Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-12-1990 Adopted CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING - March 12, 1990 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, March 12, 1990, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m., by Mayor Paul Moffatt. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Moffatt. Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council', Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. " CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 26, 1990; Accepted the City Treasurer's Investment Report for Period Ending February 28, 1990; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 21 - 90 RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 19-6-88 AND ESTABLISHING MANAGEMENT POSITIONS EXEMPT FROM COMPETITIVE SERVICE AND PRESCRIBING LEAVE BENEFITS FOR THE POSITIONS (add City Clerk position) Adopted a revised 1989 Position Allocation Plan; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. Z2 - 90 and AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 23 - 90 ESTABLISHING A SALARY PLAN FOR FULL-TIME PERSONNEL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERSONNEL RULES and authorized a budget transfer from the City's Contingent Reserve in the amount of $3,000 to the City Manager/City Clerk's budget; Accepted improvements under Contract 89-13, Drainage Inlet Grate Replacement Phase I and authorized payment ($67,482) to P & F Construction; @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@, CM- VOL 9 - 50 Regular Meeting March 12, 1990 Accepted improvements under Contracts 88-1A (Masonry Wall) and 88-8 (Wood Wall) Major Arterials Soundwalls; authorized a budget transfer ($28,218) from unallocated reserves to the Major Arterial Soundwalls Capital Improvement Project; and authorized final payment and retention ($16,638.16) to B & B Concrete; Authorized Staff to advertise Contract 90-05 Dublin High School Football Field Renovation for bids; Received the Financial Statements for Period Ending February 28, 1990; Received the 1989 Police Services Calendar Year Report; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $354,195.99. ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS (ABAG) PROPOSED DUES INCREASE Staff advised that the City recently received ABAG's Budget Summary for Fiscal Year 1990-91, which includes an approximate 4% overall dues increase. Dublin's increase is approximately 9.9%, and is mainly attributable to Dublin's substantial population increase. Cm. Snyder advised that the Executive Board met in February and this increase was approved. At that time, he raised the question related to the 3,000 incarcerated individuals being counted in as part of our population statistics. We pay dues on these people, as a part of the association. Unfortunately, the argument they use, and on which they have a great deal of support is that the figure of $25.41 is distributed annually to the cities by the State Controller. Cm. Snyder did not feel that this logic makes a lot of sense, but they apparently have a great level of support. This shows what you will be getting back from the State and this is what they base their dUes on. Cm. Snyder felt Dublin should communicate to the Executive Director that we do not agreed with their method of figuring dues. Dues should be dues, relative to what they need to operate the organization, not based on what the distribution is to the cities from the State Department of Finance. From a philosophical standpoint, this is a poor argument for the organization to use to assess its dues. Cm. Hegarty felt a letter should be directed to ABAG stating our concerns. Cm. Jeffery suggested sending dues relative to what we feel our population is and send a letter along with our check stating we feel their figures are not justified. They would then have to respond to us right away. Cm. Snyder did not feel that ABAG would accept this. They may exclude us from membership. @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@.@,@,@.@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@, CM- VOL 9 - 51 Regular Meeting March 12, 1990 City Manager Ambrose pointed out that Dublin gets its liability insurance through ABAG. If we drop out, we are out of the program. Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that we are expecting about a 12% equity distribution, similar to a dividend, which equates to about a 20% net decrease to our premium. Mr. Ambrose clarified that ABAG does not use the Department of Finance figures, but rather the State Controller's numbers. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the ABAG dues increase, but directed Staff to send a strongly worded letter related to the Council's objection over the way the population figures are calculated. PUBLIC HEARING FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING, PA 89-050 Mayor Moffatt opened the public'hearing. Planning Director Tong advised that in November, 1988, the City Council approved a Tentative Parcel Map and Variance application for the First Western Development site. This apProval divided an existing 7 acre site into two parcels, one of which had substandard effective lot frontage (creating a "flag lot" type parcel) for which the Variance was granted. A condition of approval for both the Variance~ and Tentative Parcel Map required the Applicant to submit an application for a Planned Development Rezoning. This application is in compliance with that condition of approval. Mr. Tong advised that Site Development Review for the site to allow a 10,000 square foot retail building was approved in June, 1988, and is currently under construction. On February 20, 1990, the Planning Commission considered the PD Rezoning request and adopted Resolutions recommending the City Council rezone the site from C-i, Retail Business District to PD District, and directed Staff to prepare the appropriate findings for the City Council resolutions relating to the imposition of traffic impact fees. The City Attorney drafted a resolution imposing traffic impact fees on future development on this site which includes findings required by State