Purchasing Ordinance for the Senior Center roof repair and authorized Staff to negotiate a contract with Dolin and Son Roofing and approved a transfer of funds from unallocated reserves in the amount of $14, 000; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $443,929. 13 . PUBLIC HEARING HANSEN HILL RANCH/BREN CO. , ANNEXATION Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Planning Director Tong advised that at the November 27, 1989 City Council meeting, the Council approved the Tentative Map, Planned Development Prezoning General Provisions and related environmental review program. On December 11, 1989, the Council adopted an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to prezone the project site allowing single-family residential lots and open space. The 147-acre project site is currently within the unincorporated portion of Alameda County. In order for the project site to come under the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin, it must be prezoned. Additionally, the City Council must also adopt a Resolution of Application and a Resolution Relating to Exchange of Property Tax Revenue, which will be included as part of the City's application to Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) . The final approval for an annexation comes from LAFCO. The existing property tax rate for residential areas is approximately 28%. It is anticipated that a similar property tax rate would be applied to the Hansen Hill Ranch property. No comments were made by members of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 137 - 89 APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION OF HANSEN HILL RANCH/BREN CO. , REORGANIZATION PA 89-062 CM - 8 - 369 Adjourned Regular Meeting December 21, 1989 and RESOLUTION NO. 138 - 89 RELATING TO EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FOR HANSEN HILL RANCH/BREN CO. , REORGANIZATION PA 89-062 SWIM CENTER RENOVATION - AWARD OF BID - CONTRACT NO. 89-12 Public Works Director Thompson advised that on November 27, 1989, the City Council authorized Staff to advertise the Swim Center Renovation project for bids. This contract will resurface the pool shell with fiberglass and repair and resurface the pool deck. The Base Bid includes the fiberglass resurfacing, deck resurfacing, and replacement of all the gutter tile and reconstruction of the pool gutter. Deduct Alternate 1 would delete the gutter and gutter tile reconstruction and, in lieu of that, provide for repair of broken tile and grind out overflow slots into the gutter. Alternate 2 is an add- on, if additional skimmers are found defective. Alternate 3 is also an add-on for sealing cracks in excess of the 150 lineal feet estimated in the bid package. The bids were opened on December 19th. Three bids were received. Cm. Jeffery questioned if any of the companies that submitted bids had done any of the original work on the pool. Mr. Thompson stated he did not think so. Cm. Jeffery stated she just wanted to make sure that the one selected was not the one who made the original mistakes. Mr. Thompson indicated that they came highly recommended by the architect. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 139 - 89 AWARDING CONTRACT 89-12 SWIM CENTER RENOVATION TO THE POOL SCENE, INC. ($164,785) including Deduct Alternate 1; authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement; and authorized a budget transfer from unallocated reserves in the amount of $49,709 . CM - 8 - 370 Adjourned Regular Meeting December 21, 1989 REVIEW OF SERVICE CHANGES REQUIRED TO MEET STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECYCLING AND HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that State Legislation which takes effect January 1, 1990 requires the City to implement Recycling and Household Hazardous Waste Collection. Both programs were under review prior to the development of the State Law. Staff presented in-depth discussion related to some of the options available to implement these programs and the estimated associated costs. Staff advised that it hoped to obtain City Council direction on policy and service issues in order to allow Staff to pursue the implementation of the programs. Final agreements and program descriptions would need to be brought back before the City Council at a future meeting. Dave MacDonald, Waste Management Inc. , stated he felt that Staff had made a fine presentation of the programs which are in accordance with their discussions with Staff. They are interested in being a full service contractor for the City. Cm. Jeffery questioned if there were any places that take recycled paper. Mr. MacDonald indicated that most all of the paper is shipped to Japan as there are just not a lot of reprocessing done in the United States. Factories are not set up to handle this. Cm. Jeffery asked if it would be an economical thing to do if we had the factories set up. Mr. MacDonald felt that Cm. Jeffery had hit on the real meat of the recycling problem. It is basically a matter of economics. Cm. Vonheeder indicated she had a major concern with the cost estimate. She sat this week on the League's selection committee for excellence is community programs. She became aware of recycling programs offered in San Bruno and Modesto, and they charge considerably less. She asked what went into the cost estimates. Both are privately owned garbage companies that provide service to these two communities. Mr. MacDonald stated they offer containers and this makes a considerable difference