Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-24-1989REGULAR MEETING - July 24, 1989 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, July 24, 1989, in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:34 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 alle- giance to the flag. Guns Zev Kahn, 11708 Harlan Road, stated that on May 21st he had presented a request that the City look into gun control for hand guns. He has not heard any information on this request and expressed concern since his request was made before the Mayor's request for the issue on the agenda this evening. If something happens in a home, and children are involved, an ordinance should be put into place whereby the City can deal with this. He passed out copies of an article from People Magazine regarding an incident that occurred in Florida. In June, emergency measures were carried out with legislation in Florida. Dr. Kahn suggested that Dublin request a copy of Florida's legislation in order to put our own ordinance into effect. Mayor Moffatt stated that the Council did discuss his request and directed the City Attorney to study the issue. Ken Johnson stated he was opposed to any kind of gun laws. We should be pushing for more safety and start something beneficial to everyone. There are trigger locks that could be put on guns. He asked if the Council would consider banning rotary lawnmowers because they, too, are dangerous. Cars also are a hazard, but Mr. Johnson stated his point was, these things can be controlled. He is against gun control. Weeds Ron Holtman, Quartz Circle asked how long it would take under the City's beautification ordinance to clean up the weed area west of Stagecoach Road between Quartz Circle and Amador Valley Boulevard. @%&+@$%a@%a+@$%a@%a+@$%a@%a+@$%a@%a+@$%&@%a+@$%a@%a+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@ CM-8-225 Regular Meeting July 24, 1989 Public Works Director Thompson questioned the exact location and advised that the area was mowed about 6 weeks ago. In the master plan, this area is shown as a parking area, however, there is no money in the current 5- Year CIP available. The weeds are normally cut once a year. Maintenance Superintendent Loweree advised that this area is now in the chemical weed control area, and is scheduled for chemical weed control twice a year. Mr. Thompson further advised that this was originally part of the Maintenance Assessment District area, but no longer. It is now under the City's control. NEW EMPLOYEE Recreation Director Lowart introduced Stephanie Alex, the City's new Recreation Coordinator. Stephanie will be coordinating the swim program and special'events, as well as recreation classes. The Council welcomed Stephanie aboard. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, (Cm. Snyder abstained from voting on the minutes of the June 27th meeting only) the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Adjourned Regular Meeting of June 27, 1989 and Regular Meeting of July 10, 1989; Received the Spring, 1989 Recreation Report; Retained the firm of Singer & Hodges to provide Landscape Architectural Services for Alamo Creek Park, Phase II and authorized the Mayor to execute an agreement; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 90 -.89 ESTABLISHING THE POSITION OF ENGINEERING INTERN Authorized the Mayor to send a letter to Assemblyman Cortese opposing SB 1258, which provides for mandatory acceptance of county approved development agreements for annexed areas; Authorized Staff to request bids for moving services to the new Civic Center; @%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@ CM-8-226 Regular Meeting July 24, 1989 Accepted improvements constructed under Phase I of Contract 88-1A Major Arterials Soundwalls (San Ramon Road, Amador Valley Boulevard and Arroyo Vista) and authorized retention payment $39,039.69 to B & B Concrete; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $806,007118. REQUEST FOR FUNDING FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR WATER POLICY CONSENSUS Staff advised that the Committee for Water Policy Consensus is requesting funds to support various water conservation and protection programs and activities. Based on population, Dublin's requested contribution would be $1 00-$250. Cm. Snyder expressed concern as to why the City is being asked to contribute instead of Zone 7 and DSRSD. If they have been asked, then this is a duplicity of efforts. Laurie Griggs, Executive Director advised that this request is being made to cities, as they seem to have a broader sense of the water problems and solutions. Oftentimes, water districts have a narrow focus and sometimes bring more of an engineering perspective rather than a public perspec- tive. They have not made a funding request to either Zone 7 or DSRSD. Cm. Snyder stated that politically, he felt that the agency responsible for the service should have the responsibility. What voice does the City really have in this instance. Ms. Griggs repeated that she feels cities have a broader perspective. lot