Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-27-1989REGULAR MEETING - March 27r 1989 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, March 27, 1989, in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m., by Mayor Paul Moffatt. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Vonheeder & Mayor Moffatt. Councilmember Snyder. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle- giance to the flag. Sidewalks on Dublin Boulevard Jim Wamberg, 6363 Ebensburg Lane stated he wished to call to the City's attention the fact that there are no sidewalks on Dublin Boulevard from Clark Avenue to the bridge just before the new Civic Center on the south side of the street. This is very unsafe when trying to get to the Dublin Sports Grounds. Lee Thompson advised that there is a project in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. The problem is that the areas on both sides of the street need to be widened. An asphalt sidewalk could be put in as a temporary measure; however, the City needs to obtain right-of-way before a permanent sidewalk can be put in. PROCLAMATION - EAGLE SCOUT GARY DOWELL Mayor Moffatt stated that a Proclamation had been prepared honoring Gary Dowell for obtaining his Eagle Scout ranking. Since no one was present to accept the proclamation, Mayor Moffatt indicated that it would be mailed to him. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, (Cm. Snyder absent), the Council toOk the following actions: Approved Minutes of Adjourned Regular Meeting of February 23, 1989 & Regular Meeting of February 27, 1989; @%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@ CM-8-1 20 Regular Meeting March 27, 1989 Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 25 - 89 APPROVING REPLACEMENT OF SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT AND SECURITIES FOR TRACT 4978 Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 26 - 89 APPROVING TWO SAFETY-RELATED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND DIRECTING STAFF TO APPLY FOR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDING Received the Dublin Police Services 1988 Calendar Year Report Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 27 - 89 APPROVING APPLICATION TO THE LOCAL GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE EBRPD REGIONAL OPEN SPACE, WILDLIFE, SHORELINE, AND PARKS BOND ORDINANCE PHASE I FOR THE SHANNON PARK RENOVATION PROJECT Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 28 - 89 FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS VILLAGE VI "RIDGECREEK" (VILLAGES @ WILLOW CREEK) and authorized Staff to accept a maintenanCe bond at a future date; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 29 - 89 AWARDING CONTRACT 89-3 ANNUAL STREET OVERLAY & REPAIR PROGRAM TO BAY CITIES PAVING & GRADING, INC. ($340,358.05) Approved the installation of fencing at the Dublin Sports Grounds as a new parks Capital Improvement Project; authorized $16,000 budget transfer from the street maintenance operating budget to the Capital Projects fund; and authorized Staff to solicit bids; Approved the submission of a grant application to the Clorox Foundation Community Development Program for youth development projects in the Tri- Valley Community Area; and authorized Staff to prepare the necessary written and oral presentation materials (purchase and installation of portable aluminum bleachers for the Dublin Sports Grounds); Received a Mid-Year Financial Review for Fiscal Year 1988-89; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $941,159.00. @%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@ CM-8-1 21 Regular Meeting March 27, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING - AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 3-87 WHICH REGULATES THE ENCLOSURE OF SWIMMING POOLS BY MAKING A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE AN INFRACTION Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Building Official Taugher advised that this Ordinance, which was introduced at the March 13, 1989 Council meeting, replaces the provision of the County Ordinance Code relating to the enclosure of swimming pools. Ordinance No. 3-87 did not include a provision for penalties in the event of non-compliance. This action would make a violation of the pool fencing regulations an infraction. No public comments were made relative to this issue. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, (Cm. Snyder absent), the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 4 - 89 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3-87 WHICH REGULATES THE ENCLOSURE OF SWIMMING POOLS BY MAKING A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE AN INFRACTION PUBLIC HEARING - AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 4-87 BY CHANGING PENALTY FOR FAILING TO INSTALL STREET ADDRESS NUMBERS ON EXISTING BUILDINGS FROM A MISDEAMEANOR TO AN INFRACTION Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Building Official Taugher advised that this Ordinance, which was intro- duced at the March 13, 1989 Council meeting, replaces the provisions of the County Ordinance Code relating to establishing a street address system. Section 6 of Ordinance No. 4-87 provided that failure to post addresses on non-residential buildings after 10 day notice is a misdemeanor. After this Ordinance was adopted, violation of the Building Code and Zoning Ordinance became an infraction.. It is proposed to change misdemeanors to infractions. No public comments were made relative to this issue. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted @%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@ CM-8-1 22 Regular Meeting March 27, 1989 ORDINANCE NO. 5 - 89 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4-87 WHICH ESTABLISHES A STREET ADDRESS NUMBERING SYSTEM BY AMENDING SECTION 6 BY CHANGING PENALTY FOR FAILING TO INSTALL STREET ADDRESS NUMBERS ON EXISTING BUILDINGS FROM A MISDEMEANOR TO AN INFRACTION PUBLIC HEARING - AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE BY DELETING SECTION 8-87.87 Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Building Official Taugher .advised that this Ordinance was introduced at the March 13, 1989 Council meeting. Section 8-87.87 was added to the Zoning Ordinance by Ordinance No. 7-86. This made violation of the sign regulations a misdemeanor. Subsequently, Ordinance No. 7-87 was adopted changing violations of the Zoning Ordinance from a misdemeanor to an infraction. However, Section 8-87.87 was not changed at that time. By deleting Section 8-87.87, violation of the sign regulations will become an.infraction, as specified by Ordinance No. 7-87. Adoption of this Ordinance at this time will allow the revision to be incorporated into the Municipal Code. No public comments were made relative to this issue. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 6 - 89 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY DELETING SECTION 8-87.87 OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE AS ADOPTED AND AMENDED BY THE CITY OF DUBLIN PUBLIC HEARING-THE CASDEN COMPANY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING, TENTATIVE MAP 5883 & SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PA 88-009.1/.2/.3 Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Planner Trudy Ryan advised that CoastFed Properties, Owner, and The Casden Company, Applicant, are requesting the City to rezone 17.45 + acres of property located south of Amador Valley Boulevard south and east of Stagecoach Drive from Zoning Unit #1497 to Planned Development District (PD). They are concurrently requesting the City to consider a request to subdivide the property to accommodate 206 multi-family @%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@ CM-8-123 Regular Meeting March 27, 1989 residential condominium units and a request for Site Development Review of the property. The proposed 206 apartment/condominium will consist of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units.in 26 2-story buildings. Each unit includes a washer, dryer, separate water heater, private storage area and a balcony or patio. Building exteriors are stucco with wood trim. Architectural detailing includes decorative strips of wood, windows with divided lights, and lattice patio fences and deck walls plus lattice archways. Fourteen of the buildings are oriented to face the creek providing views of the creek. Physical access to the creek is limited to Zone 7 maintenance vehicles and emergency vehicles. The main entry road, off of Amador Valley Boulevard, loops through the project and connects to Stagecoach Drive. Two pools, 2 tot lots, and 2 tennis courts are being proposed. The project includes I carport space for each unit and 255 open spaces for a total of 461 spaces (2.23 spaces per unit). The conceptual landscaping plan shows a heirarchy of street trees, canopy trees and vertical accent trees with shrubs and groundcovers. Proposed landscaping is located around buildings, and parking areas, providing shading and visual accents. Landscape screening is also proposed between new buildings and the existing Heritage Commons development. The City's park dedication requirement is 0.009 acres per dwelling unit, for a total of 1.84 acres for this project. Parkland dedication credit for on-site improvements may be available. Preliminary Staff calcula- tions are for 0.1333 acres of credit. The use of the site is governed by the Dublin General Plan. The GP designates the land use for this property as Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 units per acre) and Stream Corridor. This site is part of Zoning Unit 1497 which would have permitted 230 dwelling units on the remaining vacant site. Since the site was previously approved for 230 units and the creek, as it exists, does not have high natural resource value, Staff advised the Applicant that I dwelling unit per acre of stream corridor (up to 3 dwelling units) could be credited toward the overall project density. Permissible number of units is 91 to 206. An Initial Environmental Assessment Study was prepared for this project which identified 3 main areas of concern: traffic, noise and biology. Studies of these issues were prepared and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed project conditions of approval. The Planning Commission held 3 public hearings and during the course of those meetings, 3 main issues emerged: 1) use of Stagecoach Drive, a private street, by PA 88-009; 2) traffic circulation through the project and along Amador Valley Boulevard; and 3) apartment vs. condominium ownership. The Applicant suggested, and the Planning Commission recommended that speed bumps be added within the project. Another concern raised by the Planning Commission related to the availa- bility of schools for project residents. The School Board advised that @%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@ CM-8-124 Regular Meeting March 27, 1989 sufficient capacity is available at the high school and middle school levels for this and other projects. Districtwide, capacity is available at the elementary level, however, the District may need to adjust school service boundaries to accommodate growth in some areas of the City. Cm. Jeffery expressed concern regarding the location of the proposed speed bumps, as well as the insurance liability factor. Ms. Ryan explained that the residents wanted the speed bumps, but that insurance issues were not brought up. City Manager Ambrose advised that this wil.1 be a private road, so the City will have no liability for the speed bumps. Carl Steinberg with CoastFed Properties indicated that they are an apartment, single family home and condominium developer located in Southern California. He explained the project