Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-22-1989REGULAR MEETING - May 22r. 1989 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, May 22, 1989, in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:36 p.m., by Mayor Paul Moffatt. ROLL CALL PRESENT' ABSENT: Councilmembers Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Moffatt Councilmember Hegarty PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle- giance to the flag. Guns Cm. Snyder advised that Dr. Kahn had given him a letter which he wished to have considered under Oral Communications. Dr. Kahn advised that he was unable to stay for the meeting. Dr. Kahn expressed concern regarding the 2 recent incidents involving juveniles and guns. He was appauled that minors being able to obtain access to guns seems to be the responsibility of no one, not even the parents. He spoke with Congressman Stark over the weekend and he advised ~ him that while he is sympathetic, action would have to start at the local level with his City Council. Dr. Kahn felt that with the increased growth being proposed, more incidents will most likely occur unless the City Council takes action. Staff was directed to make Dr. Kahn's letter a part of the record. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, (Cm. Hegarty absent), the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 8, 1989; Accepted improvements to Alamo Creek Park constructed by Rafanelli & Nahas and authorized an additional appropriation in the amount of $7,767 which will be funded from additional reimbursements paid by developer; Received the Winter 1989 Recreation Report; %+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+% CM-8-1 67 Regular Meeting May 22, 1989 Accepted improvements constructed under Contract 89-6 for Dublin Sports Grounds Barrier Fence and authorized payment to Calco Fence in the amount of $15,373.20; Authorized Staff to submit an application for the PG&E Architectural/ Security Lighting Program for the Civic Center project; Accepted improvements under Contract 88-2, Dolan Park Improvements, Phase II and authorized final payment and retention in the amount of $15,242.90 to Mori Hatsushi & Associates; Authorized Staff to circulate Request for Bids for software for the Recreation Department;. Accepted improvements under Contract 89-2, AnnUal Sidewalk Repair and authorized final progress payment in the amOunt of $12,913.79 to Ambo Engineering; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 62 - 89 APPROVING PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT CITY OF DUBLIN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 83-1 RESOLUTION NO. 63 - 89 APPOINTING TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING PROTESTS IN RELATION TO PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS CITY OF DUBLIN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 83-1 Approved Warrant Register in .the amount of $730,951.38. PUBLIC HEARING - WRITTEN REQUEST FROM CHAMBER SIGN COMMITTEE TO AMEND SIGN ORDINANCE BY EXTENDING AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR NON-CONFORMING SIGNS Staff advised that on May 17, 1989, the City received a letter from Roger Woodward, Chairman of a Dublin Chamber of Commerce committee reviewing the Dublin Sign Ordinance. The letter questions the legality of the 3- year amortization period of the Sign Ordinance and requests a 4-month extension of the June 12, 1989 deadline for application of a time extension. The question of legality has been previously raised by the Sign User's Council and others. The City Attorney's Office has provided an opinion that the provisions of the Sign Ordinance requiring amortization of non- conforming signs are legal and in compliance with applicable State laws. Staff advised that all requests for extensions are subject to review by the Planning Director and after making certain findings, the Planning Director may grant up to a 3-year extension to the time within which the sign must be removed or modified to meet the Ordinance. %+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+% CM-8-168 Regular Meeting May 22, 1989 Staff drafted an Urgency Interim Ordinance in the event that the Council wished to grant the 4-month extension to the June 12, 1989 deadline. The Ordinance would provide that the Planning Director, based upon making certain findings, may grant up to a 3-year extension from the end of the amortization period (June 12, 1989) or from October 12, 1989, whichever date occurs last. Staff advised that this Ordinance would require a 4/5 vote of the Council. The actual amendment would require a study of the amendment with hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. The Interim Ordinance, if adopted, would only be in effect for 45 days. Dave Burton stated that he was asked to be at this meeting as the Chamber of Commerce is having a golf tournament this evening. Don Johnson had to be present at the banquet. Mr. Burton stated this was the first time he had gotten any numbers or figures on signs. He felt there might not have been proper notification when you consider that 120 signs have not made the deadline. Obviously, there will be some ill will created if the City comes down real hard. The Chamber of Commerce feels that if they had another 4 months, they could help. When 4/5 of the people don't respond, there is something wrong. He did not know what it was. He strongly recommended that the City try to work with the 4 month extension to help alleviate a confrontation. Mayor Moffatt clarified that a 3 year extension can be requested by a written request.