of their emphasis goes into making the best use of water and they encourage cities to develop guidelines for landscaping.efforts in new developments. There is a direct benefit to cities. A Cm. Hegarty felt that they could go to a political body as Cm. Snyder pointed out. The City of Dublin really does not have control of the water situation. He stated he would feel more comfortable if the other agencies also contributed. Cm. Snyder felt that as rate payers, the people are entitled to have representation. This representation should come through the Boards that they pay their dollars to. This is more of an issue regarding representation to the constituency. Cm. Jeffery felt that some of the arguments used for wanting DSRSD to do this are the same reasons why she would like the City to do it. The City would be making a statement as to the importance of the water situation. Some of the water questions have gone unanswered and have been problems because of parochial districts. The Council would be taking it out of that arena and can say to the citizens that the City wants the problem solved, and not solved at the expense of something like the Peripheral Canal. @%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%a@ CM-8-227 Regular Meeting July 24, 1989 Mayor Moffatt asked if this is more of a lobbyist group. Ms. Griggs stated they are a non-profit group. They are more focused on finding regional as well as statewide solutions. They try to address civic programs that can help make a difference. Water conservation is just one part. Cities can provide input. Lobbying is a very small part of what they do. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote, the Council approved the request for a contribution and authorized a budget transfer. Cm. Snyder voted against this motion. Cm. Hegarty encouraged Ms. Griggs to convey Dublin's concerns to the Committee. PUBLIC HEARING-TRACT 4719 LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1983-2 LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Public Works DirectOr Thompson advised that the City formed Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District No. 1983-2 for maintenance of landscaping within Tract 4719 (Stagecoach Road slopes, the "interior" landscaped slopes, and the Stagecoach Mini-Park) at the request of the developer as an alternative to a combined homeowners' association. Mr. Thompson explained that the cost of maintenance of the Stagecoach Road landscaping and Stagecoach Park is spread 60% to the Amador Lakes development and 40% to the Dublin Hills Estates Development (divided evenly among the 150 single-family lots). All of the Dublin Hills Estates interior slopes (Coral Way and Agate Way) maintenance cost is spread to the Dublin Hills Estates lots. The assessment to the single family property owners in the Beck development is $212 and the assessment to the Amador Lakes property owners is $30,740. The assessment is set up just to cover the expenses for the next year. Mr. Thompson advised that approximately 16 property owners attended an informal neighborhood meeting held on July 12th, as well as 2 represent- atives of Rafanelli & Nahas and Amador Lakes. Staff provided a copy of the questions and concerns discussed at that meeting. No comments were made by members of the public on this issue. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. Cm. Snyder stated he felt it was time that the City recognized its responsibility to assume the maintenance costs of Stagecoach Park. He did not feel that it was appropriate that the people who live in the area @%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@ CM-8-228 Regular Meeting July 24, 1989 are the sole supporters from a maintenance standpoint. Cm. Snyder proposed that the Council accept the City Engineer's recommendation, but delete this portion related to park maintenance. City Manager Ambrose advised that by removing Stagecoach Park from the Assessment District, the total Assessment District costs will be approximately $44,908. The impact on the single family homeowner in that area would reduce their proposed assessment of $212 to approximately $165 per year per househOld. A budget transfer from the General Fund would be needed to cover those additional park costs since they are presently funded by assessments. Cm. Hegarty stated he had concerns with having an assessment district legally set up to handle certain things and now we are pulling something out. He felt that now, anyone in that neighborhood could request the City to take over more, rather than have it covered under the assessment district. Technically, if we can do this, we can just do away with the assessment district. Mr. Ambrose advised that the assessment district was originally requested by the developer in lieu of a homeowners association. This is a little different than the park situation which in this case could be easily severed from the assessment district. Cm. Hegarty questioned what would prevent them from coming in next year and asking for the City to take over more. Mr. Ambrose advised that they can come and ask but it would not be appropriate. The City does not own all the slopes, but it does own the park. Cm. Jeffery stated that when this was discussed last year, it was determined that this was the only area that was paying for a park. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, with the deletion of Stagecoach Park, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 89 APPROVING ENGINEER' S REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT, AND ORDERING LEVY OF ASSESSMENT LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1983-2 (Tract 4719) and authorized a budget transfer from the General Fund. @%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%a@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%a@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@ CM-8-229 Regular Meeting July 24, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR COMPENSATION OF COMMISSIONERS Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Staff advised that during the Budget deliberations, the Council determined that it would be appropriate to compensate Commissioners serving on the Planning Commission and the Park & Recreation Commission. The Council conceptually approved payment in the amount of $30 per meeting for both Commissions with a 3 meeting per month limit for the Planning Commission and with a 2 meeting per month limit for the Park & Recreation Commission. Cm. Jeffery stated that there was another part to her motion when it was made at the budget hearing meeting. Cm. Jeffery questioned even though it was defeated if she could bring this up again. Mr. Ambrose advised that according to the rules, it would have to be brought up by one of the Councilmembers who voted against the motion. No comments were made by members of the public related to this subject. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. Cm. Snyder stated that the request originally came from him and he was glad the Council agreed to compensate the Commissioners, but he was sorry it was not a higher amount. Cm. Vonheeder stated that the amount was not determined by a unanimous vote. Cm. Jeffery questioned if the ordinances were to be introduced at this time, if amendments could be made at the next meeting. Assistant City Attorney Silver stated that it would be desirable to make any amendments at this time. Amendments could be made at the next meeting, however, it would delay the adoption of the ordinance. On motiOn of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance relating to compensation for Planning Commission members and INTRODUCED an ordinance relating to compensation for Park & Recreation Commission members. BUS SHELTER LOCATIONS, DESIGNS & ALTERNATIVES TO BUS BENCHES WITH ADVERTISING Staff advised that this item combines a request from LAVTA for final approval of bus shelter locations and design and a response to the Council's request to look at replacing the Bench-Ad Company's benches with City-owned bus benches. @%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@ CM-8-230 Regular Meeting July 24, 1989 LAVTA has (with input from City Staff) prepared a final list of shelter locations and a generic shelter design. The design will allow for minor revisions based on the manufacturer who is awarded the contract. LAVTA will pay for, maintain, and pick up trash from their proposed bus shelters. The City receives $6.00 per bench per year from the Bench-Ad Company. There are currently 27 benches located in Dublin, for a total of $162 per year. LAVTA plans to install their bus shelters early in 1990, which will replace approximately 14 of the 27 benches that are currently in place. LAVTA will also be placing shelters in other locations which do not presently have benches. Staff provided an exhibit illustrating a number of types of benches available. Staff advised that it may also be possible to have a bench designed specifically for the City of Dublin. Cm. Vonheeder questioned what would be done with the other 13 or so benches. Mr. Thompson stated that at this time Staff was asking only if the Council wanted Staff to proceed. If so, then Staff will identify all potential locations. Some of the bus companies involved could not even advise where the bus stops were. This did not, however, apply to LAVTA. Mr. Thompson gave a brief explanation of what was being proposed. Zev Kahn questioned if the City was disCussing the bus benches currently in place which have advertising. Mr. Thompson responded yes, that the City will replace those currently in place with benches containing no advertising. Mayor Moffatt asked if Staff needed direction with regard to the types at this time. Discussion related to the pluses and minuses of the different types of benches ensued. Mr. Thompson stated that Staff will bring this back with samples at a future meeting. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved LAVTA's proposed bus shelter locations and design and directed Staff to undertake further study regarding style, cost, and quantity of bus benches and bring back a recommendation at a future Council meeting. @%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@ CM-8-231 Regular Meeting July 24, 1989 SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN - REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PUBLIC STORAGE ON 1.4+ ACRE MORET PROPERTY - 7436 SAN RAMON ROAD John Donahoe explained that the San Ramon Road Specific Plan was adopted in 1983 and established guidelines regarding the land use, development regulations, and circulation system for a 40+ acre area north of Dublin Boulevard west of San Ramon Road and south of Silvergate Drive. The 1.45 acre Moret property is located at the northern limit of the 13.0 acre area identified as Area 3B. Area 3B (a sub-area of Area 3) was created through a previous Specific Plan Amendment which was not viewed as having a high potential for the development of retail shopper stores. The property's size, configuration and proximity to adjacent residential development, Martin Canyon Creek, and an active earthquake fault serve to restrict the site's potential for retail, commercial use. In light of this, Area 3B was established to permit occupancy by office, financial institution, and personal service uses subject to the limitation that 50% of the total gross floor area of any development can be for retail shopper and eating and drinking establishments. The Applicant has requested the amendment of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan to allow a retail shopping facility on the front portion of the property facing San Ramon Road and locate a self-storage facility on the rear portion of the property. Staff advised that if the Council authorizes the request, specific site review of the proposed project would take place after the Specific Plan Amendment has been reviewed and approved by the City Council. Jerry Lemm advised that PubliC Storage had a presentation to make but they had not yet arrived at the meeting. He requested that this item be delayed on the agenda. After a query of the Council Mayor Moffatt announced that the Council would come back to this item when everyone arrived. RECESS The Mayor called a short recess. Councilmembers were present. When the meeting reconvened, all CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC STORAGE REQUEST John Knott with Public Storage displayed an aerial'photograph of the subject site. He advised that their headquarters in Dublin covers the entire northern United States operation of Public Storage. They have watched this particular parcel for a long time, and have noticed that it has stayed vacant. Mr. Knott presented their proposal for potential development of the site. They felt the physical constraints of the lot were interesting, but more of a problem for businesses which require visibility. They feel that @%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@ CM-8-232 Regular Meeting July 24, 1989 their proposed use could enhance some of the wonderful natural, amenities currently there; the most obvious being the lovely creekside setting. There are trees along the creek that are 100 to 200 years old. They would propose a circulating pathway to run along the creek and link up and loop back towards the restaurant. Currently, the site is an eyesore. They are proposing a nice retail building in the front with a reciprocal parking plan to link up with the Hayward Fishery. They would try to match the style, materials and flavor of the property next door. The household storage use portion would be in the rear. Mr. Knott summarized by saying that City Staff has been very nice to work with and have remained very neutral. The main concern presented by Staff is that whatever development goes in utilize the natural amenities presently there, and not limit any access to the creek or the park in the back. They felt this would be a good transition between existing commercial to the south and residential to the north. The Council questioned the square footage necessary for the public storage and also how many stories. Mr. Knott advised they propose in the neighborhood of 50,000 sq ft. The front building would be a single-story retail building and the back building would be 2-story, but the roof design would be such that it would have a single-story look to it. From an aerial view, the roof would look flat with no unsightly roof mounted equipment. There would be a sliding security gate to the back portion. There will be 24 hour on- site security and management. Cm. Snyder questioned the number of storage units and traffic generation counts. Mr. Knott estimated there would be about 400. With regard to traffic estimates, CalTrans has added their use to an adverage daily trip generation count that they do for all kinds of facilities. The traffic count would be small, with roughly a 10 to I ratio between their proposed use and a restaurant of any size. A small restaurant would generate 10 times more traffic than their facility. The Council and the Applicant discussed the building security system, the earthquake line