Law. Mr. Tong indicated that there are two provisions addressed in the draft PD District which Staff/Planning Commission recommendation and the Applicant's proposal disagree. One relates to existing freestanding sign and the other to east elevation wall signage for Parcel B. The Applicant proposes to permit the existing freestanding sign to be relocated or replaced with a similar sign at a new location on Parcel A in the event future development in the northwest portion of the site causes the sign to be relocated. The Applicant proposes that the relocation be subject to Property owner and City agreement. @*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@4@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,! CM VOL 9 - 52 Regular Meeting March 12, 1990 The Applicant proposes to allow wall signage on the east elevation (facing 1-680) of the new building currently under construction, subject to conditional use permit approval. Cm. Jeffery questioned how the request for a sign on the east frontage differs from what was approved for Howard Johnson's along 1-580. Mr. Tong advised that the City Council allowed a free standing sign fronting a freeway when a parcel was of a certain size (about 4 acres) . Cm. Hegarty questioned if they only wanted a free standing sign, we have regulations they have to follow. Mr. Tong advised that the Applicant would like to have the ability to relocate the free standing sign subject to the property owner and City Staff agreeing to the location without regard to the existing Sign Ordinance. Staff feels it must comply with the Sign Ordinance. Rick Hess, Applicant, advised that the existing free standing sign currently conforms with the City's Sign Ordinance, but since they are requesting a PD, they would like to have the City Council offer a little leeway. They would like to have the ability to work with City Staff related to any future development on the corner parcel. They also would request that the Council consider allowing signs on the' east elevation through a Conditional Use Permit application. Staff · and/or the Planning Commission would review the signage prior to installation. They feel that permanent and attractive signs could~be placed which would allow the merchants to take advantage of the freeway exposure. This would ultimately benefit the City. Cm. Hegarty indicated that the City went through a lengthy process before the Sign Ordinance was adopted. He questioned the Applicant as to whether they made any comments when the Ordinance was being drafted. Mr. Hess responded that they did not. MayOr Moffatt closed the public hearing. Cm. Jeffery indicated that there are 2 signs at the 7-11 Store on Silvergate Drive @ San Ramon Road. She asked if there was a special permit involved. Mr. Tong advised that one of their signs is illegal. Staff processed a Variance for replacing the front sign and a condition of approval was removal of the sign facing the houses. Cm. Snyder felt that signage on the east side of the First Western Development is tantamount to the success ~of a business at this location. This is a fine .location and it is very marketable. Cm. Hegarty questioned if everyone was discussing identity or advertising. The City went through a 10ng process of developing the @*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@, CM- VOL 9 - 53 Regular Meeting March 12, 1990 Sign Ordinance and if we now grant a Variance here and there, he indicated he was uncomfortable with this. It appears that we have set the standard, and are now triying to pull away. He indicated he would not be against granting this! if we made a mistake in the Ordinance, but sooner or later, we must stick to the Ordinance. We have been very lenient, thus far. Cm. Vonheeder stated we have already made an amendment to the Ordinance because we did not recognize highway frontages, and this may be an opportunity through the CUP process to take another look at it. Cm. Jeffery felt there is an advantage to letting people on the freeway know what is in Dublin because they will then come in and shop other locations, as well. Cm. Hegarty stated he was not against continuing this item to look at it further. Mayor Moffatt felt that the CounciI could adopt Staff's recommenda- tions and then the Council could review it further when the CUP comes in. He stated he would like to see everything possible done to insure the success of the businesses. Cm. Vonheeder felt the issue could be one of broad interpretation. It faces a public road. How far away is an interpretation by Staff,~ The definition could be construed that 1-680 is their secondary frontage. She felt there is a tremendous amount of latitude for free standing signs in the Ordinance. Cm. Jeffery made a motion that signs on the east side be allowed, and the Applicant would have to go through the necessary permit processes. Cm. Jeffery stated her motion would include adopting Staff's recommendation, with this exception. Cm. Vonheeder seconded the motion. This motion was not voted on. Mr. Tong stated that Staff would bring back specific language for a CUP process for consideration by the Council at the next Council meeting. The Council questioned whether the motion should be withdrawn or simply tabled. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council continued the item to the March 26, 1990 Council meeting. Mr. Ambrose clarified that Staff's understanding was that it would develop some language to allow a CUP process for signs on the eastern elevation, but with regard to the free standing sign, the Council concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation. @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@* CM -VOL 9 - 54 Regular Meeting ~ March 12, 1990 AGREEMENT TO CONDUCT HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION Assistant City Manager'Rankin advised that pursuant to City Council direction, Staff has worked with the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton to develop a HHW collection day. The cost of the program will be recovered through an adjustment to the garbage rates to become effective July 1, 1990. The proposed date of the collection is May 5, 1990. The estimated cost for Dublin will be approximately $16,850, which equates to approximately $.20 for each single family residential customer. Pursuant to State Law, garbage rate adjustments require publication of a notice. In order to allow adequate lead time, Staff recommended that the City Council designate a hearing on the garbage rate increase for the meeting-of April 23, 1990. This should allow adequate time to finalize negotiations on the residential recycling program as well, thereby allowing consideration for a single rate increase covering both programs. The Board of Supervisors of Alameda County has reviewed a plan to develop some form of a permanent collection program. A target date of July 1, 1991 appears to be very optimistic. In response to a question by Mayor Moffatt, Mr. Rankin advised that the residential rate for 1 can service would increase $..20 per month. Cm. Snyder requested that as much information as possible be available at the April 23rd hearing related to AB 939. People should understand that this is not something that Dublin inStigated, but rather something we must respond to. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 24 - 90 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN A JOINT HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION EVENT AND DESIGNATING A FUNDING METHOD and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement and established a public hearing for April 23, 1990 to consider a garbage rate adjustment which would become effective July 1, 1990. AMENDMENT TO WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that the enactment of AB 939 revises the responsibilities of the County Waste Management Authority. The Authority has requested that each of the Member Agencies adopt an amended agreement. Due to the deadlines contained within the Law, Mr. Rankin advised that it is important that an agreement be in place as soon as possible. There still remains, hoWever, issues which will @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@.@,@,@.@,@,@,@, CM - VOL 9 - 55 Regular Meeting March 12, 1990 need to be reviewed by a Technical Advisory Committee consisting of Staff members. It is anticipated that these issues may be resolved through a future amendment to the JPA. Mr. Rankin explained that the primary focus of the proposed JPA amendment is to incorporate the Integrated Waste Management Process identified in AB 939. The agreement also states that the existing Waste Management Plan would stay in place until such time as the Integrated Plan is prepared and approved by the State Board. The second area which is changed addresses the need to prepare source reduction and recycling elements to the plan. AB 939 requires that each City prepare this document either individually or in conjunction with other agencies. Language in the proposed JPA states that the Authority would prepare a "baseline" document. The City would be required to submit proposed changes or revisions to the Authority for comment prior to adoption by the City. Mr. Rankin advised that it is unclear as to the impact that this requirement will have when it is implemented. Also addressed in the amended JPA is the ability to continue to levy fees upon solid waste operators. AB 939 repealed the current authorization to levy these fees after January 1, 1990. This change will continue to provide a source of funding for the preparation of the County Waste Management Plan. Another change relates to the imposition of fees and AB 939 authorizes cities and counties to impose fees in order to pay the cost of preparing, adopting, and implementing the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan and itsiElements. The proposed JPA would explicitly grant this duty to the Authority and not the Cities and County. The Alameda County CitylManagement Association held a joint meeting with the Waste Management Authority to discuss the proposed JPA. The Authority legal counselihas clearly stated the need to have a mechanism in place in order to legitimately collect fees levied under the old plan. In order to address the needs of both parties, the Authority adopted a resolution identifying a need for further review of funding and planning issues. The resolution establishes a process in which the Alameda County City Management Association would develop a Technical Advisory Committee to review the JPA in terms of key issues, including fee equity, distribution, amount, and method of local funding, local control and flexibility, financial and program liability, definition of "baseline" and any other pertinent issues Cm. Snyder advised that there are some technical issues which need to be dealt with. On March 21st, Mr. Shute will again meet with the City Management group. Somehow, we need to hold the Authority together on an interim basis. There are other pieces of legislation going through to sift this out. On motion of Cm. HegartY, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@, CM - VOL 9 - 56 Regular Meeting March 12, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. Z5 - 90 APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF A JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT REPORT ON DOOLAN ROAD/CROAK ROAD SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Planning Director Tong advised that the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) had a consultant prepare a Sphere of Influence Study and EIR for the Doolan Road/Croak Road area. The February 28, 1990 Study/EIR replaces the October, 1989, Draft Study/EIR. The study area has been expanded to add approximately 480 acres generally east of Croak Road to the 2,645 acres around Doolan Road and the study analyzes two hypothetical scenarios: 1) The previously studied moderate intensity urban level development, including 3,000 dwelling units and 100 acres commercial/industrial land; and 2) A low intensity rural level of development, including 200 dwelling units. The study recommends that LAFCO allocate the study area to the City of Dublin's Sphere of Influence. The study basically finds that the area will be