Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Approve 05-24-1982 Minutes 4:1 Regular Meeting - May 24, 1982 A regular meeting of the City Council , City of Dublin, was held on May 24, 1982 in the meeting room, Dublin Library, 7606 Amador Valley Blvd. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Cm. Burton, Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Councilmembers, staff and those present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. * * * * MINUTES APPROVAL Minutes of the regular meeting of April 26, 1982, were approved as amended: (corrected spelling - Alamilla Spring, CM-1-67) , minutes of the regular meeting of May 10, 1982, were approved as submitted, on motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote. * * * * PROCLAMATIONS PRESENTED A proclamation was presented to Cindy Armstrong and to Barbara Nielsen who administered CPR to Frank Lehre when he was stricken with a heart attach in his office. Ms. Armstrong is an employee of Mr. Lehre, Ms. Nielsen works in the same area and came to the aid-of the stricken man and his secretary. Both maintained CPR until the ambulance arrived thereby saving Mr. Lehre's life. Cm. Burton presented both proclamations, and noted the importance of CPR training, and expressing the hope that all businesses have a person trained in CPR. Ch. Phillips was also introduced as being one of the people responsible for providing the training. • Mr. Lehre presented Ms. Armstrong with flowers and thanked both ladies. * * * * MEASURE K - re the Mosquito Abatement District Mr. Frank Roberts, manager of the District, presented a brief history of the District which was formed in 1930. In 1958 the cities of Pleasanton . and Dublin were incorporated into the District. The taxing ability was also enacted, providing the task of controlling mosquitos in the service area; the tax rate has been It per $100 assessed valuation. In 1978, with the advent of Proposition 13, the District was severely affected because of the freezing of the rate at the 1st level . The District has continued to provide the service but now finds itself with a somewhat reduced staff and a need for additional funds. The Board of Trustees has proposed for inclusion on CM-1-73 0 the June Ballot Measure K which suggests a maximum special tax levy of $1 .75 per household to be used for District purposes. This is felt to be necessary because of lack of revenue to control mosquitos over the long term, to pro- vide facilities and replace equipment needing replacement and, possibly, additional personnel in certain circumstances. Mr. Roberts assured the Council that the District can effectively provide control of the mosquito population, and in so far as the dangerous type are concerned, they would not be a problem in this area. Levels of pest mosquitos are on the increase and will continue to be so in the forseeable future. The plan to build a facility is becoming increasingly necessary since the Union City facility is presently on residential lots, has had a fire recently where contaminants were stored and is no longer suitable as a site for the District's use. Discussion was also held re the present tax rate and the District's plan, if Measure K passes, to tax at the maximum level for the first year, and to reduce the levy in future years as needed to finance the District programs. At the close of discussion, on motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, the following resolution was passed by the following vote: Ayes: Cm. Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder; Noes: Cm. Burton and Hegarty. RESOLUTION No. 22-82 Resolution to Support Measure K * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Request re Banner) Mr. Douglas Miller, Dublin Rotary Club, spoke re installation of a cable over Dublin Blvd. to support banners, to be used in the future by various organizations. Cm. Burton reported that PG&E would install the cable for permanent use, with each organization providing the fee for each banner installation, either at Regional. Street or Golden Gateway. Concern was expressed for guidelines, who would be allowed use, for how long, appropriate liability coverage, possibly evidence of coverage to include the City. City Manager Ambrose reported that the County Public Works Agency indicated that this type of proposal is under their jurisdiction routinely, does not conflict with the sign ordinance, they have worked with organizations often, especially community based groups. The only request is to have PG&E indicate that they have given their permission for the cable to be installed over the right-of-way. It was decided that Mr. Miller would present a formal request, with a plan for the proposed banner, so that the Council could see what is proposed for action at a later time. The Council generally expressed approval of such installations but would prefer to see a concrete proposal . * * * * CM 1-74 3 CONSENT CALENDAR (Warrant Register) On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the warrant register dated May 19, 1982, in the amount ' of $994.12. * * * * CONTINUED HEARING VARIANCE Kentucky Fried Chicken Sign The hearing re this matter had been postponed from the meeting of April 26, 1982 to this time. Some discussion was held re the possibility of referring the matter to the Planning Commission for review and report; Mr. Stephen Richards of the County Planning Department also indicated that he had pre- pared a report on business sign regulations which had been requested by the Council which also may be referred to the Planning Commission. The report briefly outlined the report which also delineated