Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.01 Draft 9-5-06 CC Min ::::-" I ffb '], oP., MINUTES OF THE. cm COUNCIL OF THE. cm OF DUBLIN CLOSED SESSION A closed session was held at 6:30 p.m., regarding: I. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION Government Code section 54956.9, subdivision a Name of Case: Schlicker v. State of California, Alameda County Superior Court No. VG03-134125 (Consolidated wi VG04-140656) ........" A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, September 5, 2006, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart. ~ ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council members Hildenbrand, McCormick, Oravetz and Zika, and Mayor Lockhart. ABSENT: None ........" PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the Council, Staff and those present. '-/ REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTION Mayor Lockhart advised that no action was taken during Closed Session. Lt.} 0/ "2ob" './' ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Introduction of New Employee 7:05 p.m. 3.1 (700-10) Public Works Director Melissa Morton introduced Erin Lamberger, the new Administrative Analyst I in the Public Works Department. The Council welcomed Ms. Lamberger to City Staff. "'" Youth Advisory Committee Appointments 7:08 p.m. 7.2 (110-30) Parks & Community Services Director Diane Lowart presented the Staff Report and advised that the term of office of the Youth Advisory Committee expired in August 2006. The openings for the upcoming term were advertised and thirteen applications were received. The Mayor recommended the appointment of Justin Minor, Matt Pecota, Lauren DeMiguel, Kevin Jung, Morgan King, Jr., Mike Pecota, Matt Spring, Brandon Chapin, Jessica He, and Chen-Chen Phang as High School members, and Isabella Europa and Megan Frantz as alternates. No applications were received from Middle School students or for adult at-large community member; therefore, the application period would be extended. On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm. McCormick and by unanimous vote, the City Council confirmed the Mayor's appointments to the Youth Advisory Committee for the term of September 2006 through August 2007. "-.../ Presentation of the Dublin Pride - Integrity in Action Program 7:12 p.m. 3.3 (130-30) Tim Sbranti, along with Kendall Cooper and Superintendent Stephen Hanke, representing the Dublin Pride - Integrity in Action Committee, made a brief presentation to the 3~b ,: #' Council regarding the program developed by the Committee, which was made up of various representatives from the City Council, School District and local service organizations and community members. The program was designed to promote established character traits on a citywide basis, and was envisioned as a communitywide program. The Council discussed the benefits of the program and agreed that the City should promote this program in some manner. The character traits called out in the program might be able to be incorporated into the Citizen of the Year nominee guidelines. On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to refer this item to the Parks & Community Services Commission for study and recommendation as to how the City could become involved in the program. './' Public Comments 7:33 p.m. 3.4 William McCauley, Dublin resident, expressed concern regarding the Dublin Municipal Code as it related to private property code enforcement complaints and the Code's inherent unfairness. Complaints were received anonymously and there was no effort for compliance at large. In his opinion, he had been targeted for harassment since moving into his home and had received several complaints against his property over the past five years. He distributed an outline of his concerns to the Council. ''.,/ CONSENT CALENDAR 7:38 p.m. Items 4.1 through 4.13 On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. McCormick and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved (4.1) Minutes of Regular Meetings of August 1,2006, and August 15,2006; Adopted (4.2 600-60) 41/(; Authorized (4.3 600-35) Staff to solicit bids for Contract No. 06-08, Library Repair; Waived reading and adopted (4.4 450-30/600-60) and Waived reading and adopted (4.5 450-20/900-30) Adopted (4.6 600-60) -- ,..../. ? 1;Ji ? Authorized (4.7 600-35) Staff to solicit bids for Contract No. 06-09, Civic Center Window Sealing; Adopted (4.8 600-60) Adopted (4.9 600-60) Adopted (4.10 600-60) Adopted (4.11 600-30) Adopted (4.12 350-20) Approved (4.13 300-40) the Warrant Register in the amount of $4,191,426.39. " ~Dt' 5 11l ~~ .~ CJurf~~w U, fJ() / WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None ,,/ PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Conditional Use Permit to Authorize a Large Family Day Care Home, Miss Dina's Day Care, PA 06-029 7:39 p.m. 6.1 (410-30) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Cm. Zika disclosed that he had visited the site several times, during the morning and evening, to view the current level of traffic and parking issues. Mayor Lockhart advised that the Council would hear the Staff presentation and then make the disclosures necessary prior to any discussion. Assistant Planner Bryan Moore presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would review an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Miss Dina's Daycare to operate a Large Family Day Care Home at 7956 Crossridge Road. The Planning Commission denied the request, citing parking and noise issues, as well as incompatibility with the neighborhood. Mr. Moore