Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 Approve 09-26-1983 Minutes 1 ' REGULAR MEETING - SEPTEMBER 26, 1983 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, September 26 , 1983 in the multipurpose room of Frederiksen Intermediate School . The meeting was called to order at 7 : 35 p .m. by Mayor Peter Snyder. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. Councilmember Burton was absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, (Cm. Burton absent) , the Council approved minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 25 , 1983 and Adjourned Regular Meeting of August 2 , 1983 ; Warrant Register in the amount of $165, 810 . 15 ; waived the $60 parade permit fee for Dublin High School ' s Homecoming Parade on Friday, October 14 , 1983 . Staff removed budget transfer approvals and discussion of addendum to Street Sweeping Services Contract to end of meeting for discussion. FOUNDER' S WEEK Mr . Tom McCormick, Emerald Avenue and President of the Dublin Historical Association invited the City Council , Staff and members of the audience to attend the festivities related to the second Founder' s Week celebration in Dublin on October 1-9 , 1983 . Cm. Moffatt suggested that a Proclamation be prepared. Mr . McCormick indicated that he had already asked, and that a Proclamation will be prepared and dated October 1 , 1983 . CM-2-165 L `�• V• � September 26, 1983 STREET LIGHTING & WEEDS Ms . Cathy Waterson addressed the Council with questions related to maintenance of light fixtures and weeds on City streets in the medians and along the boulevards . The City Manager explained that a Contractor had just completed some weeding in the medians throughout the business district, and some of the other major thoroughfares . With respect to street lights, Mr. Ambrose explained that the City handles those on a complaint basis . They should all be maintained and any lights that are out should be reported to Staff . PUBLIC HEARING OAKMONT MEMORIAL PARK Mr . Larry Tong presented the Staff report, explaining that Oakmont Memorial Park, the applicant, is applying for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a mortuary at 7400 San Ramon Road. The site is in an area designated for Retail Commercial /Shopper Goods use by the San Ramon Road Specific Plan. The mortuary would serve 100 families and conduct 60 funeral services during the first year of operation. All funeral processions would travel south on San Ramon Road to I-580 and then go .to the appropriate cemetery. On September 6 , 1983 , the Planning Commission reviewed the application. The Planning Commission, by a 4 to 1 vote, approved the application with the following adjustments to the draft conditions of approval : parking to be provided for 20 cars rather than 50 cars ; allow for a performance bond or letter of credit; permit to terminate in 5 years rather than 2 years . On September 8, 1983 , Councilmember Jeffery appealed the Planning Commission decision. The two permitted uses in Area #3 of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan are : 1 ) retail commercial/shopper goods; and 2 ) certain types of eating and drinking establishments . The basic issues were: 1) land use (Is the proposed mortuary use a "retail commercial/shopper goods" use?) ; 2 ) traffic and parking; 3 ) effective time period. Staff recommended that the City Council uphold the appeal and deny the application due to the nonconformance to the San. Ramon Road Specific Plan and because of potential traffic and parking problems on the site. Cm. Jeffery stated her basic concern was that she felt there was a conflict with what the Planning Commission allowed as opposed to what the Specific Plan allowed. Cm. Moffatt asked the Planning Director where he obtained the information that a mortuary was 'personal service use ' . Cm. Moffatt indicated most of the cities he had contacted considered it a ' general use ' . Mr. Tong indicated that mortuaries with which Staff is familiar, are typically handled on a personal services basis rather than on a general retail operation service basis . Most zoning ordinances with which Staff is aware, deals with mortuaries as a specific type . of personal service . Cm. Moffatt felt concern in that Dublin seems to be the only City in the area that has determined that a mortuary is a personal service use. CM-2-166 Regular Meeting September 26, 1983 Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Mr. Frank Haswell , Executive Vice President . of Oakmont Memorial Park addressed the Council . Mr. Haswell introduced his father, Mr. Vance Haswell who is the President of the Corporation and Mr . Dick Reed with a Civil Engineering Firm in Lafayette, and Senior Pastor Ward Tanneberg of Valley Christian Center. Mr. Haswell felt that since they had already had the opportunity to meet with, discuss and work with the Planning Commission concerning this application, and since they have had an opportunity to thoroughly review all the necessary documentation that has been presented, and since their findings were 4-1 in favor of this .application, they stood ready to