Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-12-1991 Adopted CC MinutesRE~ULi~t MEETIN~ - Noventber 12~ 1991 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Tuesday, November 12, 1991, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m., by Mayor Snyder. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (610-20) Junior Girl Scouts Chara Jay and Michelle Carter, from Troop 1189 led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Chara stated they have been working on a project called "Self Esteem". They have also been wOrking on their sports badges. MiChelle statedthey got their Wings badges when they went from Brownies to Girl Scouts. * * * Food Distribution by Boy Scouts of America (585-40) Dr. Zev Kahn, representing Boy Scouts of America, reported that this weekend, they will be undertaking a nationwide good turn project for the low income of the COuntry. They are collecting canned goods and foods. Bags have been distributed which can be dropped off at Albertsons on Saturday from 1-3 p.m. The Alameda County Food Bank will distribute the food to those in need. Bags were passed out to each of the Councilmembers and Staff. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 28, 1991; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 115 - 91 RESCINDING REJECTION OF OFFER OF DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS, PARCEL MAP 3000, AND ACCEPTING OFFER OF DEDICATION AND EASEMENTS (6?0-40) (U-HAUL COMPANY OF EAST BAY) CM - VOL 10 - 412 Regular Meeting November 12, 1991 and directed the City Clerk to record Resolution with the Alameda County Recorder; Accepted the City Treasurer's Investment Report as of October 31, 1991 (320-30); Authorized Staff to advertise Contract 91-10, Nielsen and Cronin Schools Play Area Renovations for bids (600-30); Approved an extension of the Wilsey & Ham contract for engineering services on the Dublin BouleVard Extension with the stipulation that the work'is not authorized until after the assessment district petition has been received (600-30); Accepted the Finance Report for the period ending October 31, 1991 (330-50); Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $855,963-54 (300-40). Cm. Burton requested that the agreement for legal services for the Dublin Boulevard extension be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. He stated he assumed that the attorneys will be doing all of this on the assumption that the agency will go through with it. He questioned reimbursement costs discussed on Page 3 of the agreement. Mr. Thompson advised that all of the fees would only be charged if the bond issue goes through. Most of these are for printing of the bonds. Ms. 'Silver pointed out that Page 4 of the agreement provides that fees are payable upon delivery of the bonds. This is typical procedure and this is a standard agreement. This firm is one of long standing in the East Bay. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 116 - 91 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH STURGIS, NESS, BRUNSELL AND SPERRY FOR LEGAL SERVICES - DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 91-1 (600-30) Cm. Burton requested that the item related to the adoption of an Injury and Illness Prevention Program be removed from the Consent Calendar, as he had noted several errors which he felt were major. The resolution states that this program is for employers with over 25 employees, yet the Staff Report indicates that every employer, regardless of size, must comply. Cm. Burton also pointed out 2 typographical errors in the Policy. Management Assistant Barker advised that the program affects all employers, regardless of size and this fact will be corrected on the resolution, as well as the typographical errors. CM - VOL 10 - 413 Regular Meeting November 12, 1991 Cm. Jeffery questioned if we would be filing for reimbursement of the costs since this a State mandated program. Mr. Barker advised that he didn't feel there was any mechanism for applying for reimbursements. City Manager Ambrose stated that we have not filed claims in the past, because based on information from the League of California Cities, it is more costly to apply than what we would receive. Assistant City Manager Rankin indicated that this program might be different in that it is mandated to all employers, not just public agencies. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the CoUncil adopted RESOLUTION NO. 117 - 91 ADOPTING AN INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH SB 198 (7Z0-90) and authorized Staff to implement the Program. PUBLIC HEARING DUBLIN CINEMA FREESTANDING SIGN VARIANCE APPEAL PA 91-046 (400-30) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Kachadourian presented the Staff Report and advised that in December, 1968, the Alameda County Planning Commission approved a Variance for the existing Dublin Cinema freestanding sign which is 34' in height, with approximately 516 square feet of sign area including changeable sign copy and is set back 30' from the front property line along Dublin Boulevard and is set back approximately 140' west of the 1,680 right-of-way. Section 8-87.71(c) requires all signs rendered non-conforming by the Sign Ordinance, including those previously approved through a Variance or Conditional Use Permit, to be brought into conformance by June, 1989. Section 8-87.73(e) allows the Planning Director to grant an extension of time not exceeding a total of 