distributed copies of the Planning Commission draft resolution that had recommended approval of the Large Family Daycare, which included Conditions of Approval, but was subsequently not adopted by the Planning Commission. The document was inadvertently left out of the Council Staff Report. Cm. Zika asked for clarification as to whom would be operating the daycare with Miss Dina. Mr. Moore clarified that Miss Dina's granddaughter-in-Iaw would be assisting. Vm. Oravetz indicated that he had received an email that challenged the validity of the license for the current daycare. Mr. Moore advised that Miss Dina was currently licensed as a Small Family Daycare, and Staff had obtained documentation from the State confirming as much. 1~ ' Mayor Lockhart asked the City Attorney to explain the different requirements for small and large family daycare facilities, as well as the particulars of the appeal process. Assistant City Attorney John Bakker advised that small family daycare facilities were permitted as a right, which meant it was treated exactly like a residential home. Pursuant to State law, a person who owned a home was entitled to operate a small family daycare facility and would not be regulated in the same way as a home based business. large family daycares, however, were regulated differently under the City's Code, as well as State law. Large family daycares could be subject to Conditional Use Permits, which was why this particular item went before the Planning Commission, and now the appeal before the Council. Assistant City Attorney Bakker explained the City's appeal process, which allowed Councilmembers to appeal a project without disclosing the grounds for the appeal so as to avoid the perception of bias. As a quasi-judicial hearing, Councilmembers were to consider only evidence it received at the public hearing. If a Councilmember had received any evidence prior to the public hearing, they should make full disclosure at this time. Vm. Oravetz stated that when he first moved into the neighborhood, he received Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) from the Developer, which stated that there could not be any home-based businesses in the development. At the Planning Commission meeting, the City Attorney advised that the CC&Rs were no good. Assistant City Attorney Bakker advised that the State policy was to make these facilities available and easy to open, and went as far as to make void provisions in CC&Rs that preclude small and large daycare centers. State law preempted CC&Rs, as well as the City's regulations. Cm. McCormick disclosed that she had received several emails, which were sent to all Councilmembers. She did not believe she received anything that other Councilmembers did not receive. Cm. Zika again disclosed that he had visited the site several times to look at the parking issues, as well as received the same emails as the other Councilmembers. He had asked the Assistant City Manager to provide him with the number of cars registered to that address, but that information was not provided to him. \. I f. ;~ J!',"" ~~or~ 11;:~if.b~~\~ 19 ~;~ 82 ,~~ C ~\b REG1[,AR iVIEETI:'\G September 5, 2006 P '\ t,t .:. 1ll1J . Mayor Lockhart disclosed that she returned a call to the Applicant, who expressed concern about the Planning Commission's decision and asked for help. She told the Applicant that she would review the Planning Commission minutes and make a decision, and did not have further conversation with her after the initial phone call. She received the same emails as the other Councilmembers. Vm. Oravetz disclosed that he had received the same emails as the other Councilmembers, as well as had brief conversations with neighborhood residents' Sandra Maclean, Sheila Brandes, Ann Crawford and Jan Cohen. He did not visit the site. Cm. Hildenbrand advised that she had no conversation with any individuals and received the same emails that were addressed to the entire Council. Assistant City Attorney Bakker asked, with regard to the emails received, if the content opinion or evidentiary in nature. The Council concurred that the content was opinion only, and stated that the majority were included in the Staff Report. City Clerk Fawn Holman advised that several letters and emails regarding the proposed expansion were received by the City over the past few days, but were not provided to the Council until the public hearing was opened. The documents were from the following: Rosefield Family, Cross ridge Road, opposed to the proposed expansion, as well as the Mayor's appeal of the item; Greg and Mary Pallotti, Crossridge Road, opposed; Bill Foxworthy, Willow Creek Development, opposed; Larry Trumbo and Sheila Brandes, Crossridge Road, opposed; Francisco and Emma Abad, Crossridge Road, opposed; Tom and Maria Van de Griff, Crossridge Road, opposed; Edie O'Guin, Amador Valley Boulevard, opposed; and Joseph Banchero, Quail Creek Circle, opposed. Copies of all documents were made available to the public. George Bernstein, Dublin resident, stated that he lived across the street from the existing daycare and rarely heard noise during the day. Traffic was briefly an issue, but he was able to work it out with the Applicant, who was very amenablee. He advised that he supported the expansion of the daycare, and there was a shortage of daycares in Dublin. Rupe Singh, representing Childcare Links, distributed information and demographic statistics regarding childcare in Dublin and encouraged the Council to support the expansion of the existing daycare. " L ~.