respond to any questions . Mr. Haswell indicated there was absolutely no opposition at the public hearing for their application. The citizens of the community and the adjacent property owners were not against this application. Dr. Ward Tanneberg , 7254 Hansen Drive, addressed the Council stating he is the Senior Pastor at Valley Christian Center, the organization presently owning the subject site known as 7400 San Ramon Road. For more than 16 years, this location has served as a place of assembly for purposes of religious gatherings, for people from Dublin and its surrounding communities . Since 1970 , it has also housed portions of Valley Christian Center ' s Christian Schools . Offices were located there for several years and at one time or another, it has accommodated the Small World PreSchool all the way up through the 6th grade classes of Christian Center School . Presently, it serves only the preschool and portions of the church ministries ' activities through the week and on Sundays . Dr. Tanneberg stated he wished to speak against the appeal and in favor of the already adopted Planning Commission resolution. Dr. Tanneberg stated Staff has determined that the single question that would determine whether this land use is appropriate is "Is the proposed mortuary use a retail/ commercial shopper goods use?" Dr. Tanneberg respectfully submitted to the members of the Council, that this is not, nor has it ever been the question. It is not generally considered to be an appropriate personal service use designation, that of a mortuary, in that the only personal service that is rendered is the preparation of the body for internment. There is an estimate of over $200 , 000 taxable dollars per year in commercial taxable retail business revenue. Dr. Tanneberg indicated that early on, both Valley Christian Center and Oakmont Memorial Park participated cooperatively in the public meetings held with regard to the San Ramon Road Specific Plan. He indicated they missed the first two meeting• as the notices were not received in time. The mortuary conditional use permit, however has not been kept secret. His organization entered into an agreement of sale before the moratorium and specific plan study and they were informed by Staff that it would be appropriate to continue the application parallel to the specific plan study. They have remained in contact with the Planning Staff from that time forward. On June 20 , 1983 , Dr. Tanneberg personally addressed the Planning Commission and rte affirmed their desire to have a funeral home located on the site at 7400 San Ramon Road, and publicly disclosed that a conditional use permit application had been in process for some period of CM-2-167 Regular Meeting September 26, 1983 time . In August, a sizeable article (with a picture) appeared in the Tri- Valley Herald. They believe that the funeral home use is consistent with the San Ramon Road Specific Plan adopted by the City Council . According to generally accepted interpretations of zoning rules, regulations and definitions of terms , a funeral home would normally fall into the category of a community and/or a public assembly facility. It is not, as has been suggested, a personal service use . Dr. Tanneberg pointed out that a funeral home requires a conditional use permit of this nature regardless of where it is located. Dr. Tanneberg indicated they had contacted the Alameda County Zoning Department, whose rules and regulations Dublin adopted upon incorporation and their response was "No to personal services, and yes to public assembly designation" . The City of Pleasanton' s Planning Department response was "No to personal services, and yes to public assembly designation" . The City of Livermore ' s response was "No to personal services, and yes to public assembly" . Based on normal practice plus the rules which Dublin adopted, the interpretation should be that they indeed conform to the Specific Plan. The parking and traffic issues were discussed. These issues were studied, defined and agreed upon in developing the resolution to grant the conditional use permit. The Environmental Impact Report indicated a Negative Declaration with respect to both traffic and other safety considerations . Dr . Tanneberg summarized by saying that 1) since the present use of Valley Christian Center has been legally established prior to the effective date of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan adoption, and 2 ) since the present use does currently allow for the conducting of funeral services on the premises, and 3 ) since the Staff ' s environmental impact report re traffic and public safety .was returned with a negative declaration, and 4 ) since the proposed use of the property designated as 7400 San Ramon Road would be strikingly similar to its presently approved usage, and 5 ) since it qualifies in the adopted San Ramon Road Specific Plan regarding area 3 for consideration of a conditional use permit as a community or public assembly facility, if a funeral home is considered to be similarly designated in Dublin as it is in Alameda County and our sister cities of