3 years from the date the signs become non-conforming. Three year time extensions have been granted to all non-conforming sign locations which requested an extension period. Mr. Kachadourian explained that this sign is currently considered an illegal sign under State Law. The sign was initially considered (legal) non-conforming per the Zoning Ordinance Section 8-87.71(c) since the property owner did not bring the sign into conformance within the required time frame. Additionally, the property owner did not request an extension of time to bring the sign into conformance as CM - VOL 10 - 414 Regular Meeting November 12, 1991 allowed under the Ordinance; therefore, the Property Owner is not entitled to an extension and must bring the sign into conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Kachadourian advised that since June, 1989, Staff has been meeting and working with the Property Owner and Applicant to bring the existing illegal sign (per State Law) into conformance with the Ordinance. On June 27, 1991, the Applicant submitted an application request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to modify and maintain the existing Dublin Cinema freestanding sign. On August 19, 1991, the Planning Commission approved the CUP subject to compliance with the Zoning Ordinance provisions of Section 8-87.34 governing height, setback, location and size of freestanding signs and denied the Variance request to deviate from setback requirements and to exceed the maximum permitted sign area. On August 27, 1991, the Property Owner appealed the Planning Commission's action denying the Variance. Mr. Kachadourian discussed the reasons for Staff's recommendation of denial of the Variance which included: 1) there are no special circumstances applicable to the property; 2) granting the Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity; and 3) granting the Variance would not be detrimental to persons or property in the vicinity or to the public welfare. Mr. Kachadourian advised that several options are available to the Applicant to maintain adequate signage on the site in conformance with the Sign Ordinance. Three options were discussed which would be consistent with the Sign Ordinance with regard to area, setback and height requirements. A fourth option discussed would require Planning Commission action. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the Variance that they got 23 years ago is still valid. Mr. Kachadourian replied that it was valid until the City's Sign Ordinance was adopted. Cm. Jeffery questioned what the average life of a sign like this was. Mr. Kachadourian stated he is working on finding out the market value of signs in order to determine how the value is based. This was as a result of Council direction at the last meeting when signs were discussed as part of the status report on non-conforming signs. Cm. Burton questioned why we are having to quote State Law instead of our own Ordinance. Mr. Kachadourian advised that basically, the Dublin Cinema sign was not brought into conformance, nor did they request an extension. CM - VOL 10 - 415 Regular Meeting November 12, 1991 Cm. Burton questioned if we have to go back to a State Law to provide for enforcement. City Attorney Silver advised that Dublin's Ordinance doesn't specifically include a sign that was previously legal with a Variance. We can use the State Law in that the procedure is substantially the same for abatement of a nuisance. Robert Enea stated he felt that Mr. Kachadourian had addressed all the main issues. With regard to the issue of the extension, their position as a company has never been to ignore this issue. They were advised by counsel that unless the City can demonstrate that this sign is unsafe or a nuisance, from a legal standpoint, they were not required to remove it. They were also advised that this is a grey area of the law and rather than take an avant guard stance, they should try to work with the City. They have had 4 or 5 meetings in the last year to resolve this issue. They are having a hard time understanding why, after 23 years, this sign needs to come down. Nobody has ever complained about its existence. This sign basicallY put Dublin on the map. They have had estimates on all 3 of the options presented by Staff and each involve costs between $10,000 to $14,000. This is an economic hardship that they feel is unjustifiable. Mayor Snyder stated that 10 years ago when the whole process began, it was hoped that with the mix of people on the sign committee that all these issues would have been addressed. Obviously, the City now finds itself in a bad position in trying to deal with Options 1, 2 or 3. He questioned if the Eneas had given any thought to the fourth option related to a Conditional Use Permit request for a minor modification to the Planned Development. This would allow for the request for more signage. Cm. Burton questioned how many total square feet of signage would be allowed for the 5 1/2 acres involved. Mr. Kachadourian advised that there is one freestanding sign allowed per parcel. Plus, if they are adjacent to a flood control channel, or freeway, or are 4 acres or larger, they could have a'second sign. They could apply and Staff would need to look into the specific regulations in this case. Cm. Burton questioned what would happen if the back parcel deVelops. Mr. Kachadourian advised that it is based on setbacks and there is a formula for figuring