\i F. REGl'LAR :VIEETI'f\G Septembei' 5, 20n6 t' q 9"1 i, 6 Mayor Lockhart apologized for not allowing the Applicant to speak first, and invited her to do so. Dina Yroshevskaya, the Applicant, submitted a copy of a letter that she had prepared for her clients regarding the City's traffic policy for her daycare, as well as an outline of proposed changes and clarifications to the Conditional Use Permit for a Large Family Daycare, including: 1) maximum number of children would be 12 instead of 14; 2) expand driveway to accommodate 3 parking spaces; 3) park family cars in garage; 4) provide traffic policy letter to parents; 5) schedule children play outside no more than 2 1;2 hours daily: 1 hour from 10:40 - 11 :40 a.m. and 1 Vz in the afternoon, as well as no more than 6 children outside at one time. She stated that there was not enough good daycare for children in Dublin. She had over 40 years in the field with the necessary education. Her daycare was currently approved for 8 children, and she was now only asking for 4 more. She explained the timing of children arrival and departure, and indicated that most parents stayed just 5 minutes. There was ample parking in the neighborhood, as most neighbor were at work during the day. Mayor Lockhart asked the ages of the children currently under her care. Ms. Yroshevskaya responded 1 1;2 years to almost 3 years old. Mayor Lockhart asked what the ages would be if she were approved for 12 children. Ms. Yroshevskaya responded up to age 5. She did not take school aged children. Mayor Lockhart advised that Ms. Yroshevskaya would have one last opportunity to address the Council after the rest of the public testimony had been received, as was standard protocol. Vm. Oravetz asked for clarification as to whether she was asking for 14 or 12, as the Staff Reports varied. Assistant City Attorney Bakker advised that the change occurred when the Applicant advised that she would be willing to reduce from 14 to 12 children. She also proposed to widen her driveway to accommodate three cars, as well as proposed limits on the number of children outside at anyone time. Mayor Lockhart asked how many parking spaces would be required for 12 children. Mr. Moore advised that 12 children would require 5 total parking spaces. ~,'( t '~~~ .\ t. ~ REGt; LAR\IEE'fING September 5, 200(; IDff6;' ,/ Assistant City Attorney Bakker asked if the reduction in children would make the request for reduction in parking unnecessary. Mr. Moore advised that a reduction of one space would still be needed. Planning Manager Mary Jo Wilson corrected that statement, advising that there would not be a parking reduction because all three spaces would be provided on -site, because of the widened driveway. Cm. Hildenbrand noted that the CC&Rs might prohibit the widening of the driveway. Assistant City Attorney Bakker agreed, and advised that, since there was no Homeowner's Association, another homeowner in the area could uphold the provisions of the CC&Rs. The City did not have a copy of the CC&Rs, however, the City does not enforce the CC&Rs. CC&Rs were enforced by the individuals who were party to the CC&Rs. Cm. Hildenbrand asked what would happen if the Applicant were not allowed to widen her driveway. Assistant City Attorney Bakker advised that the Applicant would not be able to go forward with her proposal and would need to come back with an amendment request. Ann Crawford, Dublin resident, advised that she lived in the neighborhood and expressed concern that the Applicant's space was too small to accommodate 12-14 children. The small backyard had also been partitioned in half for personal use and daycare use. She urged the Council to visit the site so they could see that it was a confined and restricted space. Candy Warren Wall, Dublin resident, advised that she supported residential childcare and expressed concern that the other option for daycare was in industrial areas. She urged the Council to support the expansion of the existing daycare. Shawn Wall, Dublin resident, advised daycare was a necessity and expressed concern that there was not enough daycare available in Dublin. Larry Trumbo, Dublin resident, advised that he lived next door to Dina's daycare and expressed concern about the daycare expansion based on noise, traffic and safety issues. He and his wife opposed the expansion of the current daycare. I t Ri:'('.l rl,~R !\.n:'r-l-'I'-'(~' L ,J" ,I,." -'\. "'ILL ," ,..J September 5, 2006 p il t}bl Aryana Izadi, Dublin resident, advised that she lived in the neighborhood and was opposed to the expansion of the daycare, citing traffic and parking concerns. Adding more traffic would be unsafe for the kids who lived in the neighborhood. Sheila Brandes, Dublin resident, advised that she lived next door to the Applicant, and opposed the expansion from small to large daycare. She expressed concern about the Mayor's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the expansion, as she did not take into consideration the affect on the neighborhood's quality of life. She cited concerns about an increase in traffic safety, noise issues, and the small size of the daycare area. She submitted a copy of the development's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's), which restricted commercial businesses. Mayor Lockhart read a list of neighborhood residents and their positions, who were present, but did not wish to speak: Randy Crawford, opposed; Crista Haar, opposed; Van Loon, opposed; Diana Yarayama, opposed; Theresa Folse, opposed; Emma Abad, opposed; Greg and Mary Pallotti, opposed; Sue Frantz, opposed; Shannon