Pleasanton and Livermore, and 6 ) since there is strong community and regional support for such a facility to be located in its already approved use site, he respectfully urged the City Council to deny the motion to appeal and to grant the conditional use permit. Cm. Moffatt asked for clarification with respect to the amount of taxable dollars by the mortuary. Mr. Haswell. indicated they had a Contra Costa County Tax I .D . # and they would be applying for an Alameda County # . Mr. Haswell indicated that over 500 of the monies taken in was taxable. Cm. Moffatt felt this qualified as a retail establishment. Cm. Jeffery questioned the proposed use of the land behind the church . Mr. Haswell indicated they have no current plans for this land, and that the existing buildings would be removed as soon as Valley Christian Center completes their transition of facilities onto their new site upon the hill. CM-2-168 Regular Meeting September 26, 1983 Cm. Jeffery questioned if applicant had worked out any type of park:-ng arrangements or agreements with neighboring businesses. Mr. Haswell advised that they had discussed this with the So Unique Paint Firm, adjacent.; to their property and they are working with them related to parking but they were more concerned with the businesses using their parking than vice versa. Ms . Cathy Waterson spoke against the proposed use, expressing concerns related to traffic . Ms . Waterson stated the school causes tremendous traffic congestion, with a large number of illegal left turns being made from San Ramon Road into the facility. Ms . Waterson stated she is very active in the community and this was the first she had heard about this proposed mortuary. Newspaper art_ cles were shown to Ms.. Waterson. She stated she had not seen any notices posted on telephone poles, as is the practice of Alameda County. Mr . Harry Demme;l spoke in favor of the proposed use, stating that in Modesto and in Stanislas County, this is considered a commercial rather than a personal use. He felt traffic barriers could be erected which would prohit)it any illegal turns from being made. Mr . Tony Verduzco addressed the Council on behalf of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and read a letter from the Chamber supporting Valley Christian Center' s proposed request to locate a funeral home and mortuary on their property. They felt this use would cause improved landscaping and the removal of the portable classrooms located toward the rear of the property. ' Mr . Lee North, Allegheny Drive, stated he was not against the proposed project, but exp essed concern regarding the fact that there will only be 20 parking spaces . He objected to the use of the term community facility. Ms , Jenny Murray addressed the Council stating that her husband tiad died 6 wee=ks ago, and she had t-o go outside of Dublin to find a funeral home . She felt going out of ones own community to seek services of t-his type added to an already traumatic experience , She felt a funeral hor..e would generate much less t=raffic than the preschool currently does . Mr . B(.-)b Watts, Maple Dri,:e, felt police services could be util.;_zed to control or direct any inordinate amount of traffic generated by a funeral . He ;:.1=_o s4-.ated that due to the fact that there are proposed changes that will someday occur to San Ramon Road insofar as widening, this will also help to take care of any additional traff:Lc . Mr. Ken 15oore, Betlen Drive, stzitE+d he felt the use at ?400 San Ramon Road to be consistent with previous uses as stated. He felt it places and undue . burden on the church to say to them "if you se_1• 1 your property, you must sell it to someone who is goring to use it as a retail/commercial establishment" . He felt there, was ?:o; a lot of market for <.hurches to be turned into stores. The use planned for the property is consistent w.;.th what it has been u=sed for in the past: . Mr. Jim Hjerpe, Wr:odren Court, spokf= z;gainst the proposed project. He questioned why the chu:.ch didn ' t locate a funeral home on their r;e�: site instead of the San R;.mon Road site . CM--2-169 Regular Meeting September 26, 1983 The City M. nager read from the A] amE:da County Code .�h:'Lch defines communit:l facility. "A community facility is defined to include church, school_, nursery school , outdoor recreation facility or public utility building. " The Planning Director stated Staff had calculated the parking requirements for the mortuary and daycare use under the existing adopted zoning ordinance, and that ordinance would require approximately 60 parking spaces for the combined uses . If the Council is contemplating a reduction in this number of required spaces, a variance should be processed. Cm. Moffatt asked that if the proposed mortuary went in, and the existing daycare center would go out, what effect would this have on the required parking space . Mr . Tong indicated the applicant has stated they would continue to utilize the daycare center. for a certain amoiint of time, and hope to terminate this use as soon as the situation is right. Dr. Tanneberg indicated that the traffic flow with the preschool is really a stop and go operation. - The issue is not permanent parking in that people do not stop and seek a parking space, but rather, come in and for a moment are stopped while the child is being escorted inside, then moves on. Parking is relatively light, even though traffic is considerably heavier now than it will be, should the Council grant the conditional use permit to the mortuary. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Jeffery felt the real issue which needed to be decided upon was the definition of what a mortuary is and whether or not, if, with the Planning Commission ' s approval , that definition was redefined. She felt the mortuary was not the issue, and agreed that Dublin could use a mortuary. What is at issue is that the Council has just spent all summer discussing the specific plan and what would be included in that . The document that was produced is specific to a certain degree . One of the prohibited uses is personal services . Cm. Moffatt felt the mortuary is indeed a retail/commercial as they do have a retail sales license and because over 500 of their income is derived from retail sales . As such, he felt this use was within the specific plan allowed uses . On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery and by unanimous vote (Cm. Burton absent) , the Council adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 47-83 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONCERNING PA 83-029 - OAKMONT MEMORIAL PARK Mayor Snyder felt key to this issue was a determination of what constitutes shopper services- and further felt that the key is the amount of business that is done on a sales tax base . If Mr. Haswell ' s figures are correct, the retail sales taxes that they collect are more than 500 of what the establishment does . Mayor Snyder felt the traffic concerns were not CM-2-170 Regular Meeting September 26, 1983 substantial in that as part of the San Ramon Road corridor redevelopment, them would be mitigated in the future . Cm. Hegarty indicated what worried him was whether the Council is setting a precedent to destroy the specific plan which was just adopted. He found it very difficult to deal with the question of whether a mortuary was considered retail or personal use . He concurred with Cm. Jeffery that it was a personal use . Cm. Moffatt made motion which was seconded by Mayor Snyder to deny the appeal and declare that this particular use is within the concept of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan. Voting no on this motion were Cm. Jeffery and Cm. Hegarty. (Cm. Burton absent) . The City Attorney explained that since the Council took no action, the Planning Commission ruling was upheld. Cm. Jeffery made motion which was seconded by Cm. Hegarty, to have the Council accept and uphold the appeal . Voting no on this motion were Mayor Snyder and Cm. Moffatt. (Cm. Burton absent) . The City Attorney explained that, again, the Planning Commission ruling is upheld. Cm. Jeffery made motion which was seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and passed by majority vote that the Council sit down in the future and redefine the Specific Plan permitted uses . Cm. Moffatt voted no on this motion. (Cm. Burton absent) . Mayor Snyder questioned whether it would not be normal to have questions of this nature arise . RECESS A short recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9 :10 p.m. with all Councilmembers present except Cm. Burton. SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN - AREA 5 Mayor Snyder announced that consideration of San Ramon Road Specific Plan - Area 5, which was scheduled at a later time on the agenda, was being moved up. Cm.. Hegarty had requested this change as it was felt that it makes more sense to deal with the item of Dublin Green when everything is in place insofar as zoning. Mr . Martin Locus asked that this issue be put back in order, or be deferred to a later date . Mr . Locus was under the impression that the Barratt proposal was a part of this item. Mayor Snyder explained that although this discussion and the decision certainly pertains to Barratt ' s property, tonight' s decision was related only to the question of zoning. Mr. Tong presented Staff report. CM-2-171 Regular Meeting September 26, 1983 Mr. Joe Head, representing Barratt indicated they had reduced the proposed density for the Barratt project from 112 to 88 total units . The average square footage would be 1, 000 to 1 , 200 and the price range would be approximately $99 , 000 to $130 , 000 . Mr. Peter Baldo, Silvertree Lane, indicated that the Silvertree Homeowners ' Association was 100% in favor of the project. Mr. Fisk, Woodren Court, felt the density issue should be adhered to, once established. Mr. Jim Hjerpe, Woodren Court, indicated he was also satisfied with the project and that the property could be rezoned residential . He further felt the density of the project, at 12 dwelling units per acre, would be a good density to strive for on the Dublin Green project to be heard later in this meeting. Mr. Martin Locus, Betlen