· Cm. Vonheeder had a copy of the recommended changes to the old sign ordinance. She indicated that she was serving on the Planning Commission when they began the study. The sign committee was formed in December, 1982 and it had members of the Chamber of Commerce on it. This committee held many meetings and the issue came before the Planning Commission in August, 1983, with recommendations from the committee on what they felt needed to happen. Staff worked out the legalities and it was then presented to the Planning Commission again in'November, 1985. In April, 1986, the City Council finally passed the sign ordinance. The buSiness people in town had all this time to help work out the requirements. They wanted to make sure everyone's concerns were addressed. Some further changes have been made in the last 3 years. Cm. Vonheeder felt it was an unfair assessment to say that businesses felt they were under the gun. It should be clearly understood that this started 7 years ago and she was not sure what the City can do to get everyone to comply. Mr. Burton stated he did not mean to imply that the City has put a gun to anyone's head. The pressure is felt simply because we are now only 2 weeks away from the deadline. There must be a reason that the Chamber of Commerce Board has asked for this extension. Cm. Jeffery clarified that the letter was received from the Chairman of a Chamber committee. The letter did not indicate that the issue has gone to the full Chamber Board for approval. In addition, Roger Woodward has sent another letter through his attorney, stating he does not intend to comply. %+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+% CM-8-169 Regular Meeting May 22, 1989 Pat Costello stated we are talking about signs that have been up since 1967. They need more time. Cm. Jeffery stated there is a process by which the City can review these. This process began in 1982. There is currently a provision to ask for a time extension. Mr. Costello stated they are questioning the amortization period. He in particular was concerned with franchise signs. Cm. Vonheeder felt that no law is going to solve everyone's problem. They have had 7 years to deal with this issue. Mayor Moffatt questioned Staff with regard to how the Council could best proceed to consider the ordinance. City Attorney Nave advised that a public hearing should be convened in order to consider whether to adopt the ordinance. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, (Cm. Hegarty absent), the Council agreed to open a public hearing. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, (Cm. Hegarty absent), the Council accepted the Staff Report and the testimony given thus far as part of the public hearing. Gordon Ashcroft, 11452 Winding Trails Lane asked what was wrong with the signs. Mayor Moffatt advised that the discussion is whether to extend the sign ordinance for 4 months. Gordon Ashcroft then suggested that the Council should just give the extension. Pat Costello stated that as members of the committee, he and Roger Woodward are just asking for an extension of time. The letter was prepared by Harvey Levine. Discussion was held relative to whether the letter was approved by the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. Cm. Vonheeder made a motion, which was seconded by Mayor Moffatt to adopt the urgency ordinance granting a 45 day extension. This motion was defeated due to dissenting votes cast by Cm. Jeffery and Cm. Snyder (Cm. Hegarty absent). It was therefore determined that the June 12, 1989 deadline was adequate and no further action was taken. %+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+% CM-8-170 Regular Meeting May 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING - FENCE VARIANCE REQUEST PA 89-001 PETRAY 11450 WINDING TRAIL LANE - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Planning Director Tong advised that this Variance application is a result of the Building Inspector identifying this zoning violation in the field. A maximum height of 6' is allowed and an 8' fence exists. The Applicant was advised that he would have to lower the height to 6' or less or apply for a Variance. On March 14, 1989, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 5-89 denying PA 89-001, Joseph Petray Variance request. This action was appealed to the Planning Commission on March 22, 1989. On April 17, 1989, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 18-89 denying the variance request. On April 27, 1989' Mr..Petray appealed the Planning Commission's action to the City Council. Mr. Tong advised that the subject site is a part of Kaufman & Broad's recently completed California Vista Townhouse development located just off of Silvergate Drive and Rolling Hills Drive. The site in question fronts on Winding Trail Lane, which is one of the streets running through the development. The rear and side portions of the Applicant's property front on Rolling Hills Drive. The Applicant has constructed a 2' redwood lattice addition to their 6' tall redwood fence, resulting in a total fence height of 8'. The Applicant has indicated that the additional fence height is needed to provide privacy to his house and enclosed rear yard area from vehicles and pedestrians walking along Rolling Hills Drive. Rolling Hills Drive is located north of the subject site, and is elevated above the grade of the subject site. In order for a Variance to be granted, 3 mandatory findings of fact must be made. These findings state: 1) that there are special circumstances relating to physical characteristics (such as lot size, shape and topography) which would deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by others in the identical zoning district; 2) that the granting of the Variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges; and 3) that the Variance will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. A review of the request reveals that there are no special circumstances relating to the physical features of the site which would warrant granting the Variance. Although Staff recommended denial of this request, Staff presented to the Applicant a number of practical solutions which could assist in attaining his desire to maintain privacy in his rear yard, while at the same time, gaining full ~compliance with City zoning standards. These included planting tall growing trees or shrubs around the outside perimeter of the fence and using tall redwood lattice %+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+% CM-8-1 71 Regular Meeting May 22, 1989 plant supports placed in the ground directly adjacent to the interior perimeter to hold vines, roses, etc. The Applicant felt neither