in costs. Mr. Rankin stated it was very difficult in doing the survey of agencies. People weren't sure just how much they were paying separately for recycling. This is an issue which Staff will definitely need to look at. Cm. Snyder asked if there was enough information available at this time to make comparisons from other communities. CM - 8 - 371 Adjourned Regular Meeting December 21, 1989 Mr. MacDonald described other services offered. They are suggesting that Livermore go from an every other week pickup to a weekly pickup. They got money from the authority to fund containers. Albany opted to go with the bucket containers. The city contributed about $20, 000 to the program. They got a grant also and ended up with a low rate of about $ .40/month. Some problems have come up because of legislation requiring glass to have to be sorted by January 1st. They are trying to deal with how they will work this out. There is a wide range of programs in different cities. They have found that using containers creates participation. It creates peer pressure in neighborhoods and this has a real advantage as PR is what makes programs successful. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to pursue negotiations with Livermore-Dublin Disposal and its affiliated companies to establish a Recycling Program and to investigate the possibility of the charge being added to the property tax bill. With regard to Household Hazardous Waste, Cm. Jeffery felt that because Alameda County must put together a plan, wouldn't it seem logical to be a part of that plan. Mr. Rankin advised that they do not anticipate having anything operational until July, 1991. This was intended to be set up until the County has their plan operational. Mr. Ambrose clarified that once. the County program is in place, we could drop the surcharge. The best cost figure we have now is an estimate. Mr. Rankin stated we have no idea how much response we will have. Cm. Jeffery questioned how gas stations dispose of their oil, and also commercial painters. Mr. Rankin advised that an oil tanker pumps it out. The problem we now have with paint is because it's not being disposed of legally. Cm. Snyder questioned how this would relate to the ABAG program and what the level of success was with that program. Mr. Rankin advised that just over 200 residents participated in the 3 cities. We based our estimate on a 25% increase in the materials collected. It is very costly to have these special pick-ups. Cm. Vonheeder felt there would be more participation if it is included as a surcharge. Cm. Jeffery stated that most everyone has some type of toxic waste to dispose of, but they don't realize it. She felt a lot should go into education. She also felt it would be wise to look into including the cost on the property tax assessments as there are a lot of people who don't have garbage service. CM - 8 - 372 Adjourned Regular Meeting December 21, 1989 Mr. Ambrose indicated that about 8% of the residents are not garbage customers. Mayor Moffatt questioned if we were talking about service only in the City of Dublin, and if this prohibits others from coming into Dublin and using our service. Mr. Rankin stated that it would be advertised as being for Dublin residents and identification would be required. At the past event, non-residents were asked to make a financial contribution. Mayor Moffatt asked if this program could be developed on a regional basis. Mr. Rankin advised that it currently includes Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore. The further away the site, the less participation you typically would have. Mr. Ambrose advised that the last time there was a disposal day, the percentage of Dublin residents participating was not reflected with the percentage of Dublin population. Cm. Snyder indicated that the County plan would address this. The possibility of mobile facilities has been discussed. Cm. Snyder introduced Dan Sicular who was recently hired by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority as a recycling coordinator. He is available to help wherever he can. He is developing a data base to help cities put these programs together. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to develop an adjustment to the garbage rate which would finance Household Hazardous Waste collection. 1990 GARBAGE COLLECTION SERVICE AND RATES City Manager Ambrose advised that Waste Management Inc. , presently provides garbage collection services to the City under an existing franchise agreement which expires in 1995. The Joint Refuse Rate Review Committee, of which the City is a member, is recommending that each member agency adopt a garbage collection rate increase of 16% effective January 1, 1990. Mr. Ambrose pointed out that there has not been a garbage rate increase since 1983 . Robert Hilton, with the firm of Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson, advised that the JRRRC had the good fortune to be involved in the rate application for the last 6 years. He stated that the 16% recommended rate increase needed to be put into the proper perspective. He explained franchise revenues vs. franchise revenue requirements for the years 1984 through 1990. CM - 8 - 373 Adjourned Regular Meeting December 21, 1989 Cm. Hegarty pointed out that the number of clients has increased considerably. Mr. Hilton stated this was correct; it has gone up about 40% since the last increase. Mr. Ambrose detailed the various service options: 1) Curbside collection-rate per can; 