Drive, reported that the Dublin Village Homeowners ' Association felt an ammicable arrangement had been worked out with the developer. Ms . Cathy Waterson, representing the Silvergate Homeowners ' Association, indicated her association felt an excellent compromise had been reached. Mayor Snyder congratulated Mr . Head and members of the community who were adament in their support for their feelings related to this issue, and stood their ground and made sure things were done in a fashion that they desired. He felt it was a great attribute to the community of Dublin that the people have been shown that their desires will be listened to and heard, and be met in the future . On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, (Cm. Burton absent) Area 5 of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan is rezoned multi-family residential ( 8-15 Dwelling Units per gross Acre) . RESOLUTION NO. 48-83 ADOPTING SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN - AREA 5 PA83-004 DUBLIN GREEN The applicant, Calmet, Inc . , initially applied for, received approval for, and appealed an application for a 145 unit condominium project . Nearby residents also appealed the approval . The City Council then granted the applicant ' s request to temporarily suspend the appeal to allow consideration of the present application, prepared by Morgan Howell . The application is for a Planned Development rezoning to allow a 269 unit apartment complex in 31 two story buildings, with two recreation/pool facilities , and related parking, laundry facilities, and landscaped open space, in a 13 . 4 acre site . The application proposes 20 dwelling units per acre . CM-2-172 Regular Meeting September 26, 1983 Mr . Tong explained that the issues were 1) land use and density, 2 ) traffic and circulation, and 3 ) design. Mayor Snyder declared the public hearing open. Mr. Fred Howell, an H & H partner and developer of the project addressed the Council and relayed the basic proposal. Cm. Hegarty felt the question of public vs private road was still unresolved. Concensus of the Council was that the road would be public . Cm. Moffatt questioned whether the project would have handicap accessibility and if they would have 20% HUD units . Mr. Martin Locus, Betlen Drive, representing the Ponderosa Homeowners ' Association, felt the developer had not come forward in good faith to work out areas of major concern to residents . Mr . Jim Hjerpe felt this developer should follow the lead of Barratt and work with the people. He felt the City Council should listen to the people screaming about density. Ms . Darlene Dillingham-Green indicated she was opposed to this project. Mr . Paul Lopez , a real estate broker working in Dublin spoke in favor of the project and on behalf of those renters who weren' t represented at the meeting. Mr . Ben Green was opposed to the project and voiced concerns related to traffic . Ms . Lorrie Petty was opposed to the project and felt the City should be concerned with quality rather than quantity. Ms . Cathy Waterson was opposed to the project. Mr. Mike Gallagher, Amanda Street, spoke in favor of the project. Mr . Ivan Albert, a Dublin business owner, spoke in favor of the project and felt that the demand for this type of housing is here now. Mr. Kent Supprezio, Castle Court, felt the single story apartments were okay, but questioned the location of the project. Mr . Martin Locus felt the Council should consider what ' s best for the City. He felt the land should be kept for major employers to locate in the area. He questioned all the publicity related to the low number of rentals available in that he sees "For Rent" signs displayed at The Springs at least twice a week . Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. CM-2-173 Regular Meeting September 26, 1983 Cm. Hegarty felt the issue should be sent back to the Planning Commission for review and developer should work with residents . Cm. Moffatt felt there was a real need for apartments in Dublin. He further urged the developer to get together with the people to resolve the issues . On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Murton absent) , the City Council referred the development back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. It was the position of the City Council that the density of the project was too high and that the developer should work out an agreement with the adjacent property owners before coming back to either the Planning Commission or the City Council . STREET NAME CHANGE : SAN RAP;ON ROAD TO FOOTHILL. ROAD At its May .2 , 1983 meeting, the Planning Commission initiated a street name change study from San Ramon Road to Foothill Road. The name change would apply to San Ramon Road from I-580 to Alcosta Boulevard. A total of about 20 parcels would be affected, including the Springs Apartments (176 units) , the shopping center at San Ramon Road and A-"-costa Boulevard, and the Workbench and other uses in the San Ramon Road Specific Plan area. The Planning Commission expressed an interest in utilizing the Foothill Road address because of potential advertising benefits associated with Stoneridge Shopping Center, which is also located can Foothill Road. The Dublin San Ramon Services District Fire Department has expressed concern about the duplication of the name, Foothill Road, in both Dublin and Pleasanton, and potential confusion in responding to an emergency call . The Fire Department would not be opposed to a North Foothill Road street name . Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Mr. Al Young, Superintendent of Dublin/Pleasanton Postal System expressed no objections to alternative name, but not Foothill Road. Mr. Jim Hjerpe felt the name should remain as is due to unnecessary costs involved. Ms . Cathy Waterson was opposed to the name change on the basis of unnecessary costs and she did not understand why some people felt can Ramon Road was in&ppropriate . She stated Walnut Creek was still Walnut Creek even though it has a San Ramon Valley Boulevard running through it; Danville is still Danville even though it has a San Ramon Valley Boulevard running through it, Etc . There is no reason why Dublin should delete the name of San Ramon from its street. CM-2-174 Regular Meeting September 26, 1983 on—,[otion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Burton absent) , the Council denied the name change . RESOLUTION NO. 49-83 DENYING THE STREET NAME CHANGE : SAN RAMON ROAD TO FOOTHILL ROAD STREET NAME CHANGE: VOMAC ROAD TO WEST VOMAC ROAD At its April 11 , 1983 meeting, the City council initiated a street name change study from Vomac Road to West Vomac Road,. The name change would apply to the area along Vomac Road, west of San Ramon Road. A total of 48 single family dwelling units would be affected by the proposed name change. The street on the west side of San Ramon Road has numbers ranging from 12000 down; while streets on the east side have numbers ranging from 8371 down. The Dublin San Ramon Services District, Fire Department, has indicated its support for the proposed street name change. The subdivider at the end of Vomac Road has also indicated support for the proposed street name change. Staff received no other comments from other agencies or residents . Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Mr. Joe Chamblis , a resident of Vomac Road was opposed to the name change and didn ' t understand how anyone could get confused looking for a house number. Mr. Al Young, Postal Superintendent spoke in favor of the name .change to clarify what was felt to be a typographical error on the part of the County prior to Dublin ' s incorporation. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. The Council discussed the possibility of even minor confusion that could delay an emergency service to the area. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Burton absent) , the Council approved the name change . RESOLUTION NO. 50-83 APPROVING THE STREET NAME CHANGE : VOMAC ROAD TO WEST VOMAC ROAD STOP SIGN REQUEST - VILLAGE PARKWAY @ WINEBERRY WAY A petition was submitted to the City Council on August 8, 1983 by Elizabeth Schmitt on behalf of the residents of the neighborhood off Wineberry Way requesting stop signs facing the Village Parkway traffic at Wineberry Way. A traffic study was conducted by the City Traffic Engineer. CM-2-175 Regular Meeting September 26, 1983 On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Burton absent) , the Council 1) denied the request for stop signs on Village Parkway @ Wineberry Way; 2 ) approved the addition of a yellow school crosswalk across Village Parkway on the north side of the intersection (Davona Drive) ; 3 ) directed Staff to request the City of San Ramon, Contra Costa County to monitor the intersection of Village Parkway and Kimball Avenue for possible traffic control at that intersection. GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC SERVICE SIGNS Through the process of studying San Ramon Road, . some non-traffic related signs were identified and it was suggested that a policy be established for the installation and maintenance of these signs . On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Burton absent) , the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 51-83 APPROVING A POLICY RELATED TO THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC SERVICE SIGNS JOINT MEETING - REORGANIZATION OF DSRSD The City has been contacted by the Cities of Pleasanton and San Ramon and the .DSRSD with respect to conducting a joing meeting to discuss a change of organization for the DSRSD . The Cities of San Ramon and Pleasanton have appointed representatives from their respective Council ' s to discuss the future of DSRSD. Pleasanton representatives will be Ken Mercer and Bob Butler . San Ramon ' s representatives will be Rick Harmon, Wayne Bennett, and alternate Diane Schinnerer . The Dublin San Ramon Services District has indicated its desire to meet at a committee level, but has not yet appointed representatives . Three possible dates were selected for meeting, and Staff was directed to coordinate with the other agencies to determine meeting date. Council consensus was that Dublin' s representatives will be