that they would like to develop. There would be 50% I bedroom units, 30% 2 bedroom units, and 20% 3 bedroom units. There will be a 2 story garden courtyard. The project has been designed with 2 vehicular entrances, which will spread the distribution as 70% of the vehicles are expected to go out at Amador Valley Boulevard and 30% will go out through Stagecoach Drive. Their company will manage the property; they currently manage thousands of units in Southern California. They design, build and manage all their properties. They maintain full responsibility for what they build. Amador Valley Boulevard is currently handling well below its capacity. They provide an extensive amount of amenities for the residents. Cm. Hegarty questioned the condition related to an on-site soils engineer. He asked how they interpret "full-time". Mr. Steinberg stated that each day there will be someone there the full time that grading is being done. He indicated they had no problem with this. Don Kurtz, 6574 Conestoga stated he was recently transferred to Dublin from San Bruno. He was concerned that the existing Heritage Commons was designed as owner occupied. He felt that an apartment lifestyle is different, i.e., a different mentality. There is not as much concern for other people. Ren Patton, 2173 Ygnacio Valley Road in Walnut Creek stated he is an Attorney representing the existing Heritage Commons Homeowners Association. There is an easement over Stagecoach Drive, but it was for the entire Tract 4950. They do not agree that this easement is across Stagecoach Drive. They have yet to find where the property actually is. They also had concerns related to the number of Parking spaces. There currently are 461 spaces provided which does exceed the required ratio, but they always seem to be short of parking. They felt that overflow parking from the new development would~be inclined to park in their spaces. He indicated that the Alameda County guidelines specify 2 spaces per unit and questioned why they require more than the City. @%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@ CM-8-1 25 Regular Meeting March 27, 1989 Cm. Jeffery indicated that the Alameda County guidelines no longer apply. Joyce Pascoe stated she lives in Heritage Commons and backs up to the new area. She is a realtor and applauds the City of Dublin for upgrading the City. It is becoming a beautiful City where residents can be proud. She stated she would like to see Dublin continue on the road to improvement. This developer is proposing very small stacked units with carports. There is no better market than right now for townhomes, while there is an overflow of apartments. Casden should be asked to go back to the drawing board for larger, nicer units. Randall Gordner,.Conestoga Lane stated they are being built as apartments, but they had heard that they were only going to be apartments for 5 years and then they will be sold. They are so small and in a tiered setup and he felt it would be difficult to sell them. Steve Cameron, 6610 Conestoga Lane, stated he had concerns related to the easement. The Dublin City Attorney neglected to indicate who owned the easement. He felt the City Council should find out exactly where the easement lies, because after development starts, this could open a whole can of worms. Carl Steinberg stated he would address the major concerns he was hearing; namely, easement, parking and design. With regard to the stated 2 1/2 parking spaces per unit at the existing Heritage Commons, he stated this was not quite correct. People currently park in the red zone. Their development will provide more than adequate parking spaces for their tenants. They might be able, in addition, to provide existing Heritage Commons with some spaces for their overflow. With regard to the easement, they have documented and referenced this in the CC&R's. The easement is in the name of CoastFed Properties. As far as they are concerned, the issue has been completely clarified. With regard to design and quality, they do not design units that people can't live in. They have top of the line appliances, including washers and dryers, and use only high quality materials. Their analysis indicates that there is a shortage of rental apartments in this area. They will incorporate every available amenity into the project. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. Cm. Vonheeder requested that the City Attorney comment on the easement issue. City Attorney Nave stated that he was provided with a background consisting of several deeds that dated back to the time when Heritage Commons was first developed, plus the CC&R's referencing the easement question. He stated that this question is not up to the City Council to determine, but rather it is the responsibility of the developer. Cm. Hegarty.felt that they had presented everything honestly and had addressed issues that were brought up at the Planning Commission level and have mitigated eaCh area. Reports show a need in the next few years for several thousand new dwelling units. A bond measure failed by a @%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@ CM-8-126 Regular Meeting March 27, 1989 small percentage. We have codes, and so long as they build up to codes, there is no reason the City should deny them. Ownership of the units in 5 or 10 years is not up to the City to determine. He did speak to the developer regarding the number of I bedroom units and felt he would like to see more 3 bedroom units; however, his money is not what finances what gets built. The market place determines what gets built. This project appears to have some very high quality amenities going in. He felt that noise will always be a factor. They will have a property manager on site. Cm. Hegarty summarized that he was more or less satisfied with the mitigation measures put in by the developer. Cm. Jeffery asked for