Behm, opposed. Jing Firmeza, Dublin resident, advised that he lived in the neighborhood and opposed the expansion of the daycare, citing noise, traffic and safety issues, as well as a decline in property value. Tanya Dumay, Danville resident, advised that she was a client of Miss Dina, and urged the neighbors to support this much needed service. There was not enough quality daycare, especially at the educational level Miss Dina offered. Abiyeva Lydumila, San Leandro resident, advised that her kids were on Miss Dina's waiting list, as she wanted her children in an educational and fun environment. Children's needs should be put above noise issues. Sofya Yaroshevskaya, the Applicant's granddaughter, advised that she lived in the house and spent much time with the children. She did not mind the noise of her neighbor's children and did not understand why they would mind the noise of the children at her house. She could not imagine a community against children. Her grandmother was making a big difference in the children's lives Liz Bayat, Pleasanton resident, supported the expansion of the daycare, stating that it was very difficult to find such quality daycare. There was a huge need for more quality daycare as more parents have to work. '()LITj\II 25 REGUl,AR l\IEETING September 5, 2006 }"$\ .~-"- 12- trb.. "'i ~ _J #,.1' Smitha Prabhakar, Dublin resident, advised that she lived in the neighborhood and her son went to Miss Dina's daycare. The children were in a safe, well-structured, organized environment, and she encouraged support of the expansion. Dennis Desaix, Dublin resident, advised that he lived in the neighborhood and expressed concern about the proposed expansion, citing small lots, increased traffic and parking issues. He supported the daycare at its current level and encouraged the Council not to support the expansion. Ellen Dektar, Alameda County Childcare Planning Council, provided statistics for current daycare facilities in Dublin and expressed the need for more. She encouraged the Council to support the expansion of the facility. Dave Davis, Dublin resident, advised that he lived in neighborhood and stated that he was unaware of the existence of the daycare at its current level. Miss Dina was a well- educated person who treated kids with respect. He expressed concern about the small size of the house and lot with 12 children, and indicated that the option with conditional uses might be the way to go. Parking was a problem everywhere in Dublin. Lothar DeTemple, Dublin resident, advised that he lived in the neighborhood and expressed concern about fire safety and inspections in the facility, as well as introducing strangers into the neighborhood. Greg Hilst, Dublin resident, advised that he lived in the neighborhood and indicated the need for a traffic study to determine the full impact of an expansion. Off-street parking was also an issue, and he questioned Miss Dina's willingness to park two cars in the garage. Alan Nielson, Dublin resident, advised that he lived in the neighborhood and expressed concern about the potential widening of the driveway as the City curb was only designed for two cars. He was not against the daycare, but believed there was a parking issue in the neighborhood, especially as the neighborhood kids grow up and start driving. Bob Brester, Dublin resident, expressed support for much needed quality daycare in residential neighborhoods and encouraged the residents to be patient with the inconveniences it might cause. Bonnie Jackson, Dublin resident, advised that she lived in the neighborhood and opposed the expansion of the daycare, citing quality of life issues, as well as traffic concerns. She supported home daycare, and never had a problem finding a quality daycare. VOLliJ\IE 25 REGULAR iVIEETING September 5, 2006 P,\ GE 295 J J PbJ, Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. Cm. McCormick stated that there had been many concerns expressed about the size of the facility, fire inspections, and the number of children, and asked if these types of things were approved andlor inspected through the State. Mr. Moore advised that the State regulated those issues. City Manager Ambrose advised that onsite fire inspections by the City were included in the Conditions of Approval that were subsequently denied by the Planning Commission. The Council and Staff discussed the fire inspection issue. State statute provided that residential daycare facilities were treated as single family residences for Fire Code purposes, except to the extent that the State Fire Marshall had adopted additional standards that pertained to large family daycare facilities. Cm. McCormick asked about the number of cars that the Applicant parked at the facility. Ms. Yroshevskaya stated that she was currently licensed as a small family daycare and everything she did was legal. She was applying for 12 children, not 14. If approved, the pool table in her garage would be moved and two cars parked in her garage. These things would not be done until her project was approved. When approved, she would comply with all the rules. Typically, only two family cars were at the home at one time. Mayor Lockhart reopened the public hearing to allow the Applicant her final statement. Ms. Yroshevskaya stated that this process was an excellent learning experience for her, and expressed gratitude to those who supported her in this endeavor. Her neighbors were typically gone during the day, and not impacted by the daycare. She would do whatever she needed to do, and comply with all the rules, in order to be approved for the expanded facility. Mayor Lockhart re-closed the public hearing. Cm. Hildenbrand stated that this was a "not-in-my-backyard" (NIMBY) issue. It was very difficult to find quality daycare, especially for toddlers in diapers, and many parents had to go outside of Dublin to find care. She lived in a neighborhood with a large family daycare; noise and parking were not an issue. The State would not license a home that could not accommodate the appropriate number of children. This was a necessary \-OLFl\lE 25 REGULAR l\1EETING September 5, 2006 p.