Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.01 Draft Minutes 01-10-1994 e . REGULAR MEETING - Januarv 10. 1994 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, January 10, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m., by Mayor Snyder. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Houston, Howard, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. ABSENT: None. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Snyder led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * CUSTOMER SERVICE AWARD FOR JANUARY (150-90) City Manager Ambrose presented the January CUstomer Service Award to Senior Planner, Dennis Carrington. * * * * INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEE (700-10) City Manager Ambrose introduced Maria Alvarez, the City'S new Office Assistant in the Planning Department. Ms. Alvarez worked previously at the division offices for Circuit City. This opening came about as a result of Fawn Holman being promoted to the position of Administrative Secretary when Gail Adams left the City. * * * * Comments on Budqet Funding Items (330-20) Frank Ruskey stated he had good news; this would be the last meeting he would be attending. He had one important item to discuss and that was school crossing guards at Murray School District. He hoped the Council had been getting some input on their priorities. The last study was done 14 years ago, when Dublin had a population of 14,000 people. No recent survey has been done in this area. If one child gets hit crossing a sidewalk, when the lawsuit is filed, the City of Dublin will be dragged into the litigation. Courts will not say it is all the responsibility of the School Board. The City will pay if there is an accident. In the interest of children's safety, he felt it is cheap insurance for the City to fund the $10,000 to keep the kids safe. Murray School District is the only school that does not have crossing guards. He requested that the Council review the priorities on what should be funded and what should not be funded. Mayor Snyder asked Mr. Ruskey if there was a personal reason why he won't be around. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 1 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994 --------------------------------------------------~--------~--------~- COPIES TO: e e Mr. Ruskey responded no, he just has complete faith that the City Council is handling things well. Everyone at the donut shop looks to him to keep them informed. He felt the Council is doing a great job on the whole. Cm. Moffatt asked if what he had heard was true that he had given up smoking. Mr. Ruskey stated he gave it up for 32 days, but smoking ain't no big thing to do. DarIa stevens, Executive Director of community TV Channel 30, passed out some type of information to the Council. No copy was provided to the City Clerk for inclusion in the record. Ms. stevens thanked Mr. Ruskey for all the publicity and getting them in the news lately. She asked Mr. Ruskey and others to give thought to using CTV in a comparison sense and whether it needed to be an either/or situation with funding. Choosing between children's safety or CTV is a poor choice. This is a false dichotomy. The city council has to make a choice on each and every item and they do it one item at a time. Al Hunter stated he attended the last meeting and understands the positions that the Council took. What we have, however, is a situation where something needs to be done. with regard to crossing guards, he felt the City can make something happen. Maybe we need to look at it in a different way and take action. Cm. Houston clarified that the crossing guards that were in place are still there. The School District is funding them and they will continue until the end of the school year. * * * * CONSENT eALENDAR On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Received the city Treasurer's Investment Report as of December 31, 1993 (320-30); Related to the Annual st. Patrick's Day Celebration (950-40), approved the parade route, approved the location of the community celebration, and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 1 - 94 SUPPORTING THE 1994 ST. PATRIeK'S DAY eELEBRATION Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $858,588.75 (300-40). *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 2 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994 e e em. Houston requested that a correction be made to the minutes on page 457. The motion that he made relative to the storm water utility fee was that the fee be repealed so that the residents don't have to pay it. He proposed that the City fund it instead. On motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 13, 1993, with the change discussed. Cm. Houston requested that the 3 items dealing with salary increases for City employees and contract increases for Taugher & Associates and MCE Corporation be pulled from the consent calendar for discussion. Cm. Houston questioned why these changes couldn't be addressed at budget time like all the other items he's always told have to be addressed with the budget. Cm. Houston made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Burton to table these adjustments until June when they can be incorporated into the entire budget process. Following discussion, this motion was defeated by NO votes cast by Cm.'s Burton, Howard, Moffatt and Mayor snyder. Cm. Moffatt explained that these adjustments are merit salary adjustments and it is important that the City's employees at least get the 3% raise. It is important because salaries have been frozen for more than ~ year. There has been an increase in the cost of living and it is only fair that employees be given this. Cm. Burton stated he agreed partly with Cm. Houston and partly with Cm. Moffatt. He questioned the retroactive portion. He felt the amount for one-half year was appropriate; however, cranking this into the whole year makes it unfair for some of the people. It would be more fair to make it effective in January. He thought maybe the Council should look into this. Mr. Ambrose pointed out that the Council was mixing contracts with employees. The discussion at the last meeting was whether we were changing ranges or employee's salaries. He clarified that adjustments would be made within the approved salary range. Mayor Snyder advised that the retroactive portion is because employees do not have a common date. Employees have anniversary dates with some in the past as well as some in the future. Mr. Ambrose advised that the Council said they were going to restore a certain amount of money in the budget to lift the salary freeze. He stated at that time that he wasn't certain how he would implement this. He discussed it at length with the City Attorney and they reviewed a case where the state of California awarded retroactive increases and it was determined that we have the legal ability to do it. If the Council proposes something else, Staff may not be able to do it within the confines of the City's existing rules. It is important to treat all employees equally. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 3 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994 e - em. Houston indicated that in talking about different people's choices and priorities, the last time he proposed some choices, he was told they were appropriate to be acted upon in June or July at budget time. This amount can be studied in detail in June when the council decides on next year's budget. Cm. Moffatt stated he felt Cm. Houston's reasoning might be skewed. They are talking about reinstituting situations and Cm. Houston was trying to implement new situations. People who work for the City have a reasonable expectation to receive a decent and competitive salary. Our plan is different from a step plan. The City of Dublin runs very efficiently and takes better care of its citizens than some of our sister cities. He felt it was the city's obligation to give merit raises to its employees. Cm. Houston stated it was also thrown out to him on how this affects services to residents. He did not expect that this would go over big, but he wanted to have it voted on. Mr. Ambrose pointed out that Cm.'s Burton and Houston are not involved with the contract negotiations with the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority and we are in the process of negotiating right now. DRFA's contract has expired. Those members of the city council who sit on the DRFA Board of Directors are trying to look at an equity situation. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by majority vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 2 - 94 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT DATED JULY 1, 1992 BETWEEN TAUGHER & ASSOeIATES (600-30) AND THE eITY OF DUBLIN AFFEeTING RATES CHARGED FOR BUILDING AND SAFETY SERVIeES Authorized the City Manager to proceed with the implementation of employee merit salary adjustments in accordance with the city's existing Personnel Rules (700-20); and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 3 - 94 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH MeE eORPORATION FOR PUBLIe WORKS MAINTENANeE SERVIeES (600-30) Cm. Houston voted NO on this motion. * * * * *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 4 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994 - - REQUEST FOR REGIONAL MEETING ROOM FEE WAIVER FROM DUBLIN SISTER eITY ASSOCIATION (200-10) Mayor Snyder announced that he would abstain from discussion and/or voting on this issue, as he is a member of the Board of this organization. Recreation Director Lowart advised that the Dublin sister City Association has requested that the city waive the facility use fees for their use of the Regional Meeting Room on Saturday, March 12, 1994 for their Green & White Gala. In addition to this being a social event for this organization, the dinner also serves as a fundraiser for future activities of the DSCA. Ms. Lowart advised that if the city charged the group for use of the room, revenue would be approximately $240. It was pointed out that since adoption of the current policy and fee schedule in January, 1993, the City council has waived the use fees for only one other group, the Valley Volunteer Center. A number of other community groups have paid for use of the room, including the Dublin united Soccer League, the Dublin-San Ramon Lions Club and the Dublin Fine Arts Foundation. Cm. Howard announced that she also would abstain from this issue as she is also on the Board. Tom McCormick, Co-Chair of the committee sponsoring the event stated they expect 15 people from Bray, Ireland in June. This is not anything they are doing for themselves, but rather to pay expenses for the 15 to 18 people coming from Ireland. Mayor Pro Tempore Burton questioned if the money they raise is to care and feed them, or to raise funds for the organization. Mr. McCormick explained that the whole purpose of the organization is to be able to have this exchange. Anyone who has gone over to Ireland knows how well they treat visitors, and we simply wish to reciprocate. We need funds to do that. Cm. Moffatt stated the city of Dublin and the city of Bray are sister cities and certainly when people have gone over there the Irish have been very gracious. He felt it is only fair that as a minimum we would charge only the City's costs for renting the building. Mr. Ambrose pointed out that if the City council chooses to co-sponsor the event, the fees could be waived. Mr. McCormick expressed concern over this but advised that the group will be meeting on Wednesday, and he could bring it up at that time. Ms. Lowart indicated that as part of our insurance policy, we would not be able to waive the insurance requirements. When the group has used the facility in the past, they purchased the certificate provided through the city. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 5 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994 - e On motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote (Mayor Snyder and Cm. Howard abstained), the Council agreed to waive the use fees but require the Certificate of Insurance and to ask the group to consider having the city as a co-sponsor. * * * * DUBLIN LITTLE LEAGUE REQUEST TO BUILD SeOREBOOTHS (260-30) Recreation Director Lowart presented the Staff Report and advised that the Dublin Little League have contacted the City and expressed a desire to build scorebooths for each of the 4 baseball fields at the Dublin Sports Grounds. They intend to donate the improvements to the City upon completion and in consideration of their donation, they request 3 conditions, including: 1) Exclusive use of the scorebooths during the Little League season from March 1 through August 31; 2) Exclusive use of the storage facilities included in the scorebooth located at Field #3; and 3) Credit or remuneration in the form of reduced field use fees commensurate with the cost of material and labor of the scorebooths. Ms. Lowart advised that in accordance with the draft agreement, the City would be responsible for minimal site preparation, review and approval of the plans and specifications and inspection of the improvements. The estimated cost to the City is $2,500 and Staff anticipates that this cost can be absorbed within the Dublin sports Grounds Operating Budget. DLL would be responsible for providing the City with plans and specifications for the improvements, funding the cost of the improvements and constructing the improvements. The estimated cost to DLL is $5,000 if work is done by parent volunteers, or $10,000 if work is done by a licensed contractor. Ms. Lowart discussed the requested Condition #3 and advised that Staff recommended that DLL be given credit in the amount of the $10,000 for field use fees. At $5 per hour, this would purchase 2,000 hours of use. Cm. Burton questioned if the exclusive use of the scorebooths would be forever. Ms. Lowart explained that it would be for 15 years. Cm. Burton asked if the other booths would have storage areas. Ms. Lowart indicated that according to the drawings, the other booths would have a limited amount of storage space, but #3 would have a much larger space than the others. Cm. Burton stated this is a great way for the City and sports groups to get together. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 6 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994 - e Marjorie Wong-Gilmore advised that they have a fundraiser in the Spring and laughingly stated they would be happy to have the City as a co-sponsor. John Collins questioned how much money had been set aside for this. Ms. Lowart stated originally $16,000 was identified, but no money has been budgeted. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Houston, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the request to construct 4 scorebooths at the Dublin Sports Grounds; approved the request for exclusive use of the scorebooths during little league season; approved the request for exclusive use of the storage facilities included in the scorebooth at Field #3; approved a $10,000 credit towards field use fees; and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING - BJ DUBLIN eOMMEReIAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT IPLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE/TENTATIVE MAP PA 93-052 (420-30) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Cm. Houston announced that he would abstain from discussion and/or voting on this issue due to a conflict of interest. Associate Planner Choy advised that the J. Patrick Land Co., representing BJ Dublin Commercial, is requesting adoption of a PD Rezone Ordinance, approval of PD General provisions and Development Regulations and approval of a Tentative Map to divide their existing 7f parcel located near the intersection of Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard into 9 separate lots. The ordinance was introduced at a public hearing on December 13, 1993. Mr. Choy advised that the proposed PD District would implement the Retail/Office and Automotive General Plan Land Use Designation by establishing a range of retail and service commercial type uses. The new PD District will emphasize development consistent with the C-2 District in terms of permitted and conditional uses, land use regulations and minimum/maximum development criteria. The C-2 District does not require setbacks for this property. This will allow more efficient utilization of land, and help to facilitate commercial rather than industrial type developments. Mr. Choy stated the Applicant is requesting approval of Tentative Map Tract 6644 to divide the parcel into 9 separate lots. The western half of the site is intended to accommodate 2 large retailers (between 25,000 and 45,000 square feet) and a small pad lot along the Dougherty Road frontage. The eastern half of the site will be reserved for 6 smaller lots (each approximately .5 acres) which will be sold individually to accommodate the development of owner/user, or service commercial type uses. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 7 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994 e e Mr. Choy indicated that as part of each individual application for site Development Review, the Public Works Department will review the individual requests to determine the extent of the potential project related impacts on local roadways. Each project will be required to pay their proportionate share of traffic impact mitigation fees. Credit may be given for past developer contributions toward major street improvements. The Property Owner is participating in the Assessment District for the Dublin Boulevard Extension/Dougherty Road widening project, and has dedicated property for frontage improvements along both roads. The Property Owner is requesting approval of the Tentative Map to help disperse the obligation to the Assessment District lien currently on the single parcel. Cm. Burton asked if the smaller lots are to be sold and split separately or as a co-op. Mr. Choy indicated they will be sold separately, but there will be an association formed that will pay an association fee. Cm. Burton questioned the status of the tag lots and if any information was available on them. Public Works Director Thompson reported that the process has been delayed due to trying to first make sure the Vangelatos property has an easement over the excess parcel. They have been going back and forth for the last couple of weeks, but he hoped to have this resolved shortly. Cm. Moffatt questioned the Chevron property. Mr. Thompson advised that their option has expired. Cm. Burton stated continuity is important rather than having a little piece of property. He asked if the veterinary thing had been straightened out. staff responded that it had been resolved. No testimony was given by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Houston abstained), the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANeE NO. 1 - 94 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANeE TO