subject to significant urbanization pressure over the next 10- 20 years, and should be planned accordingly. The area would be more readily integrated into the circulation, commerce and develOping community of East Dublin area and would be best allocated to Dublin for planning in concert with the East Dublin planning area. Cm. Hegarty felt this is just as important as Dublin's original Sphere of Influence, as it will play a big part in Dublin's future. He felt the City should send Mayor Moffatt to represent the City, and have all necessary ammunition to bolster the recommendation of the report, and be prepared to answer any questions that LAFCO may have. Mayor Moffatt stated he wished to dispel media reports that Dublin is a land grabbing green meanie. People should understand that Dublin did not initiate this action with LAFCO; it was initiated by Livermore. Cm. Snyder advised that after Dublin's Sphere of Influence was adopted in 1985, LAFCO asked all the cities in Alameda County if they wanted an upgrade to their spheres of influence. Livermore wanted to include a part of these properties in their Sphere of Influence. Some of the property owners did not feel this was appropriate so they asked that a study be done. Mayor Moffatt clarified that there have been no proposals for development on this land and the only thing now being discussed is obtaining the Sphere of Influence. There have been no deals cut with any developers. @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@, CM -VOL 9 - 57 Regular Meeting March lZ, 1990 On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council strongly supported the findings and recommendations of the study that Dublin is the appropriate City to plan urban uses in the Doolan Road/Croak Road area and that LAFCO should allocate the area to the City of Dublin's Sphere of Influence. The Council directed Staff to submit written comments to LAFCO and indicated that Mayor Moffatt should attend the LAFCO hearing and present the City Council's position. CITY PARTICIPATION IN DUBLIN PRIDE WEEK Mayor Moffatt advised that he has been working with community representatives to sponsor Dublin Pride Week, April 8-14, 1990. committee has been formed which includes representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, Dublin School District and service clubs. A Mayor Moffatt requested that the City fund the activities associated with the campaign and pay for advertising, ribbons for school contest winners, flyers, etc. The proposed budget would authorize funding not to exceed $2,775. The Committee hopes to help underwrite a portion of the costs through contributions from service clubs. The Committee has also requested authorization to use the City Seal On special trash bags during the clean-up campaign. Cm. Jeffery felt the idea was very good, but indicated she had a problem with putting the City seal on trash bags. She felt this was inappropriate. Mayor Moffatt stated it is actually a litter bag rather than a trash bag. Cm. Hegarty stated he agreed that the City seal should be used very carefully. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majority vote, the Council approved City participation in Dublin Pride Week at a cost not to exceed $2,775, with the exception that the City seal not be allowed on the garbage bags. Mayor Moffatt voted against this motion. OTHER BUSINESS Open Keg Law Cm. Jeffery advised that the Council had received a letter from Karen Seals requesting that the City look into adopting an "Open Keg Law". Cm. Jeffery questioned if the City may possibly already have something on the books that would cover this. Lt. Rose advised that th he would have to check t @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@* Regular Meeting ere is a County Ordinance on the keg law, but o see if this applies to Dublin. @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@* OM- VOL 9 - 58 March 12, 1990 Cm. Jeffery requested that this issue be researched and brought before the Council. City Manager Ambrose advised that Staff will research this and prepare a report. National League of Cities Conference Cm. Jeffery advised that she had recently attended the National League of Cities Congress as a member of the Fair Committee in Washington, D.C. With regard to the peace dividend, they tried to explain that any monies which might become available would be many years down the line. Most of the cost savings would be personnel, and would be phased over many years. NLC is in the process of developing a policy statement. Alameda County Housing Authority Appointment Cm. Hegarty stated that it was his understanding that no one had expressed an interest in this appointment. He advised that he may be able to again attend the meetings starting next month, due to his new job and work schedule. Police Department Assistance to Pleasanton Mayor Moffatt advised that the City had received a letter from Pleasanton Police Chief Bill Eastman thanking Dublin Police Services for assisting with the incident last month. Pleasanton Police Officer Mark Allen was injured. They specifically thanked Deputy Jim Juki~h for his assistance. St. Patrick's Day Parade Mayor Moffatt reminded the Council of the St. Patrick's Day parade to be held on Saturday. Vehicles will be provided for the Council to ride in and the Council should arrive no later than 8:30 a.m. The parade begins at 9:30 a.m. @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@, CM -VOL 9 - 59 Regular Meeting March 12, 1990 CLOSED SESSION At 8:55 p.m., the Council recessed to a closed executive session to discuss: 1) Litigation, Government Code Section 54956.9(a), Title not stated, because to do so would jeopardize the City's ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage; and 2) City of Dublin vs. Alameda County (Open Space Element) Alameda County Superior Court No. V-000855-4, Government Code Section 54956.9(a). ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Ma~6r ATTEST: City Clerk @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@~@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@, CM - VOL 9 - 60 Regular Meeting March 12, 1990