\(a: 296 )L+flb2 service in Dublin, especially facilities that provided an educational value. She would support Miss Dina's request to expand her facility to 12 children. Vm. Oravetz stated he would not support the expansion and disagreed that it was a NIMBY issue. He had voted against every one of the large daycares in neighborhoods. He bought his house for its neighborhood, and he did not want a business in his neighborhood. Traffic, parking and noise were an issue in this neighborhood, and property values would be affected. Vm. Zika stated that every time a large daycare came before the City Councilor Planning Commission, those opposed became a supporter after they realized they were not as impacted as feared. Children should have daycare in a home setting, not a strip mall. The economy usually required both parents to work, so the kids needed more home atmosphere. The State would decide if the facility size was adequate, and he did not think there was a parking issue. He would support the expansion. Cm. McCormick advised that there was a board and care facility and a daycare facility in her neighborhood. This was a neighborhood with a lot of diversity, not a gated community, and it was disappointing that nobody tried to work this issue out with Miss Dina. Her program was well run and much needed in the community. Many people initially bock at a use like this, but realize later that their fears were unfounded. She would support the expansion with conditions. Mayor Lockhart advised that she had a large family daycare two doors from her house, and she heard and enjoyed the children's noises. When a person purchased a home, they bought into whoever else came into the neighborhood. Dublin was a City that valued its children, which was one of the reasons that a Children's Museum chose to locate in Dublin. She did not believe that a few extra cars in the morning and evening would affect the neighborhood's quality of life or property values. The Applicant understood the neighbors' concerns and expressed a willingness to work with them. In her opinion, there was not enough evidence to deny the expansion. Mayor Lockhart suggested that the Council take a straw vote in support of the expansion based on 12 children. City Manager Ambrose advised that draft conditions had been provided, if the Council wanted to provide Staff with some direction as to how to modify them, if desired. Staff would then bring back a Resolution for consideration with findings supporting the modifications. VOLUlVIE 25 REGULAR l\tIEETING September 5, 2006 P.\.GE 297 I;> The Council and Staff discussed various possible conditions. By majority straw vote (Vm. Oravetz opposed), the Council directed Staff to prepare a Resolution granting the appeal in part thereby reversing the Planning Commission denial and modifying the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Miss Dina's Daycare with the following modifications included in the Conditions of Approval: 1) Twelve (12) children would be the maximum allowed; 2) the Applicant would be required to explore, to the extent practicably feasible, adding a third parking space on her driveway. If it was not feasible, a reduction of one parking space would be granted in order to meet the parking requirements; 3) the Applicant would be required to provide her customers with a copy of the traffic policies that she submitted to the Council at the meeting; and 4) outside play schedule would be set at a maximum of 2 1;2 hours daily: one hour from 10:40 - 11 :40 a.m., and 1 Vz hours in the afternoon, with no more than six children outside at one time. .. RECESS 10:08 p.m. Mayor Lockhart called for a brief recess. The meeting reconvened with all Councilmembers present at 10:20 p.m. .. Public Hearing Proposed Ordinance Declaring Secondhand Smoke a Nuisance 10:20 p.m. 6.2 (560-90) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Associate Attorney Leah Peachey presented the Staff Report and advised that this was the second reading of an Ordinance that would declare secondhand tobacco smoke a nuisance and provide for abatement of the nuisance by a private party. This Ordinance provided solely for a private right of enforcement, which involved no cost to the City. The Council would also consider a related Resolution establishing the City's enforcement policy related to the Ordinance declaring secondhand smoke a nuisance. John McClain, Dublin resident, stated that he was a nonsmoker but opposed the Ordinance because it infringed on private property rights. VOLlT;\IE 25 REGULAR iVlEETING Septem ber 5, 2006 Pr\GE 298 t John T. Collins, Sr., Dublin resident, reiterated the concerns he previously expressed at the first reading of the Ordinance and urged the Council not to adopt this Ordinance. Bob Brester, Dublin resident, expressed concern about an Ordinance that would allow someone to be sued for smoking in their own backyard, and urged the Council not to adopt the Ordinance. Burr Cain, Dublin resident, expressed concern about further restrictions