PERMIT THE REZONING OF REAL PROPERTY LOeATED AT THE NORTHEAST PORTION OF THE INTERSEeTION OF DOUGHERTY ROAD AND DUBLIN BOULEVARD *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 8 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994 e e and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 4 - 94 APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING eONeERNING PA 93-052 BJ DUBLIN eOMMEReIAL and RESOLUTION NO. 5 - 94 APPROVING PA 93-052 BJ DUBLIN eOMMERCIAL TENTATIVE MAP TRACT 6644 TO DIVIDE AN EXISTING 7.1f AeRE VAeANT PAReEL INTO NINE SEPARATE LOTS * * * * PUBLIC HEARING - NON-DISPOSAL FAeILITY ELEMENT (NDFE) OF THE INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN (810-60) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Assistant City Manager Rankin presented the Staff Report and explained that the purpose of the NDFE is to identify and describe existing and/or planned Non-Disposal Facilities to be utilized by the city in attaining the waste reduction goals identified in the City'S SRRE. The City has no existing or new NDFs planned within the jurisdiction; therefore, the City'S NDFE consists of facilities located outside the City of Dublin. The City'S franchised hauler transports source separated recyclables to these facilities. Mr. Rankin advised that the City'S NDFE was prepared and forwarded to the Alameda County Waste Management Authority Local Task Force (LTF) for an advisory review, as required by State Law. After receiving comments from the LTF, the City must hold at lease one public hearing and then adopt its NDFE. Once adopted, the NDFE will be submitted to the Alameda County Waste Management Authority for transmittal to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. This Board has 120 days to approve or disapprove of the NDFEs. Cm. Moffatt brought up the fact that SB 450 which will redefine solid waste as garbage. He asked if this legislation would affect this situation. Mr. Rankin stated this action only says where our recyclables will be processed, or where the end of the line is. He indicated he was not familiar with SB 450. No testimony was given by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 9 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994 e e On motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 6 - 94 ADOPTING THE NON-DISPOSAL FAeILITY ELEMENT AND APPENDIeING IT TO THE SOUReE REDUeTION AND REeyeLING ELEMENT * * * * PUBLIe HEARING AMENDMENTS TO SMOKING POLLUTION eONTROL ORDINANeE (560-90) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that the City Council held a public hearing in December, 1993 and introduced an ordinance which would amend the city's current ordinance as follows: 1) Prohibit smoking in all workplaces (employers may designate smoking areas if the room is separately ventilated); 2) Prohibit smoking in all restaurant dining areas, waiting areas, restrooms, offices, break rooms and food preparation areas; 3) Ban distribution of tobacco samples and prohibit cigarette vending machines; 4) Prohibit smoking in restaurant bars on January 10, 1995, unless the room is separately ventilated; and 5) Allow smoking in "free-standing bars". The American Lung Association has indicated that they have a business assistance program designed to assist any business with the implementation of a smoke-free environment. staff can provide contact information to interested businesses who are impacted by the ordinance. Cm. Howard stated she thought the Council agreed to exclude outdoor eating areas, but they're included in the prohibited areas listed under Paragraph 7 of Page 4. Also, on Page 5, Paragraph B regarding an employer providing an optional separately ventilated room where employees may smoke, no time limit was given. She thought they should be allowed some time to make the necessary changes. Cm. Howard also asked for an explanation of the violation penalty, and if a violation would apply to a person or a company. Mr. Ambrose responded that it would be the person who owns, operates or controls the business. City Attorney Silver stated this was covered in Paragraph A of section 5.56.140, on Page 7. It could be both. If an individual is violating the ordinance, the person who owns, operates or controls the business would also be held responsible. They have an obligation to uphold the laws of the City. Mr. Rankin asked if the Council was suggesting no enforcement in the workplace for 6 months. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 10 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994 e e Ms. Keck explained that the exemption for outdoor dining was a part of the first public hearing and ordinance introduction. When the Council introduced new amendments at a subsequent public hearing, however, the outdoor dining was not specifically included. The direction of the Council was to totally disregard the changes previously discussed and start over by introducing the specific amendments as discussed and all other requirements were to remain the same as the 1986 ordinance. John Collins stated he felt he had to speak on this even though it probably would do no good. People must have groceries and they must have jobs; however, he hoped that smokers will boycott discretionary places. It will affect the City because of a reduction in business. Businesses should decide whether smoking is allowed or not. He stated he can live with this, but he will just be staying home more and eating out less. Tom McCormick stated he feels this ordinance is a reasonable compromise. They might want to look at it again in the future, however. It will certainly protect the people in this City from lawsuits. The minimum fine under the Americans with Disabilities Act is $50,000 if a disabled person files and wins a lawsuit. He urged the Council to approve the ordinance. Jerry Kekos stated he has lived in Dublin close to 30 years and this has always been an issue with him. His rights have been violated. If people want to smoke in an establishment, let them do it. The next thing you know, the City will be telling him he can't smoke his weekly cigars in his own front yard. Let people vote on it. To tell a business that they have to build vents, etc., let them make up their own rules. People like to smoke and drink or smoke and have a cup of coffee. He stated he might start smoking. An unidentified Pleasanton