and creek access. Cm. Snyder asked if there had been conversations with the Rivers family. Mr. Knott stated they had spoken with Bart Heller, one of the owners of the Hayward Fishery, and he had no problems with this. Cm. Jeffery asked if they propose to build the whole plan at one time. Mr. Knott responded that they did. Cm. Vonheeder felt that with a broad intepretation of the allowed personal services, an amendment to the Specific Plan would be unnecessary. @%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@ CM-8-233 Regular Meeting July 24, 1989 Mr. Tong stated that typically public storage facilities would fall into a General Commercial and/or Light Industrial type zoning category, as opposed to a C-1 type use which was the basis for the Specific Plan. Cm. Vonheeder stated that what is being proposed is not the typical drive up garage door type storage facility, and commented that from the outside you can't even tell this is a storage facility. It would be more like entering a commercial building. Mr. Tong advised that what Staff looked at was the types of personal services that were listed in the Specific Plan Amendment, things such as beauty shops, barber shops, shoe repair, and those types of small shops that offer a service to the individual. Staff's interpretation was that the public storage type of concept would be more aligned to a general commercial or light industrial type of zoning. Mr. Knott indicated that the public storage business, which has been around for about 12 years, is changing trememdously. The type of facility they propose would have no outdoor vehicular type access. There are no roll up doors. This is primarily for household storage. They are currently building one in Marin County and one in San Jose. You will not be able to tell what the building is from the architecture. Cm. Jeffery stated that the issue before the Council at this time was simply the usage and not the look of the facility. Cm. Snyder questioned the definition of "public facilities and uses" under the conditional uses that are allowed for this site. Staff advised that this could include a fire station, or in essence, governmental facilities. Zev Kahn questioned if there were any restrictions as far as the closeness to the streambeds or buildings overcasting onto the streambeds. A 20' building which is close to the streambed with a southern exposure will take light off of an area that has has sun for hundreds of years. His idea of walking in a natural area is not walking by a wall 20' tall that may be 75 or 100' long. Development that close will have some impact of the trees. Development of the Town & Country Center killed 2 huge oak trees that weren't even shadowed. Cm. Jeffery stated she felt that if businesses are to survive, you need to put in businesses that fit together. She did not feel that public storage would necessarily support a restaurant or other kinds of businesses that may go in. She stated she would like to hang onto the concept of having businesses that are compatible. She indicated she had a problem with utilizing such valuable space at one of Dublin's entrances for something like public storage. She did not feel that most cities have, on a per capita basis, the amount of public storage that Dublin currently has. It is nice to have adequate public storage, but she felt there were other areas where it would be more suitable. @%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@ CM-8-234 Regular Meeting July 24, 1989 Cm. Vonheeder felt there is a definite need for more public storage in Dublin. The restaurant is doing very well, in spite of the fact that the entire plan has not developed the way the Council had originally hoped. The Council was unsuccessful in getting the various property owners to cooperate. This particular parcel has only a small amount of frontage, but if it is integrated with a design similar to The Fishery, it could look the way the Council would want. The City may be achieving its long range goal. Cm. Jeffery stated her main concern is what is the best usage on this propertY for serving Dublin. Cm. Snyder stated he felt that Cm. Jeffery was beating this issue to death, and had every time a proposal came up on the property. Mr. Moret has tried to market this piece of property for 7 years under the guise of the City's Specific Plan. He was never in favor of the Specific Plan and felt that it has not allowed the site to develop as it should have. He felt that the City could have put this in a redevelopment area, bought the land and done it themselves. Cm. Vonheeder felt that the City Council needed to recognize that what it did with the Specific Plan did not work. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote, the Council authorized Staff to initiate the Specific Plan Amendment process and prepare the necessary documentation for said amendment. Cm. Jeffery voted against this motion. ASSAULT WEAPONS ORDINANCE State Legislation prohibiting 56 specific assault weapons will become effective on January 1, 1990. Mayor Moffatt has requested that the Council consider an ordinance which would prohibit the sale or transfer of assault weapons locally until the State Legislation becomes effective. A1 Bolla, a 15 year resident of Dublin, questioned how much it would cost Dublin to enforce this type of ordinance. Mayor Moffatt stated there would not be much of a financial impact. Alameda County as a whole is interested in speeding up the process. Mr. Bolla thought it would be better to have some kind of request for public safety. He questioned how Dublin would enforce it and felt that this would be mostly a symbolic gesture. Dublin would simply be stacking laws on top of laws, which won't actually mean anything until January 1st. He felt the City would be getting into an unnecessary bucket of worms. Assistant City Attorney Silver advised that, as with any law, it is uncertain as to how much any law will cost to enforce and impossible to predict. @%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@ CM-8-235 Regular Meeting July 24, 1989 Forest Smith, a business associate of Wayne's Gun Shop stated that anytime you try to draw lines that restrict people's individual rights, you create problems. Before the Council does this, they need to identify a pressing need. There is one gun shop in town that currently does not deal with these types of guns. He questioned the Police Chief as to whether or not there is a pressing need for this type of legislation in Dublin. He did not feel there was. Jim Bosse, owner of Wayne's Gun Shop stated that he stopped selling assault rifles on June 1st, because the State made it harder to register them. He did not understand why the City would expend the time, effort and money to adopt this type of an ordinance for only 5 months. He contacted the Police Department and they did not indicate there is a problem in Dublin. He questioned the reason for this. They sell many weapons to police departments, plus they sell them to Hollywood. He was not aware of any weapon that has been used for a crime incident or shooting in Dublin. He also questioned how the City would enforce this and how they would even know it is happening. Mr. Bosse stated it was his understanding that the City did not even have enough money to take care of maintenance concerns brought up earlier in the meeting, let alone try to enforce this type of an ordinance. Zev Kahn questioned if this was a model ordinance that came from the County. He also questioned statistics in the last 5 years. He felt the Council was making a big deal out of nothing and he would rather see gun lock control. Ryan of Dublin stated he would like answers to the questions also. He asked if the City had looked into this and if so, what did they find. suggested that the City ignore it. He Wayne Jackson, part owner of Wayne's Gun Shop stated he would like to hear from the Police Chief. He stated handguns and rifles don't kill people, but the peoPle behind them do. There are books available instructing children so they don't pick up a gun and shoot each other. He stated he was familiar with Florida's law, which provides for the arrest of a parent of a child who has been killed. To put them in jail and fine them $10,000 seems to be a little over zealous. He recommended education. He has been in the gun business for 12 years. Mr. Jackson recited various statistics from large cities. He felt that Dublin needs to get facts and figures. Ken Johnson stated it is people's rights to bear weapons. He urged the Council to make a law that when you sell a weapon, the buyer must buy a trigger lock and must be made to go to a class and read up on the subject before they can buy a weapon. Chief of Police Lt. Rose advised the Council that if they had any specific questions, he would try to answer. Cm. Jeffery felt it was more appropriate for the Council, rather than the audience, to direct questions to Staff. @%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@ CM-8-236 Regular Meeting July 24, 1989 City Manager Ambrose clarified that this discussion was only to determine if the Council wanted to set a public hearing for this issue. Cm. Snyder stated he felt it was ill advised to have been brought forward in the manner in which it was presented. He also had problems with how statements in the draft ordinance applied to Dublin. Cm. Vonheeder stated she thought this item was agendized by Mayor Moffatt as a courtesy to Supervisor Don Perata. She did not think it was a problem in Dublin. Cm. Hegarty stated he did not feel there is a problem and hopes there never is a problem in Dublin. You could go on and on on the issue of gun control. There was no information available at this meeting. The answers to some of the questions could be brought forth on a future agenda. Since the issue had come up, he felt it would be appropriate to bring it back. However, this will become State law in 5 months. Cm. Jeffery suggested moving On to the next item on the agenda with no further discussion. Mayor Moffatt announced that the issue was dropped. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE BENEFIT ASSESSMENT INCREASES Staff advised that on August 8, 1989, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors will consider increasing the benefit assessment for Emergency Medical Services. The increase will exceed the $10 cap approved by the voters in a 1982 Countywide election. The proposed $9.04 increase per benefit assessment in Dublin will bring the total assessment up to $15.58, well in excess of the $10 limit voted on in 1982. County Counsel has determined that the $10 limit has no legal weight and that the County can, in fact, increase the assessment without a vote of the electorate. Staff felt that the proposal for raising the assessment from $6.54 to $15.58 seems appropriate if the goal of the assessment is to provide for an integrated EMS Program. However, exceeding the $10 voter endorsed limit does cause concern, because of the moral commitment which was made to the voters to not exceed the $10 amount. Staff felt that it would be more appropriate to submit the increase to the voters for approval. Cm. Jeffery stated that it should be noted that the information which came from the County was dated June 14th, which was prior to the Governor passing the state budget. At that time, counties were in a panic because the Governor had suggested cutting a lot of the healthcare fundings, but the funds were restored so the needs might be changed. Cm. Jeffery also expressed concern for taking the lack of funding for a project like this when Alameda County priorities have not necessarily been for trauma centers, but for other things which don't necessarily affect Dublin @%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%a@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@ CM-8-237 Regular Meeting July 24, 1989 residents. She felt that the promise to the voters is important. A slight increase could be supported, as long as it stayed under the $10 amount. Cm. Vonheeder felt there definitely is a moral commitment. The timing of this should be looked at with regard to the Governor's budget. The trauma centers are critically important, however, because of Dublin's outlying location. Cm. Snyder asked for a legal opinion. His main concern was the interpretation that the CSA is not a tax, but rather a service charge. Assistant City Attorney Silver stated that while she had not had a chance to read the report, she did indicate that an advisory election is not binding. Ms. Silver stated that in general, there is a difference between a tax and an assessment. An assessment is not a tax. City Manager Ambrose pointed out that the County does use a County Service Area for a number of services. Cm. Snyder felt they were using the CSA as a means to get a tax base and assess to subsidize a trauma center. Mr. Ambrose stated that cities have the ability to impact the County Service Area. Cm. Hegarty felt that since they originally said they would not go for more than $10, they should now use the same procedure to ask for more. The County should be honest about it, and the people should decide. Cm. Snyder pointed out that the Board is made up of 5 different individuals than when this was originally approved. Mr. Ambrose stated that it was primarily created for paramedic and ambulance services and now things have changed. Ms. Silver felt that the question is what is the service area and what is the benefit provided. If the Board, in creating the County Service Area, determines that residents of this area are receiving a benefit from the trauma center, then that is a legislative decision that can be made. Cm. Snyder felt the trauma center should have been identified as a part of the CSA initially. By a consensus, the COuncil directed that a letter be sent to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors urging that this supplemental assessment be placed before the voters, plus requesting justification in light of the state budget which was adopted. @%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%a+@$%&@%&+@$%&@ CM-8-238 Regular Meeting July 24, 1989 ALAMEDA COUNTY OPEN SPACE ELEMENT LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY PLANNING UNIT GENERAL PLAN Planning Director Tong advised that Alameda County has prepared revisions to the Alameda County Open Space Element and Livermore-Amador Valley Planning Unit General Plan that would allow consideration of urban development outside of existing cities and up to a mile away from public roads. The Alameda County Planning Commission has recommended a new Policy 1.2.3 which reads: "Consider urban development ouside existing cities for approval and amendment of the General Plan only when it provides its own services and is located in close proximity to an existing urbanized area, and/or utilizes urban services available from existing entities". Mr. Tong advised that the new policy is potentially significant in Dublin's Extended Planning Areas where the City is currently preparing General Plan Amendment studies. Existing policies provide for urban development that conforms to the City's General