several results of the sign regulations and the "before" aspect also. Clutter and blockage by large signs has been a matter of concern, hopefully, addressed in the new regula- tions. Non-enforcement is also a problem. The findings could not be made in the specific case (Kentucky Fried Chicken sign - Cal Neon) for grant of a variance, i.e. , 1 ) that the property is disadvantaged, needs a variance in order to be the same as others in the area; 2) the grant of a variance is not special priviledge to this property; 3) is not detrimental in other ways or is a precedent, therefore the request for variance was denied. If the Council wishes to make the changes to allow all the businesses to have a sign of this type, then the "B" Combining District will • have to be eliminated. In answer to a question re size of the sign, does it comply if lowered, there may be an area issue, if lowered it would comply as to height. If not for "B" 40 designation would it be in conformance, the answer was yes. There is also a problem with the exact location, it may, however, be in the drive- way if moved. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by the following vote, the Council continued the hearing until the Planning Commission addresses zoning and sign issues and that those matters are settled by the Commission and City Council : Ayes: Cm. Burton, Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt; Noes: Mayor Snyder. * * * * • HEARING PROPOSED • GAS .& ELECTRIC FRANCHISES • (Proposed Ordinances) The hearing re proposed grant of gas and electric franchises to the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. was set for this time, the Mayor opened the hearing. CM 1-75 Mr. Terry Scott, representing PG&E as their local manager, addressed the Council re the proposed franchise grant, and explained some of the points that the Councilmembers had expressed concern regarding. In granting an indeterminate agreement or franchise, the City is not impaired in condem- nation or the right of eminent domain proceedings; a franchise has no value (by State code) , there may be value in the distribution facilities; it does not impair new energy sources being installed by or within the City, does not affect the franchise, in fact the Company would probably want to pur- chase the energy; solar electricity, no problem, likewise/co-generation project using garbage would not be a problem. The Company feels it is imperative to have an indeterminate franchise to treat all fairly, all general law cities do so. If there are other concerns the City has, they would be willing to modify the language of the agreement to take into con- sideration those concerns. Cm. Jeffery expressed concern why the haggling over the word "indeterminate", it must have some value to the Company that is not apparent, how can harm come to PG&E if the franchise is not indeterminate but determinate, possibly 25 years. It would be better to review in 25 years. It would seem to be good business to allow terms, the Company would know that the City is going to reveiw at a stated term. Discussion was held re termination of the franchise, review can happen at any time, otherwise it remains in effect. Mr. Ron Laupheimer, legal counsel for PG&E, agreed that franchises can be terminated at any time either by the City or Company, abandoned, or there are various ways it can be changed. It is all set out in the Code. If a cheap source of power is available, and the City wants to distribute it, take over the system, the City has the power to do so at any time, whether a franchise exists or not. Also discussed was an exclusive or non-exclusive franchise, either is available to the City. The City Attorney explained the wording, which stems from a decision re the City of Boulder, Colorado wherein an action was filed claiming an anti-trust or unfair competition atmosphere between competing companies. At the close of discussion, a motion was made by.-Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, to establish a 25 year term for the franchises, with non-exclusive added to Section 2, which failed by the following vote: Ayes: Cm. Hegarty and Jeffery; Noes: Cm. Burton, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. A motion was made by Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, to waive the reading of both the gas and electric franchise ordinances to include the wording "non-exclusive" otherwise as presented passed unanimously. • On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt and by the following vote, the electric and gas franchise ordinances were introduced and filed: Ayes: Cm. Burton, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder; Noes: Cm. Hegarty and Jeffery. • * * * * CM 1-76 Q ORDINANCE - Documentary Transfer Tax This is an amendment to the previously adopted ordinance, and on motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm: Jeffery, the Council voted unanimously to waive the reading and to introduce the ordinance for filing. * * * * URGENCY ORDINANCE Extending In Effect County Ordinances The City Attorney has reported that by ORDINANCE NO. 1 the City adopted at its first meeting will lapse on June 1 , Inasmuch as we have not yet adopted a Municipal Code, and probably will not do so for some time, it is necessary that the County Ordinances remain in effect until that time. • On motion of.Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Burton, the Council voted unanimously to introduce and adopt the urgency ordinance extending County Ordinances: ORDINANCE NO. 13 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN PROVIDING FOR INDEFINITE EXTENSION IN EFFECT OF CERTAIN OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCES ADOPTED BY DUBLIN ORDINANCE NO. 1 During the discussion Cm. Burton requested assurance that the City would have the flexibility to negotiate with Viacom on a cable 'TV' franchise, would this ordinance affect such negotiations. The City Manager indicated that whatever the term of the present ordinance is (believed to be until 1988) we will have no problem negotiating a franchise. This is an enabling ordinance, not affecting franchises. * * * * ORDINANCE - Prohibiting Distribution and Display of Drug Paraphernalia On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, the Council voted unanimously to adopt the following ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 14 AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE DISTRIBUTION AND DISPLAY OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA * * * * COUNTY LIBRARY SERVICES The City Manager explained that the proposed resolution can be adopted later, however, according to the County Counsel we must first publish a notice of intention to participate in the County Library system. So the Council needs take no action at this time, with action proposed for the meeting of June 14. * * * * CM 1-77 ni"4. - A i ,iliv COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT - Fees for Development Review The City Manager stated that the District has been providing plan review of developments that impact flood control facilities throughout the County. When District does review plans, fees are charged and since the City does not have the ability to review its own plans with an engineering staff, the pro- posed resolution will indicate that we will be continuing to utilize the District staff until further notice. We will also support the fee schedule suggested. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, the Council voted unanimously to adopt the following resolution: • RESOLUTION NO. 23-82 CONCURRING WITH THE PROGRAM OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO CHARGE FEES FOR SERVICES PROVIDED IN THE INCORPORATED AREAS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY * * * * COMMUNICATION TO LEGISLATORS RE STATE SUBVENTIONS The City Manager reported re a proposed communication to be sent to legisla- tors re the possible reductions of state subventions, motor vehicle in lieu fees and cigarette taxes. The Council was furnished with copies of the letter, and on motion:of. Cm. Jeffery seconded by Cm. Moffatt, the Council voted unanimously to sign and send the letter. * * * * COMPLAINT - Sheriff's Department Cm. Burton expressed concern with citizen complaints to him regarding the method of the Sheriff's Department is using in conducting their so-called City duties, which involved minor things, yet harassed people. There were three in number, and Cm. Burton felt that the Council should inform the Department that if they wish to be a part of this small town better conduct themselves in a better manner, public relations are very important. The Council briefly discussed the complaint, suggesting that the City Manager, Mr. Ambrose may be the best person to handle the matter; it was also noted that the Council is not in a position to sit as a Police Review Board, there are proper channels to use. Mr. Ambrose will inquire into the matter and report to the Council at a later time. * * * * CM 1-78 4;) LOGO CONTEST Cm. Moffatt reported that the contest had been closed, some 40 or more designs submitted by nine adults, three 5-9 age group, and several high school entrants. The suggestion was made that bonds be the prize for each category, and Cm. Moffatt moved that four. $25 savings bonds would be pur- - chased for this purpose, seconded by Cm. Burton and passed unanimously. The posters, renderings will be on display on the local Chamber windows for review of both the Council and others. * * * * APPOINTMENT - Cm. Jeffery League Committee - Revenue & Taxation Mayor Snyder announced that Cm. Jeffery had been appointed to the League's Policy committee on Revenue and Taxation and congratulated her on the selection. A meeting of the committee is being held in Los Angeles on June 11 , and on motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Burton, the Council voted unanimously to allow the expense for travel to the meeting. * * * * RECESS At this time the Council recessed to a closed session at 10:10 p.m. At the conclusion of the closed session, the Council reconvened the meeting with all members present. * * * * ESTABLISH POSITION Planning Director On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, the Council voted unanimously to adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 24 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE POSITION OF PLANNING DIRECTOR * * * * APPOINTMENT Planning Director On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, the Council voted unanimously to adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 25 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN CONFIRMING APPOINTMENT - PLANNING DIRECTOR LAURENCE TONG * * * * 0 V f APPROVE CONTRACT City Attorney On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, the Council voted unanimously to approve the contract prepared for City Attorney's services. * * * * SIGN ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT The Council instructed the City Manager to direct enforcement of the sign ordinance as it applies to the sandwich board signs in the public right- of-way. * * * * There being no further business to come before the City Council the Mayor adjourned the meeting at 11 :30 p.m. APPROVED Mayor ATTEST City Clerk 3