Peter Snyder and Linda Jeffery, with Paul Moffatt serving as altenate. BANNER INSTALLATION - ROTARY CLUB ARTS & CRAFTS FESTIVAL The Dublin Rotary Club is holding their annual Arts & Crafts Festival on October 9 , 1983 and is requesting the use of and approval for their installation of a banner noticing this festival . The banner would be mounted on a City-owned chain link fence parallel to San Ramon Road near the Shannon Center . CM-2-176 Regular Fleeting September 26, 1983 On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Burton absent) , the Council approved the request and waived permit and inspection fees . LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS Each year, as part of the Annual League of California Cities Conference, the members of the League consider a number of resolutions that impact loval government. Staff presented information on several resolutions which have been presented for consideration at the annual conference. The new dues schedule was discussed and it was reported that this now requires a 2/3 vote . STATUS REPORT ON PLEASANTON/DUBLIN TRANSIT STUDY DKS and DeLeuw, Cather, the Consultants who are presently conducting the Pleasanton/Dublin Transit Study have completed the Task 4 report which identifies the operational and management alternatives in providing local transit to the Cities of Pleasanton and Dublin. The City Manager gave a brief overview of the report and Cm. Jeffery gave report to the Council with respect to the Policy Committee 's action at its last meeting. Cm. Jeffery indicated it was felt that a JPA seemed to be the most logical way to proceed. Discussion was held with respect to narrowing down the alternatives suggested in the report. DRAFT EIR FOR AMENDMENT TO GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT AND HACIENDA BUSINESS PARK, PLEASANTON The Pleasanton Planning Department has forwarded the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Amendment to the Growth Management Element and Hacienda Business Park, Pleasanton, for review and comment. The document is detailed and complex. The project involves 1) revisions to the text of the Pleasanton Growth Management Element and 2 ) approval of the Hacienda Business Park. On September 19 , 1983 the Planning Commission reviewed the Draft EIR and recommended the following comments regarding the Draft EIR: 1 ) identify housing additions that will balance job additions ; 2 ) identify transportation mitigations that will avoid .misuse of Dublin ' s street system by commuters attempting to avoid freeway interchange congestion. CM-2-177 Regular Meeting September 26, 1983 On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Burton absent) the Council agreed that the suggestions made by the Planning Commission be forwarded to the City of Pleasanton. 1982-83 BUDGET MODIFICATIONS The City Manager .explained that basically this- is a housekeeping item. The City presently accounts for expenditures and revenues on a modified accrual basis . This means that the City incurs expense in any fiscal year based on the criteria of delivery of goods or provision of service within that fiscal year, even if the billing is not received until after the close of the fiscal year. This makes it difficult to anticipate some budget modifications until all of the accrued expenses have been accounted for. During the process of closing the 1982-83 books , Staff identified several accounts that will exceed the previously approved budget for fiscal year 1982-83 . On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Burton absent) the Council approved the budget modification transfers as presented. ADDENDUM TO STREET SWEEPING AGREEMENT The City Manager explained that this was an addendum to the City ' s existing agreement, and as a routine matter the Council needed to approve the addendum in accordance with their previous direction to Staff to negotiate the contract addendum. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Burton absent) , the Council approved the addendum. OTHER BUSINESS Political Signs Cm. Jeffery felt it appropriate for the Council to review the rules related to the placement of campaign signs, i .e. what is and isn ' t permitted. The City Manager indicated Staff had reviewed the ordinance and reported that, as the Council indicated last year, the County ordinance will be enforced with regard to those signs that are illegally placed in the public right-of-way. It was clarified that signs may be placed on private property only . CM-2-178 Regular Meeting September 26, 1983 General Plan Working Paper #2 The City Manager indicated the need for the Council to establish a date for a meeting to consider the General Plan Working Paper #2 , in order to keep on schedule . Council consensus was to set date of October 20 , 1983 for this meeting. RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION At 12 : 56 a.m. , the Council recessed to closed session. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, at 1 : 25 a.m. the meeting was adjourned. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CM-2-179 Regular Meeting September 26, 1983