Plan and which takes place through annexation to the City. The Alameda County Planning Commission has also recommended additions to Policy 2.2 which would allow residential development up to one dwelling unit/20 acres up to I mile away from a public road. Such development could create undesirable development patterns that conflict with the amendments being studied for Dublin's General Plan. Alameda County Staff has suggested an alternative to Policy 2.2 which would allow between I DU/20 acres to I DU/40 acres in Residential Agriculture areas up to 1/4 mile away from a public road, and I DU/160 acres in large-parcel agriculture areas. Cm. Vonheeder felt this was very frightening and we need to loudly scream our disapproval. Also, we need to get Pleasanton and Livermore involved. Alameda County should not be in the development business. This is a major threat to cities. Cm. Snyder questioned if this was in any way connected to SB 1258. Mr. Tong stated he was not sure if there is a link or not. Cm. Jeffery stated that in a meeting with the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, it was confusing as to how they will solve their monetary problems. It is probably connected in some way. 'Cm. Hegarty felt this was coming from Bill Fraley. Cm. Snyder asked if Dublin had a policy like Pleasanton that says you can't use their services unless you annex to the City. Mr. Tong advised that we did not specifically have that type of a policy. @%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@ CM-8-239 Regular Meeting July 24, 1989 By a consensus, the Council directed Staff to notify Alameda County of the City of Dublin's strong opposition to the new Policy 1.2.3 and to request additions to Policy 2.2 within Dublin Extended Planning Areas identified in Dublin's General Plan Amendment studies. Copies of the correspondence should also be sent to Livermore and Pleasanton. OTHER BUSINESS Freeway Improvements - Groundbreaking City Manager Ambrose advised that a groundbreaking related to the 1-680 Measure B freeway improvement project had been scheduled for July 31st at 8:30 a.m. The map which was distributed was incorrect and the actual meeting location will be at the main gate on Dublin Boulevard where 1-680 crosses over. This gate is on the west side next to where the old Bubble Machine station is located. League of CA Ciies Conference in San Francisco City Manager Ambrose advised the Council that they needed to advise Staff as soon as possible if they wished lodging reservations during the San Francisco Conference which is being held in October. Fire Service in San Ramon City Manager Ambrose advised that he had a copy of the City of San Ramon's Staff Report regarding the issue of fire service protection in San Ramon. San Ramon is committed to DRFA and are not planning on ending this relationship. A lot of opposition is being felt from the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. Mr. Ambrose advised that he would distribute copies of the report to the Council. Chamber of Commerce Directory Cm. Vonheeder advised that the Chamber of Commerce is preparing an update to their directory and any changes in addresses and/or telephone numbers for Councilmembers needed to be reported to the Executive Director not later than the following morning. @%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@ CM-8-240 Regular Meeting July 24, 1989 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Cm. Vonheeder advised that MTC has started to do some preliminary work. The Council's recent suggestions have been put into the bylaws. Each City has been asked to donate about 40 staff hours. Other arrangements will be worked out for Dublin as Dublin will be unable to do this because of the upcoming move into the new Civic Center. Sister City Reception Mayor Moffatt stated the Council needed to discuss the final details of the events for Monday evening. He stated he would be unable to get away from work early enough to go on the tour of the Civic Center with the guests from Bray. After discussion, it was determined that the dedication of the Bray Room would occur at the end of the tour at approximately 5:30 p.m. Mayor Moffatt stated he would try to arrive by that time. If he could not, he would coordinate with Vice Mayor Vonheeder to have her make the presentation. Cm. Snyder reported that he had heard that a local men's choral group had offered to sing at the reception at Shannon Center. He thoUght there were about 25-30 people in this group. The reception was scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. The Council advised that transportation had been arranged for getting the delegates back and forth between the Civic Center and Shannon Center. The reception will only last one hour. A display ad will be placed in the newspaper this week inviting the public to come and meet Dublin's guests from Ireland. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m. ATTEST: City C~k @%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@%&+@$%&@ CM-8-241 Regular Meeting July 24, 1989