against smokers, and stated that the issue was an unreasonable attempt to limit the rights of the minority. He asked that the Ordinance be tabled for further consideration and review after the November election. Mayor Lockhart indicated that Shannon Behm, Dublin resident, did not wish to speak, but expressed opposition to the Ordinance and urged the Council not to support it. John Whitehead, Dublin resident, stated that the proposed Ordinance would give someone who suffered from secondhand smoke recourse if mediation did not work and urged the Council to adopt the Ordinance. Bruce Fiedler, Dublin resident, indicated that he had complimented the Council at the last meeting for protecting the health of the citizens and urged the Council to adopt the Ordinance Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. Cm. Hildenbrand reiterated that this issue was about tobacco smoke, not BBQ smoke, perfume or dog dander, which trivialized the issue. Secondhand smoke was more toxic than what the smoker was putting into their body, and it polluted the air with soot, ash, nicotine, and carcinogens. This Ordinance did not allow someone to take a smoker to court without proving damages, and the judge would be able to identify if the suit was frivolous. This Ordinance would protect the health of Dublin's citizens. A gentleman in the audience interrupted by calling for point of order and stated that the Council was not following Roberts Rules of Order. Mayor Lockhart admonished the gentleman and advised that the public hearing had been closed. VOI./l'IVIE 25 REGUl./AR l\1EETING September 5,2006 PAGE 299 o~ Dr' ~ 1~\~ ~ C !Jt:N,'f.,W 1'7 r61/ C' The gentleman again interrupted the meeting, stating that a Councilmember should not have a longer comment period than the audience members. On request of Mayor Lockhart, the gentleman was escorted from the Council Chamber. Mayor Lockhart advised the audience that once the public hearing was closed, the Council had no time limit on its comments. Cm. Oravetz stated that he was not defending secondhand smoke and the Surgeon General's report was very clear on its effects. This was a civil right's issue, as the constitution granted the right to do what the property owners wanted to do in their own home. He would oppose the Ordinance. Cm. Zika agreed that secondhand smoke was dangerous, but indicated that this was something that could not be legislated. It would pit neighbor against neighbor, and there was no real enforcement policy and would clog the court system. He would oppose the Ordinance. Cm. McCormick stated that there was a lot of misinformation circulating regarding this Ordinance. It was not a ban against smoking. It was adding secondhand smoke to a current list of nuisances, and would provide a tool to those who had tried to reason with others and had no other recourse. This was a serious health issue, and she was appalled by the rude emails she had received regarding this issue. She would support this Ordinance. Mayor Lockhart commented that many people had contacted her regarding how to implement a similar Ordinance in their area. This was about the civil liberties of approximately 86% of Californians who did not smoke. She would support the Ordinance and thanked Cm. Hildenbrand for bringing it before the Council. On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm. McCormick and by majority vote (Vm. Oravetz I Cm. Zika opposed), the Council waived the reading and adopted And adopted VOLUl\lE 25 REGlJLAR l\lEETING September 5,2006 PAGE 300 I tt (;61 i~ RESl."'l.U'Th..1N Ni..). 1 G7 ll{3 rST \PI hHl ; THE CITY ENfl"'lRlTMI f\" FOR LH 1UJN ,\U'\iICIPAL CODE SEt 1'1\.\\ 3,,'16,1 ( [~[L\ n NC TL' SECL"'lN[)! L\NP 51\ 10KE NUISANCE DECLARATION .. Public Hearing Amendment to Conflict of Interest Code (Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 2.24) 10:57 p.m. 6.3 (640-40) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. City Clerk Fawn Holman presented the Staff Report and advised that the Political Reform Act required cities to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code that designated the Staff positions within the City making governmental decisions that could foreseeably affect a financial interest of the employee. This was the first reading of an Ordinance which would make changes to Section 2.24.020 of the existing Ordinance related to designated employees. No testimony was received by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Zika and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the first reading and introduced an Ordinance amending Chapter 2.24.020 of the Dublin Municipal Code and removing one position as decision making position for purposes of the California Political Reform Act. .. Public Hearing Establishment of 20-Minute Parking Zone on Cypress Court 10:59 p.m. 6.4 (570-20) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Senior Civil Engineer Ray Kuzbari presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would consider a request to provide a 20-minute parking zone in front of the Retreat for Children facility located at 8339 Cypress Court to facilitate children pick-up VOLlTlVIE 25 REGlfLARMEETING Septem her 5, 2006 PAt; E 301 Jf18"h -z ,; and drop-off activities on weekdays and weekends. The Traffic Safety Committee reviewed the request and recommended that a 23-foot 20-minute parking space be approved. On September 1st, the City received a letter signed by 26 neighbors opposing limited parking. Jennifer Jones, the Applicant, advised that children with various development disabilities resided