square footage. Robert Enea stated they could get additional signage on the building; however, they don't want this, but they do want to keep what they have. In addition, they have dedicated about $ to 10 feet of frontage right-of-way. Originally, the sign was far enough away, before the dedication. Option~#4 is moving in the right dibection. They would like their sign company to draft an elevation to see how it would lOOk. If it involves moving the entire sign and getting a new sign, VOL 10 - 41~ Regular Meeting November 12, 1991 this factor would impact their decision. They are willing to look at this. They felt the issue is whether or not Staff would support this. Mr. Kachadourian stated he thought that in order to get the 496 square foot sign area,.the height would stay the same, but they would have to make the reader board much smaller. Planning Director Tong advised that Staff would be more supportive of the CUP if the Applicant also applied for an amendment to the Planned Development. Staff would need to take a closer look before making a recommendation. Mr. Ambrose clarified that the question is can it legally be done under the PD process. Mr. Tong advised that it can be done. Mayor Snyder clarified that they would reduce the height of the sign but basically keep the square footage of the reader board. Cm. Burton felt this would have to go back through the planning process and the Planning Commission would need to make a recommendation and then it would go back before the City COuncil for ultimate decision. Cm. Jeffery expressed concern that if the cOuncil changes the rules for this and then another company comes in on the back parcel, what happens? Mr. Tong advised also that any other Planned Development could use this as a precedent. Most of the major projects the City has processed have been Planned Developments with less than 1/2 dozen having vacant land. Cm. Moffatt stated he was more concerned about the business than the sign. He felt the City can work around these issues. Richard Enea added that he'felt the movie business is unique. What is on the marker is what is playing at their theater. Many cities exempt theaters from a sign ordinance. This is basically 6 different businesses for them. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Mayor Snyder questioned what the appropriate process would be in order to go forward with Option #4. Mr. Tong advised that the City Council could indicate the direction for the Applicant to go with either an amendment to the Planned Development or a Conditional Use Permit. Cm. Jeffery questioned if the City Council should go ahead with the denial. CM - VOL 10 - 417 Regular Meeting November 12, 1991 Cm. BUrton made a motion to continue the item with direction to work on a Planned Development change and gO through the planning process and come back to the City Council with Option #4. Cm. Moffatt asked if this would start any clocks. Mr. Tong stated the resolUtion indicates 90 days, however, he suggested a potential fifth option. If the City Council can make findings, Staff could be given direction to come back with the necessary findings and avoid the Planning Commission level. The Council could continue the item for Staff and the Property Owner to work out the arrangements. The Council expressed confusion related to the process and Mayor Snyder declared that.everything up to this point should be dropped. Mr. Tong stated that if the City Council feels it would like to approve a Variance, it could direct Staff to come back at the next meeting with draft findings for approval of the Variance. Ms. Silver indicated that the findings were listed on Page 3 of the Staff Report. With Option #5, the Council would find that there are 1) special circumstances, 2) granting a Variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege, and 3) it would not be detrimental to persons or property in the vicinity or to the public welfare. If these findings can be made, the Variance can be granted. Mayor Snyder asked how the Council would identify that there is going to be a new sign there. Mr. Ambrose stated it would be helpful if the Council gave the reasons why these findings are appropriate. Cm. Jeffery stated she felt there were special circumstances. Land was taken from them and it was once okay, and it was through no fault of their own. Because of its location near a freeway, this sign is appropriate. Mayor Snyder stated the property owners have indicated a willingness to modify the sign. Cm. Burton felt they would be better off going throUgh the Planned Development process rather than for a Variance. Cm. Jeffery felt a Variance would be less costly to the Applicant, plus they wouldn't have to go before the Planning Commission. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed that Option #5 be pursued to be tied to the new sign which was shown and continued the item to the next Council meeting for formal action. CM - VOL 10 - 418 Regular Meeting November 12, 1991 · PUBLIC HE~ING NO P~RKING ZONE ON DONLON WAY (570-20) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Public Works Director advised that some occupants of the office complex at 7080 Donlon Way have commented that drivers exiting the Kildara driveway either do not stop when entering Donlon Way, or apparently do not see 'northbound traffic turning left into the office complex, resulting in several "near misses". Staff has noted a visibility problem caused by vehicles which park up to the Kildara driveway on the east side of the street which obstruct the view of oncoming traffic. A secondary problem that was noted is that since the Kildara driveway enters Donlon Way from the right side of the cul- de-sac, drivers entering Kildara's driveway have to maneuver around the parked cars to enter the driveway. Mr. Thompson advised that an 80' no parking zone is recommended to be installed on the east side of Donlon Way in order to provide drivers a clearer view of oncoming traffic. This no parking zone would remove approximately 4 to 5 on-street parking spaces. Notices regarding the public hearing were sent to The Springs, Kildara and 7080 Donlon Way. No comments were made by members of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the businesses in this area had been notified. Mr. Thompson advised that notice Was sent to the businesses. There is actually very few~people who park on the street. Most who park there are from the apartments. Cm. Burton asked if there would be a sign and red curb. Mr. Thompson stated that it is not necessary to have both. We normally use a sign in shorter areas such as this. Cm. Burton stated he hoped the Police Department would go easy on the initial enforcement until people realize they can no longer park there. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 118 - 91 ESTABLISHING A NO PARKING ZONE ON THE EAST SIDE OF DONLON WAY (NORTHERLY OF DUBLIN BOULEVi~d:tD) CM - VOL 10 - 419 Regular Meeting November 12, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE - REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (430-20) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Carrington advised that on October 28, 1991, the City Council reintroduced the Density Bonus Ordinance and directed Staff to report on the portions of the proposed Ordinance which are required by State Law and those portions which are discretionary to the City. In order to allow Staff time to prepare the report, Staff requested that the item be continued to the November 25th Council meeting. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On mOtion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council continued the Density Bonus Ordinance item to the next City Council meeting. DRAFT LETTER REG~RDING TRI-VALLEY AFFORDABLE HOUSING (430-80) Senior Planner Carrington advised that a draft letter has been proposed by the Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Committee and revised by the Tri-Valley Joint COuncil to the State Department of Housing and Community Development requesting a change in State Legislation to allow cities to provide affordable housing jointly and still get credit toward their "fair share" affordable housing allocation. The Tri-Valley Joint Council met on November 6th and modified the letter. At the meeting, members agreed that each city should appoint a representative and alternate to attend meetings of the Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Committee. Mayor Snyder indicated that he has been attending the meetings, and everyone can attend. Cm. Burton stated he Would also like to attend as this is a very interesting concept. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the Mayor to sign the revised drafted letter. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council appointed Mayor Snyder and Cm. Burton to serve as representative and alternate to the Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Committee. CM - VOL 10 - 420 Regular Meeting November 12, 1991 OTHER BUS~NESS Tri-Valley Joint Council Meeting (140-80,) Mr. Ambrose advised that there will be another Tri-Valley Joint Council meeting in Dublin on Thursday, November 14th at 7:30 a.m. A letter has been prepared to be sent to all ABAG delegates. The group will discuss strategy for the November 21st ABAG General Assembly meeting. This meeting will take place immediately prior to the Affordable Housing meeting. Downtown Task Force Meeting (470-50) Mr. Ambrose advised that the Downtown Task Force will be meeting at the Civic Center on Thursday, November 14th at 3:00 p.m. DRFA Appreciation Dinner (540-10) Mr. AmbroSe announced that there would be an appreciation dinner for the Fire Department at the Marriott in San Ramon on Friday, November 22nd at 7:00 p.m. Hope HOspice Memorial Tree Lighting (950-40) Cm. Howard announced that the Lights of the Valley Celebration sponsored by Hope Hospice will be held on November 23rd at 6:30 p.m. The tree at the Library will be covered with bulbs honoring or in memory of loved ones. ACTEB/ACAP (710-60) Cm. Moffatt advised that last Saturday, there was a meeting of the ACAP governing board. There has been some discussions and people are coming'together in agreement of the model for an ACTEB board. Berkeley and Hayward have come together and agreed that if the County Board of Supervisors is the board, they will come back into the consortium. A letter will be requested by the Mayors' Conference to go to the State of California indicating that we are for this type of scenario. Cm. Moffatt stated he certainly recommends this. The Mayors' Conference will be providing more information. Mr. Bloom is no longer involved. The program will be staffed by the County with input from the cities. CM - VOL 10 - 421 Regular Meeting November 12, 1991 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. ATTEST: CM - VOL 10 - 422 Regular Meeting November 12, 1991