resident stated she requested help for Pleasanton, Livermore and San Ramon. Their ordinances don't clearly state how far is reasonable. A person could walk through smoke 30' from the door of a mall and still complain. It is not clearly stated who would enforce the ordinances and it assumes a person is guilty. It strips away the employer's rights to handle it at his or her own discretion. It doesn't clearly speak out on how fines will be served. It will be one person's word against another. It doesn't allow a one person office to smoke in their own business. City cars are not addressed when they leave the City of Pleasanton. Existing bars can have smoking, but no new bars can open which allow smoking in Pleasanton. Mayor Snyder indicated that Mayor Tarver has already stated that everyone else has jumped ship on the smoking issue. He questioned the document she was referencing and advised that the Dublin City Council is conducting a public hearing related only to Dublin's proposed ordinance. Florence Ruskey stated she is not a smoker, but wanted to know where this stops. One thing leads to another. She doesn't like to see other's rights taken away from them. This ordinance is ridiculous. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 11 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994 e e Mayor Snyder stated he currently attends many public meetings where a notice is placed stating you cannot enter if you have a fragrance on. Ms. Ruskey questioned where the individual rights were. We will have young teenagers smoking in places where they oughtn't to be smoking just to defy this. Janet Lockhart, 8136 Creekside Drive, stated she appreciates the City Council's understanding of the health issues. Through all the public hearings on this issue, we have not had one single restaurant owner come forth to complain about having a smoke free restaurant. When she surveyed the restaurants in town, they all encouraged a smoke-free situation. This will make for a much better environment. The comment about smokers not dining out and not going to the bowling center because they are discretionary are true, but it should be kept in mind that this will open it up to a lot of people who have been previously kept away because of the smoking. June Martinez, a cocktail waitress stated they haven't proven 100% that smoking is harmful. If people want a smoking business, they should have the right to have it. Whenever you go into a bar, you can always tell who the smokers are; they're the fun people. If non- smokers don't want to go in, then let them stay out. Frank Ruskey stated why not put the cards on the table. There are 68% of the people who do not smoke and only 32% are smokers. But, in the last few months, this has climbed to 42%. You can push only so far. Is secondhand smoke bad? Absolutely. Can you eliminate secondhand smoke? Yes, there are ways to do this. The Council is coming in and flat telling people what they can and can't do. Some business will be lost. The Council has tried to come up with a fair ordinance. It is better than the others in the Valley. Non-smokers want to review it again next year and next year the Council will try to take some more away from the smokers. He felt it was a smart idea to have all the cities act together. It is a fair compromise. They can't fight every city, but they can call for a boycott of one city. John Collins stated he did not take a survey of restaurants, but felt we should let those that want put no smoking signs up in their place. Al Hunter, who is in the aviation business, stated more and more airlines are banning smoking on longer flights. It is time to take this to a different level. Around 1986, Phoenix passed an ordinance which was very simple. Businesses had a certain nUmber of days to develop a policy that protected the rights of non-smokers. He would like to see something like this here. He would like to see an ordinance that states all public facilities will institute a plan which protects people from tobacco smoke within a certain number of days or submit a plan that complies with that request. Failure to comply requires that it be non-smoking. This makes it equal across the board, and this way, you take the argument away. It protects people from secondhand smoke, which is the issue. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 12 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994 e - Mayor Snyder pointed out that we have an ordinance in place already which is somewhat restrictive. We have had no administrative actions. Mr. Rankin advised that it has been mainly an administrative process. If someone complains, City staff works with the business to explain how they can comply. Bruce Fiedler, Hemlock street stated he was the one who suggested that the City Councils in Livermore and Dublin wimped out. He was happy to hear a previous speaker say he at least smokes in his yard. If he goes to a restaurant, he is happy that he will not be subjected to others' bad habits. If someone has 15 beers, he does not ingest one drop. If a person has a 5 egg omelette every single morning, he does not get their cholesterol. But, if someone smokes around him, they have inflicted their bad habits on him, plus, we pay the costs of all those who die each year. He was happy to see other cities taking similar positions. He noted a new Ale House at Valley Avenue and Hopyard Road in Pleasanton and last Friday afternoon, there was only one empty table and they are totally non-smoking. He believes this is a trend and that we will be seeing more alcohol serving establishments going toward this in the future. Cm. Houston pointed out that Lyon's Brewery right here in Dublin also has a no-smoking policy. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Ted Hoffman stated he had a point of clarification, but would ask the question later. Cm. Howard felt that the language contained in Paragraph 2 on Page 3 was too specific and doesn't allow for changes in technology. This section requires that doors shall seal with a gasket, so that no smoke escapes. Mayor Snyder stated he would rather not get involved with judgment calls. Number 2 is talking about a separate room. He saw no problem with the language if it helps Staff to enforce the ordinance. Cm. Burton felt that Paragraph 1 says exactly what they are trying to do, so #2 should just be left out. Mr. Rankin stated he thought the language came from the City of Oakland. They addressed how to address the problem where you have a multi-tenant building. Cm. Burton felt the City needed to be careful in involving itself in every process. This narrows it down to only one way and if it doesn't work, people will come back and say it doesn't work. We should not try to design how it will work in every situation. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 13 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994 e e Cm. Moffatt asked if the Council would rather say the area must be smoke free. This translates to 60 cubic feet of air per person per second. This is essentially a gale. The number one concern is the public health issue and liability. If someone can show that you can build a petition or area that doesn't allow the secondhand smoke to spread, this might be appropriate. Cm. Burton felt we should go with #1 only as this is very specific. Cm. Moffatt felt that #2 would be an example of how this could be done. Cm. Houston felt we could add for #2, "as an example II Mr. Ambrose suggested that, "or an acceptable alternative" could be added. Cm. Burton questioned who will make the judgment call. It will be determined by #1. Cm. Howard discussed what they are doing up in Tahoe in the casinos. Mayor Snyder stated the problem is who judges what is acceptable. He asked if there was a consensus to go with just #1 and #3. Mr. Ambrose stated Staff knows the problems with the current ordinance and where there have been enforcement problems. The more we can provide options, the more it helps the business community. Mr. Rankin pointed out that gaskets are not a unique feature. Cm. Burton stated he felt it was a very narrow answer and might not fit every situation. The consensus of the Council was to take out #2. The consensus of the Council also was to allow smoking in outdoor dining areas. Cm. Burton asked who would be the one to issue the citation and stated he would like to see a citation given for the first offense until businesses get used to this. Mayor Snyder advised that this is no different than in the current ordinance; it is administered by the City Manager. Mr. Ambrose advised that the City has not issued any tickets and asked if Cm. Burton meant to say warning notice. em. Burton stated yes, this was what he meant. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 14 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994 e e Mr. Ambrose explained how the process works now. If the City gets a complaint, someone in the city Manager's Office investigates it, makes contact with the business, and attempts to resolve the situation. As he indicated earlier, no tickets or citations have been issued. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Houston, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANeE NO. 2 - 94 AMENDING TITLE 5, eHAPTER 56 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL eODE RELATING TO SMOKING POLLUTION eONTROL Ted Hoffman pointed out that the bowling center was classified with sports arenas and convention halls (Page 4, Paragraph 11), but their bar area will be separately ventilated so it will be like a free- standing bar. He questioned what happens if this is misunderstood by someone in the City in the future. Mayor Snyder advised that the Council had agreed that the bar area can have smoking if it is separately ventilated. This statement becomes a part of the official record, recorded in the minutes. Mr. Hoffman stated they have had only one complaint in all the years since the smoking ordinance has been effective. * * * * PUBLIe HEARING DUBLIN eEMETERY INTERMENT FEES (295-10) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Recreation Director Lowart stated that due to the fact that no proposals were submitted in response to the City's RFP for management of burials at the Dublin Cemetery, the Recreation Department will be the point of contact for the families of the deceased buried at the Dublin Cemetery. The Recreation Department will be responsible for coordinating burial services, confirming plot locations and ownership, and maintaining cemetery and burial records. The Public Works Department will coordinate the site preparation for burials and will contract with an independent backhoe operator for opening and closing the graves. Ms. Lowart advised that in order to recoup the cost for burials, a fee schedule has been developed, as follows: Earth Burial Contract Backhoe & Vault Public Works Labor Total Recommended Fee $1,025 250 $1,275 Cremated Remains Vault Public Works Labor Total Recommended Fee $ 35 75 $ 110 The fees include the direct cost of the service as well as minimal overhead charges. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 15 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994 e e Cm. Burton pointed out as new caretakers, we will have to watch the use of the term "service", as it has a different meaning when used related to burials. No testimony was given by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, th~ Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 7 - 94 ADOPTING INTERMENT FEES FOR THE DUBLIN eEMETERY * * * * PUBLIC HEARING 1994 ADJUSTMENT TO GARBAGE RATES REQUESTED BY WASTE MANAGEMENT ALAMEDA COUNTY (WMAe) FORMERLY OAKLAND SeAVENGER eOMPANY) (810-30) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that in July of 1993, Waste Management of Alameda submitted a request for increased rates which was submitted to the Joint Refuse Rate Review Committee for review. The portion of the rate adjustment attributable to the city of Dublin was calculated as being equivalent to an 8% increase in revenues. The current franchise agreement runs to March of 1996. The terms of the agreement authorize the City Council to establish all garbage rates for services provided in the city and also provides that the revenue derived by the Company must cover their estimated expenses, plus a reasonable rate of return. Mr. Rankin reviewed the multi-page staff Report and advised that the proposed adjustments vary, depending on the type and frequency of service. The proposed adjustments will produce revenues of approximately 7.6% higher than those collected by the Company in 1993. The most significant factor in this adjustment is the imposition of Alameda County Measure D, which results in a $6 per ton fee being collected at the landfill to support recycling activities countywide. In summary, Mr. Rankin advised that the annual change required to franchised Company revenue, as compared to the projected increase in revenues to be generated by the proposed 1994 rates is $154,777. The total projected increased franchised revenue is $148.745. The projections are based upon data now available and final results will most likely differ. In addition to revenue fluctuations, the Company may also have changes in expenditures. These variances will be considered in the next rate application. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 16 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994 e e Cm. Moffatt commented on the commercial 32 gallon can rate These are usually small users that can't use a 1-yard bin. asked if Livermore-Dublin Disposal had noticed an increase since going to mandatory pickup. Cm. Burton questioned if they experience people overloading the 4 yard Handy Hauler. difference. He also in revenue Dan Borges explained that what happens is somebody puts a little extra in and they normally don't charge extra if it is just a little above the water level line. Mr. Rankin stated it may be possible that we'll decrease the recycling assessment charges next year, 1994-95 with the amount of Measure D funds. Dan Borges requested that the rates be raised in accordance with staff's recommendation. In response to Cm. Moffatt's question, he advised that there has been a very small increase and this has been put back into the rates. Mr. Ambrose stated we really won't have a clear picture until all the property tax comes in. Andor Koval questioned what happens to the money from the recycling and asked if any revenue was generated from this. Mr. Rankin advised that that service is not regulated by the city. Any revenues realized are the garbage company's revenues as they assume the risks. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 8 - 94 EXTENDING THE TERM OF A PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT WITH OAKLAND SeAVENGER eo., RELATED TO eLOSURE AND POST eLOSURE MAINTENANeE OF THE ALTAMONT SANITARY LANDFILL AS ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY RESOLUTION 14-93 and RESOLUTION NO. 9 - 94 AMENDING seHEDULE OF SERVIeE RATES FOR SOLID WASTE eOLLEeTION/ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM SERVIeE LEVEL FOR RESIDENTIAL eUSTOMERS AND DESIGNATING THE POINT OF eOLLEeTION FOR SINGLE FAMILY eOLLEeTION * * * * *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 17 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994 e e TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AND AeTION PLAN MODEL RESULTS (1060-80) Public Works Director Thompson presented the detailed staff Report and advised that a recent traffic model run using land use data acceptable to each of the 7 Tri-Valley jurisdictions indicates future levels of service problems on several of the arterial street and freeway segments in the Tri-Valley Area. The TVTC is requesting direction on alternate studies to bring the land use and transportation network into conformance. The model results indicate three major regional roads in the Dublin area will not meet generally acceptable LOS standards for arterial streets and for freeways. The next step in preparing the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan is to find methods of matching development to needed roadway improvements. The TVTC has proposed 6 types of studies to undertake to try to match transportation improvements to developments. The Dublin City Council did not previously rank the alternatives because results of this latest model run were not available, and it was felt at the time that it was not prudent to recommend solutions until it was known where the problems would occur. It appears that the majority of the other jurisdictions would prefer the reduced land use growth rate as a first alternative, transit improvements and shifting higher densities to mass transit centers as the next highest alternatives, then road improvements, and increasing Traffic Demand Management (TDM) measures and reducing the LOS standards as the last alternatives. Mr. Thompson advised that at the December 15th TVTC meeting, Staff and the Consultant were directed to explore improvement to the network system by reducing the land use growth rate for the Year 2010. They were directed to study a reduced areawide land use growth rate of approximately 2.8% growth rate instead of 4%. Dublin's Planning Department and the City'S consultant, WRT, feel more comfortable using Dublin's existing Year 2010 land use estimates. Dublin's land use numbers are consistent with the latest ABAG growth projections and these numbers are based on professional land use studies conducted by Staff, the City's consultants, and ABAG over the last several years. Also, the CMA and MTC will not accept a computer model that shows land uses inconsistent with ABAG projections, which will happen if the projected growth rate is drastically cut. If the numbers do not approximately match ABAG numbers, the model cannot be used for CMA Deficiency Plans, air quality studies, and/or other environmental documentation studies. . Mr. Thompson stated Staff recommended that the City Council set priorities for further TVTC Plan Studies for the Dublin area only: 1) Additional road improvements (a lot); 2) Increase TDM measures (a lot); 3) Higher densities near transportation nodes (some); 4) Reduced Level of Service (some); 5) Transit improvements (some); and 6) Reduce land use growth rate (none). Staff also recommended that the Council send a letter to the TVTC expressing the city's concern with reducing the growth rate for the Year 2010 and providing the Council's priorities for further transportation studies. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 18 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994 e e Cm. Moffatt stated he understands that this rating model is primarily a tool to attack the problem. This is not an absolute rating, but more a suggested way of attacking the problem. It reduces the rate of development and he questioned how this would impact the General Plan. Mr. Thompson stated that it looked like no matter what we do, 1-580 will be Level F and so it is a matter of how much time it is at this level. Cm. Moffatt stated he felt the TJKM report which was recently distributed was very succinct. They have some innovative things to say such as Highway 84 could be an expressway. Mr. Thompson felt that technology will get better as we go. We are now just trying to look at all the alternatives with today's technology. There are a lot of things out there. It is just a matter of how much money. Cm. Burton stated he felt it is very important now to combat some of the negative comments. There are some good comments and key points made on the first page of the TJKM report. (Traffic generated from sources outside the valley will grow regardless of Tri-Valley development plans. Traffic forecasts show that this traffic from "outside" will severely exceed current capacities of Tri-Valley infrastructure. New Tri-Valley housing is not the source of local congestion. Because it is concentrated on key roadways, traffic generated outside the valley is a major cause of congestion.) These are important points. He personally felt that user fees are appropriate. It could be gas tax or toll roads, etc. He suggested sending this letter to the members of the TVTC in advance. These people are bound and determined to make land use one of the ways for traffic financing. They are talking $3,000 or $4,000 per house. On motion of em. Burton, seconded by Cm. Houston, and by unanimous vote, the council authorized the Mayor to send the letter to the Tri- Valley Transportation Council. * * * * 1994 GOALS & OBJEeTIVES/BUDGET STUDY SESSION (100-80) city Manager Ambrose advised that the city council annually holds a study session to review the progress on the previous year's Goals & Objectives and to establish and prioritize Goals & Objectives for the upcoming year. Mr. Ambrose discussed the process used and stated if the Council wishes to change the format, appropriate direction should be given to staff. staff recommended that the Council select a date during the first week of March for the study session meeting. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 19 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994 e e Additionally, since issues have been brought up by individual city Councilmembers at the time of the formal budget hearing and after the preliminary Budget has been developed, Staff suggested that the council consider holding a budget study session either in conjunction with or closely following the Goals & Objectives study session in order that budget issues or budget considerations can be identified earlier, so that the City council could have the benefit of Staff analysis and impact of those budget issues and considerations while considering the upcoming FY 1994-95 Budget. Cm. Burton felt there should be some way of identifying what each ranking number means. It is still subjective. Cm. Moffatt asked if the Council might be able to look at areas where we can cut in anticipation of further budget cuts from the State. By consensus, the Council agreed that the dates of Tuesday, March 1st and Wednesday, March 2nd be set aside to hold the Goals & Objectives Study Session and a Budget Study Session. * * * * OTHER BUSINESS Upcominq Meeting Reminders (610-05) Mr. Ambrose reminded those involved that they would be meeting tomorrow afternoon with Pleasanton representatives at 4:00 p.m. The DRFA meeting has been moved to Wednesday evening, January 19th. The next Alameda County Leadership meeting will be held on January 19th also. * * * * Heritaqe Center Committee (910-40) Cm. Moffatt asked how the Heritage Committee was coming along. Mr. Ambrose stated they are trying to get a report to the city Council by the first meeting in March. Ms. Lowart feels things are coming along well. The primary issue is how does DHPA fit into the picture. There are some other issues they are trying to get resolved. * * * * Economic Development Committee (470-50) Cm. Moffatt asked how the Economic Development Group was coming along. Mr. Ambrose stated the group will finally be meeting next week. In the meantime, Staff has been working on some land use data and doing a commercial and retail inventory. PG&E has an active economic *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 20 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994 e e development interest. It looks like a good group of people have been assembled. Cm. Moffatt asked if the group will be using Bruce Kern's Alameda County group. Mr. Ambrose advised that the group will be presented with the services offered by those type of groups. em. Moffatt asked if staff will be preparing progress reports. Mayor Snyder stated maybe it would not be appropriate to take the wind out of their sails all along since they will be providing the council with a report at the end. * * * * Council Meetinq Rules (610-20) Cm. Houston asked if anybody had ever thought about changing the time for City Council meetings to begin from 7:30 p.m., to 6:30 p.m. Some employees don't live right here in Dublin and they don't have an opportunity to go home before the meetings. Also, we might have more people come to the meetings because they are earlier. Maybe they can get out earlier, too. Cm. Moffatt stated it was originally set at 7:30 p.m., to help him out. He felt that 6:30 p.m., is a bit early, but we could certainly try it; 7:00 p.m., might be more appropriate. Mayor Snyder stated we mainly need to consider how best to serve the public. The Council asked that Staff agendize the Resolution dealing with the rules for Council meetings in order that they may discuss this at a future meeting. * * * * CLOSED SESSION At 10:50 p.m., the Council recessed to a closed session to discuss 1) Pending Litigation (640-30), Dublin vs. Pleasanton - Case No.V- 007073-9 - Government Code section 54956.9(a); 2) Pending Litigation, Butler vs. City of Dublin - San Mateo County Case No. 385533 - Gov't Code section 54956.9(a); 3) Potential Litigation - Gov't Code section 54956.9(c); and 4) Personnel (700-20) - Gov't Code section 54957.6 * * * * *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 21 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994 e e ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. * * * * Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk * * * * *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 22 Regular Meeting January 10, 1994