in the home, along with their caretakers. She outlined the mission of the facility and indicated that it was open seven days a week, 24 hours a day in order to allow family members to visit whenever they liked. The parking zone was necessary because the driveway was not level enough for the lifter and the school bus needed to be able to pull up to the sidewalk curb in front of the house. Cm. Zika asked why five cars were registered to that address, according the DMV records. Ms. Jones advised that only a van and a car were located at the house. Mayor Lockhart noted that speaker slips were submitted by Jim Olich, Nancy Traver, and Karen leMay, Cypress Court residents, who all indicated that they did not support the 20-minute parking zone in their neighborhood. Michelle Partridge, Cypress Court resident, expressed concern about the proposed parking restrictions. There was already a serious parking problem, and many times they could not park in front of their own house. She questioned where the workers would park their cars, and why the neighbors did not receive notice of the public hearing. They only found out about the issue because the curb was inadvertently painted too soon. She submitted photos of the currentl parking situation, as well as a camera that was placed in the window of the Applicant's home. She questioned the purpose of the camera. Kari Gardella, Cypress Court resident, stated that she was in support of the facility in the neighborhood, but the problem was lack of communication. They were never told about the proposed parking zone, and the parking in the neighborhood was already terrible. The proposed 7 -days a week parking limitation was too much. Glenn Jones, Co-Applicant, advised that they wanted to try to facilitate the ease of picking up and dropping off the children by requesting the parking zone. There were other businesses in the neighborhood, such as a daycare, that would benefit from the parking zone. VOLITI\lE 25 REGULAR l\fEETING September 5, 2006 PAGE 302 ()D~6J,? Responding to questions from the Council, Mr. Jones indicated that three caregivers lived at the house, but two did not have cars. He indicated that he and his employees would park on Wineberry Way, where there were no homes. No vehicles were registered to the Cypress Court address; they were registered to his other home on Brighton Court. The camera was placed in the window looking out into the front yard for surveillance purposes, because the house had been broken into. It was also suggested by Child Protective Services because one of the parents was not allowed to visit. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. The Council discussed the need for safety as it related to loading and unloading the children from the van and school bus, and discussed various options for the 20-minute parking that would still be convenient to the needs of the children and a provide a compromise for the neighbors. It was agreed that 20-minute parking between 7:00 - 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 - 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, would be appropriate to try. Siznage would still be necessary. The Council agreed that the issue could be revisited in six months at the request of Staff or one of the neighborhood residents. The Applicants advised that they were amenable to the compromise. On motion of Vm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted RESOU rnON NO. 168 l'6 APPROVING 20-MINUTE PARKING ZONE ON CYPRESS COURT as modified by Council direction. .. Public Hearing Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan Follow-up Implementation Actions 11 :50 p.m. 6.5 (410-55/420-30/450-30/910-40) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Kristi Bascom presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would consider a City-initiated application to rezone parcels in the Dublin Village VOIXJl\IE 25 REGl1LAR NIEETING September 5,2006 PA(;E 31}3 t)~ bY' ~ 1Il~~~\l ,~~"; C ~ I t62-t5 l Historic Area Specific Plan to be consistent with the Specific Plan and General Plan land use designations and other implementation actions as outlined in the Specific Plan for the Dublin Village Historic Area. The Dublin Village Historic Area consisted of approximately 38 acres of land generally located northwest of San Ramon Road and 1- 580. No testimony was received by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Vm. Oravetz and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 169 -- 06 APOfVrING AN APDENDUl\1 TO THE INITIAL STUDY IlvlITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE [lUBLIN VILLAGE HISTORlC AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED GENERAL PLAN Al\lENDlvlENTS PA 02-074 And waived the reading and introduced an Ordinance adopting a Planned Development (Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan) Zoning District for six parcels in the project area; waived the reading and introduced an Ordinance to adopt an amendment to Section 8.62 (Historic Overlay Zoning District Site Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance to remove reference to the "Dublin Village Historic Area Design Guidelines," replace with reference to the "Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan," and rescind the Dublin Village Design Guidelines; and adopted RESOLlJTION NO. 17(' 06 APPROVING AN AA1END1\1ENT TO THE SAN RA1\10N ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN TO REl\,10VE T\\'O PARCELS FROl'vl THE SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY THAT ARE CURRENTLl' INCLUDED IN THE DUBLIN VILLAGE HISTORIC AREA SPECIFrC PLAN PROJECT AREA PA 02-074 .. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None .. VOLUi\lE 25 REGULAR 1VIEETING September 5, 2006 PAGE 3n4 ~ ~ ti17C; c NEW BUSINESS Dublin Gateway Medical Center - Public Art 11:55 p.m. 8.1 (900-50) Heritage & Cultural Arts Supervisor John Hartnett presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would consider a proposal for a public art piece, entitled "Alamilla," by artist Archie Held to be installed at the Dublin Gateway Medical Center in the outdoor pedestrian courtyard of the new Gateway Medical Center, located at the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road. The sculpture's form symbolized strength and growth, and the water element symbolized cleansing, healing and rebirth. Cm. McCormick asked if there would be a plaque to describe the meaning of the artwork. Mr. Harnett advised yes. Greg Collins, Triad Partners, further described the piece and advised that there would be a seating area at the bottom of the sculpture. Archie Held, Artist, explained that, although the sculpture was in a protected area, if the wind blew too much water away from the sculpture, a device could be installed to shut the water off during high wind days. On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. McCormick and by unanimous vote, the City Council approved the artwork as presented. City Manager Ambrose clarified that the Council wanted the descriptor plaque included in the Council's approval. The Council concurred. .. VOLlJl\fE 25 REGULAR lVIEETING Septem her 5, 2006 PAG E JUS ~:-5 ro "tG Approval of Consultant Services Agreement for the Union Pacific Right of Way/Alameda County Property General Plan Amendment Study 12:04 a.m. 8.2 (600-30) Senior Planner Kristi Bascom presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would consider approving a Consultant Services Agreement with RBF ConsultinglUrban Design Studio to conduct a community outreach process and develop three conceptual land use plans for consideration on the Union Pacific I Alameda County property located to the north and south of Amador Valley Boulevard. On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Vm. Oravetz and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 171-- 06 APPROVING AN AGREE1\!lENT BET\VEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND RBF CONSULTING/[TRBAN DESIGN STUDIO (RBF/UDS) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY IvlANAGER TO SIGN THE AGREEi\lENT .. Universal Design Ordinance 12:05 a.m. 8.3 (440-10) Building Official Gregory Shreeve presented the Staff Report and advised that Staff was seeking direction from the City Council as to whether a local Universal Design Ordinance for new homes should be prepared, understanding all of the other State laws and codes which already addressed housing accessibility and adaptability for people with limited mobility, strength, or functionality. Council and Staff engaged in a question and answer session regarding the necessary paperwork involved and data that would need to be maintained by the property owner if a local Ordinance were adopted. Mayor Lockhart recommended that this issue be studied by the Housing Committee prior to Council decision. On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. McCormick and by unanimous vote, the City Council directed Staff to give the same presentation to the Housing Committee, with VOLlJJVIE 25 REGULAR MEETING September 5,2006 PAGE 30(l 1\ ,I.., '5' \/ 'L7J b the request to the Housing Committee to make a recommendation to the Council as to whether the existing State law served Dublin's needs or if a City Ordinance should be adopted. Mr. Shreeve asked for permission for Staff to take the Housing Committee's recommendation to the Developers and Builders for comment prior to returning before the Council. The Council concurred. .. Selection of Red Ribbon Week Banner Design 12:20 a.m. 8.4 (950-40) Community Safety Assistant Val Guzman presented the Staff Report and advised that, as part of the Capital Improvement Pro$ram (CIP) for FY 2006-07, funding was approved for the acquisition of 40 banners supporting Red Ribbon Week during the month of October each year. Red Ribbon Week was part of a nationwide anti-drug campaign, and took place officially every October 23-31. The City of Dublin had participated in Red Ribbon Week for the last 15 years. The banners would be displayed from October 7 - October 31 st of each year. On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. McCormick and by unanimous vote, the City Council selected Option #2 and the logo "Our Pledge to be a Drug Free Dublin.". .. OTHER BUSINESS Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from Council and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AD 1234) 12:24 p.m. City Manager Ambrose advised that there would be a LAFCo hearing next week, which would consider the Mission Peak annexation. There would be a Tri-Valley Council meeting on September 28th, which Dublin was hosting. The West Dublin BART Station groundbreaking ceremony was tentatively scheduled for Friday, September 29th in the morning. The new Leadership Academy was scheduled to kick off with a bus tour on VOLlJ~IE 25 REGULAR l\iIEETING, September 5, 2006 P\GJ( 307 16tJD -z() Saturday, September 30th with a luncheon to follow, to which the Council was invited to attend. . mJOURNMENT 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:26 a.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk """ , - VOLPIVIE 25 REGULAR l\IEETING Septem ber 5, 2006 PAGE 308