2) Curbside collection-single rate-unlimited cans; and 3) Fully automated curbside collection; and pointed out the advantages and disadvantages to each option. Dan Sicular added that an additional disadvantage of having a flat fee for garbage service is that it encourages people to produce more garbage. You can achieve an economical incentive by making second and third cans just as expensive or more expensive than the first. Another option would be to charge less for a smaller can. Cm. Jeffery advised that hers is mostly newspapers, and she felt that recycling will help. Mr. Ambrose felt that a lot of people who have more than one can, need them for yard wastes and clippings. Mr. Rankin indicated that the City has four pick-ups per year and people might dispose of their stuff on an ongoing basis if they had additional space instead of saving it for the special pick-ups. Mr. Ambrose advised that due to the large number of single can customers in the City, Staff recommended that the City Council maintain the current backyard service arrangement with Waste Management Inc. , and approve in concept an across-the-board garbage rate increase for basic garbage service. Mr. Ambrose stated that if the Council concurs and is interested in pursuing the inclusion of recycling and/or household hazardous waste programs as part of the rate base, the Council should direct Staff to prepare the appropriate resolution modifying the rates for consider- ation at the Council's January 8, 1990 meeting. Staff would need to schedule a public hearing at the next Council meeting on January 8, 1990. Newspaper notices must be in by tomorrow noticing the public hearing. Mayor Moffatt asked if there would be a Christmas tree pick-up this year. Mr. MacDonald advised that there would be. Mayor Moffatt asked if the 90 gallon cans reduce the labor costs. Mr. MacDonald indicated that the labor costs are approximately the same. It is geared toward recycling and people who recycle. There would not be a significant difference in costs. Mayor Moffatt clarified that he meant the automated cans. CM - 8 - 374 Adjourned Regular Meeting December 21, 1989 Cm. Jeffery felt that the community is used to having backyard service and she was not in favor of taking this away. Mr. Ambrose advised that garbage cans being left out are a common complaint under the Property Maintenance Ordinance. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to maintain the current backyard service arrangement with Waste Management Inc. , and approved in concept an across-the-board garbage rate increase for basic garbage service and scheduled a public hearing for the Council meeting of January 8, 1990. OTHER BUSINESS Alameda County Open Space Issue Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff has been trying to get a fix on the issue of open space approved by the Board of Supervisors. It appears that the Board will be considering putting an issue on the June, 1990 ballot to modify the County Charter to change the open space element of the County General Plan. We should have someone from the City Council expressing the City's position regarding this whole open space issue. He advised that he had not been able to verify when the Board will hear this. Cm. Jeffery felt it was imperative that a Councilmember be in attendance and advised that she would make herself available to attend. Mr. Ambrose advised that he would let the Council know when he finds out the date. Cm. Snyder questioned the constitutionality of such action, related to the required 5 vote situation. Ms. Silver stated she thought that preliminarily there may be a conflict with the Government Code that sets forth how General Plan Amendments take place. The Council discussed the requirement for a unanimous vote on the open space elements. Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff is also continuing to look at the impact of the Supervisor King proposal on Dublin, as well as the legal impact. Cm. Jeffery advised that she had had a discussion with County Administrator Szaley and there is no question that there will be a challenge and the Board was warned of this early on. Legal Counsel advised that it was an inappropriate action. CM - 8 - 375 Adjourned Regular Meeting December 21, 1989 Mr. Ambrose advised that the Board of Supervisors ignored the requests of the Mayors' Conference twice. Cm. Vonheeder suggested that Staff contact all other cities which have any open space such as Hayward, Fremont, Pleasanton, Livermore and Union City. This affects all open space, as long as it is not in the City limits. Ms. Silver indicated that the Urban Limit Line includes some property that is within the City limits and also some that is not. It was very difficult to determine the lines on the map that she saw. Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff will need to go to County Offices to review the map. Business Registration Ordinance Mayor Moffatt requested that the City Council ask the City Attorney's Office to draft a Business Registration Ordinance. The Council advised Mayor Moffatt that a Task Force is working on this. Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff would present a status report to the Council. CLOSED SESSION Mr. Ambrose advised that there would be no closed session, as the personnel related information was not yet available. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9: 00 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CM - 8 - 376 Adjourned Regular Meeting December 21, 1989