of these alternatives would be as effective as the existing illegal fence addition. Mr. Tong showed a video of the site that had been taken earlier in the day. Mayor Moffatt asked if anyone had come forward to complain. Mr. Tong stated there have been no complaints from adjoining residents. Joe Petray stated that with regard to planting bushes and/or trees, their association has rules that they cannot exceed 4' in height. The common area is taken care of by the association. Without the extension, you can see in their entire house. Other people are waiting to see the outcome of this before they put up their fence extensions. The San Ramon Road wall is 8' high in some places. He had a list of 150 addresses of people with fences over 6 or 7' high. Some have been there quite a while. He felt this action discriminates against them and they were singled out. No one has said they don't like it. He felt there is a special circumstance because the street and the sidewalk are elevated so high. Gordon Ashcroft stated he felt there are special circumstances, especially since no one can adequately define what a special circumstance actually is. They need the priviledge of privacy that other people are afforded. George Baker who lives directly across from the others stated he has no problem with the view and felt it was wrong to deny them their privacy. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. Gordon Ashcroft asked with dozens and dozens of violations in the area, why the City was making examples of them. Cm. Vonheeder stated she received a Variance many years ago and the necessary finding was made because their backyard is not as deep as neighboring properties. She did not feel that a higher fence was detrimental. She felt that because the sidewalk is raised, this becomes a special circumstance. Cm. Snyder stated that in looking at the entire project, he is willing to take his share of the blame. It seems that there was an error made with the fencing problems there. The Homeowners Association might consider moving the fences out to the sidewalk area. Unfortunately, the City neglected to recognize the problems that would be put upon the people who bought those particular units. The Council will need to carefully look at this with future developments. He understood the desires for privacy. Cm. Jeffery stated she did not disagree with the need for privacy, but was concerned that the extensions were put up without permits. They could have avoided this whole scenario had they just applied for permits. %+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+% CM-8-172 Regular Meeting May 22, 1989 Cm. Vonheeder stated she felt a need to respond t© the comments made by the Applicant that they thought the City was picking on these 2 people. The City has struggled with this type of an issue for a long time. The City deals with these types of issues on a complaint only basis. The alternative would be to have City Staff out looking for these types of violations. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, (Cm. Hegarty absent), the Council approved the Variance request and directed Staff to draft the necessary findings and bring back a resolution for Council approval. PUBLIC.HEARING - FENCE VARIANCE REQUEST PA 89-133 ASHCROFT 11452 WINDING TRAIL LANE - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL Cm. VOnheeder stated she had a conflict of interest and would withdraw from any discussion on this item. Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Planning Director Tong advised that this Variance application is also as a result of the Building Inspector identifying this zoning violation in the field. A maximum height of 6' is allowed and a 7' 7" fence exists. The Applicant was advised that he would have to lower the height to 6' or less or apply for a Variance. On March 14, 1989, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 4-89 denying PA 89-133, Gordon Ashcroft Variance request. This action was appealed to the Planning Commission on March 24, 1989. On April 17, 1989, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 17-89 denying the variance request. On April 25, 1989, Mr. Ashcroft appealed the Planning Commission's action to the City Council. The site in question fronts on Winding Trail Lane, with the rear and side portions fronting on Rolling Hills Drive. The Applicant has constructed a 1' 7" redwood lattice addition to a 6' tall redwood fence, resulting in a total fence height of 7' 7". Gordon Ashcroft states that he suffers more from a privacy problem because he is closer to the sidewalk. Planning of the entire project was poor. He felt a fence should be put in by the City. Cm. Jeffery explained that fences are the responsibility of the developer or builder of the project. Mrs. Ashcroft felt that since Dublin is no longer building on the flat lands, this gives them a special circumstance. %+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+% CM-8-173 Regular Meeting May 22, 1989 Mr. Ashcroft stated that people who live in the flat lands don't need a higher fence. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. Cm. Snyder requested that comments made regarding the previous item be considered. He stated he hoped that these actions will not be viewed by the rest of the residents as something that everyone can do. City Manager stated that Staff will need to make the findings and prepare a resolution and bring it back to the Council. George Zika stated that the people want to know if they now need to get a permit. Mr. Tong advised that the applicants do not need building permits, but should disclose to any future buyers that they have applied for and received a Variance. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by majority vote, (Cm. Vonheeder abstained & Cm. Hegarty absent), the Council approved the Variance request and directed Staff to draft the necessary findings and bring back a resolution for Council approval. DOLAN PARK DEDICATION Recreation Director Lowart advised that construction on the 5-acre Dolan Park is now complete. The Park & Recreation Commission, at their regular meeting on May 9, 1989, developed preliminary plans for festivities associated with a dedication ceremony. The Commission also discussed distributing "Park Watch" information. The Council reviewed the proposed activities and selected the date of July 15, 1989, 10:30 a.m., for the ribbon cutting and dedication ceremonies at Dolan Park. LIVERMORE AIRPORT CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCILS OF LIVERMORE AND PLEASANTON Planning Director Tong advised that Livermore has submitted for review and comment the Final Report of the Livermore Airport Citizens Advisory Committee to the City Councils of Livermore and Pleasanton. Staff reviewed the report and provided a summary with pertinent excerpts for consideration. The Committee concluded that control of land use is essential in order to prevent future noise problems. The Committee's report made 2 significant recommendations that impact Dublin. Staff drafted several questions related to a proposed regional airport advisory committee which would %+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+% CM-8-174 Regular Meeting May 22, 1989 report directly to the Livermore City Council. The second recommendation by the advisory committee was that the City of Livermore should encourage the City of Dublin to exclude residential development on properties 3,000 feet north of 1-580 bounded by Santa Rita Road and Collier Canyon Road. Staff felt that this issue could create significant problems in the future of Dublin. If this recommendation were enforced, it could negatively affect the entire East Dublin planning effort. Staff advised that it appears that the Airport CitiZen's Advisory Committee would like to maximize the activities of the airport, disregarding development potential for the East Dublin area. It also appears that the Committee has not taken the time to contact the City of Dublin to obtain useful information regarding the future of the East Dublin area. Discussion was held relative to whether or not the Livermore City Council had seen this report. Cm. Jeffery felt there were too many holes in the report and that the Livermore City Council did not intend to insult Dublin with these holes. Cm. Vonheeder asked if Livermore owns the airport and also if there is an airport commission. Cm. Snyder responded that Livermore does own the airport and they have a separate airport commission. Cm. Snyder questioned how the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission relates to this Particular study. Mr. Tong advised that they have some of the same jurisdiction. City Attorney Nave advised that the letter from Marry Inderbitzen puts things into perspective. The Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission has authority to recommend and seek Board of Supervisors approval to have safety zones. There is currently an existing safety zone that comes to about Fallon Road. Cm. Jeffery was concerned with who would be liable to landowners for not being able to use their property. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cmo Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, (Cmo Hegarty absent), the Council reviewed the excerpts from the Final Plan and directed Staff to write a letter to the Livermore City Council, specifying questions and concerns and calling for more accept- able solutions related to the 3,000 foot limitation. Comments by Mr. Inderbitzen were also to be noted. %+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+% CM-8-175 Regular Meeting May 22, 1989 DUBLIN SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL (DSAC) - REQUEST FOR FUNDING Recreation Director Lowart advised that the newly organized Dublin Substance Abuse Council (DSAC) is requesting $5,000 in seed money for their first year activities. The monies would be spent in Dublin to promote a drug free lifestyle in the community. Ronald Curtis, Executive Vice President of The Center has stated that DSAC will be covered under the umbrella of The Center which is a non- profit 501c3. They will provide administrative support to DSAC. Karen Seals, DSAC founder and member addressed the Council. She stated that since Red Ribbon Week last year a lot has happened. She read a statement explaining what DSAC hopes to do in the community in their effort to promote a drug free lifestyle. Ms. Seals advised that she has been appointed to the Alameda County Drug Advisory Council by Supervisor Campbell. Cm. Jeffery' asked if they had done any fundraising. Ms. Seals advised that they had not done a great deal yet. The group will be meeting with Senator Alan Cranston on Thursday of this week. Cm. Jeffery stated that she felt a way to get people involved is if the City gives the money on a grant basis. Cm. Snyder felt that Ms. Seals was being modest. Last year, a substantial amount of money was carried over. A grant was released 2 months ago through The Center. Ms. Seals advised that a $7,000 mini-grant has been approved which will be spread between the 3 communities. There was also a substantial amount received through donations. They will be seeking matching funds. Mayor Moffatt questioned what their total budget would run this year. Ms. Seals advised that it would be difficult to project for the year ending in January, 1990 at this time. She hopes that they can reach out for donations. Between now and January, they anticipate expending about $2,500. This is a totally volunteer effort and no salaries are paid. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, (Cm. Hegarty absent), the Council directed Staff to include funding in the 1989-90 Budget for the Dublin Substance Abuse Council. %+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+% CM-8-176 Regular Meeting May 22, 1989 OTHER BUSINESS Tri-Valley Transpor%ation Commission Mee%inq City Manager Ambrose advised that there will be a Tri-Valley Transportation Commission meeting on Wednesday, May 24th at 7:00 p.m. CLOSED SESSION At 9:13 p.m., the Council recessed to a closed executive session discuss personnel. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. %+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+%+% CM-8-177 Regular Meeting May 22, 1989