clarification regarding the process for changing from rental units to condominiums. Mr. Nave stated there really isn't a process. They have the right to do this whenever they choose and there is nothing the City can do to require a property owner not to rent out units in favor of selling them. This has been held unconstitutional. We are without the power to tell them that they cannot rent their property but must sell it. Cm. Jeffery asked if the management will still be on site when they sell some of the units. She asked if the City could add a condition requiring this when they start to sell. Mr. Nave stated that so long as a certain percentage of units are being held for rental purposes, there should be an on site rental manager. The tentative map could be set up saying that a homeowners association must come into place when 51% of the units are sold. Cm. Jeffery stated she understood the concerns of the people with regard to the location of rental units next to owned units, but this is what Dublin has had for quite some time. This kind of housing is needed. Ms. Ryan pointed out that there is a condition that the CC&R's address the subject of a homeowners association prior to the filing of the tentative map. Cm. Jeffery again expressed concern that the Planning Commission recommended speed bumps. She did not feel that Heritage Commons should be burdened with this liability. Cm. Jeffery stated she would move for adoption of Staff recommendations on the project, but with the speed bump requirement left out. After further review, Ms. Ryan stated that the resolution approving Tentative Map 5883, Page 4, Condition 10, the CC&R's will provide for the establishment of a homeowners association. Cm. Vonheeder stated that it is usually the transition period that is the problem. Mr. Nave stated that there'is a certain amount of trust that the City must have in the developer. Amador Lakes was developed in the same manner, plus several of the Villages @ Willow Creek. @%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@ CM-8-127 Regular Meeting March 27, 1989 Mayor Moffatt questioned when a homeowners association would take over. Ms. Ryan advised when over 50% of the units are sold. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, (Cm. Snyder absent), the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 30 - 89 ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING, TENTATIVE MAP 5883 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUESTS FOR A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 206 DWELLING UNITS, AND COMMON OPEN SPACE PROPOSED OVER A 17.45 + ACRE PROPERTY SOUTH OF AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD, SOUTH AND EAST OF STAGECOACH DRIVE, COLLECTIVELY REQUESTED UNDER PA 88-009.1,.2 & .3, HERITAGE COMMONS PHASE 2-4, COASTFED PROPERTIES, CASDEN COMPANY RESOLUTION NO. 31 - 89 ADOPTING A REPORTING OR MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING, TENTATIVE MAP & SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUESTS OF 206 DWELLING UNITS & COMMON OPEN SPACE PROPOSED OVER 17.45_+ ACR PROPERTY SOUTH OF AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD, SOUTH AND EAST OF STAGECOACH DRIVE, COLLECTIVELY REQUESTED UNDER PA 88-001.1,.2 & .3 HERITAGE COMMONS PHASE 2 THROUGH 4, COASTFED PROPERTIES, CASDEN COMPANY RESOLUTION NO. 32 - 89 APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING CONCERNING PA 88-009.1 HERITAGE COMMONS, SOUTH OF AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ALAMO CREEK RESOLUTION NO. 33 - 89 APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 5883 CONCERNING PA 88-009.2 HERITAGE COMMONS - CASDEN COMPANY RESOLUTION NO. 34 - 89 IMPOSING A TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ON PA 88-009.2 HERITAGE COMMONS RESOLUTION NO. 35 - 89 APPROVING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CONCERNING PA 88-009.3 HERITAGE COMMONS - CASDEN COMPANY @%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@ CM-8-128 Regular Meeting March 27, 1989 and waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to permit the rezoning of real property within the City of Dublin. PUBLIC HEARING - GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, 7745 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD APPEAL OF PA 88-150 DONATION STATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Planner Laura Hoffmeister advised that this item was considered by the Council at its March 13, 1989 meeting. During that meeting, several business owners expressed concerns regarding the Applicant's proposed, and Planning Commission approved, donation station location along the shopping center's easterly property line. The Council continued consideration of 'this item and directed Staff, the Applicant and business owners to meet to further review other on-site alternative locations, especially on the north side of the site and on the south side of the Goodwill building. Staff met with the Applicant and a majority of the business owners who attended the previous Council meeting and expressed concerns. Three potential locational areas were reviewed. Staff prepared a summary of the key concerns expressed with each location. Staff advised that the site along the south side of Goodwill, although considered, was the least preferred and eliminated as an option by the businesses, Applicant and Staff. The Applicant's original location, which received Commission approval, has a minimal impact to nearby apartment residents across Starward Drive, however, had several key concerns identified. Major concerns seemed to be visual impact, security, and parking impacts to the nearby businesses. Although not the preferred alternative of the businesses, several potential mitigation measures were discussed that could lessen the impacts the operation could have on the nearby businesses. These measures involve requiring the Applicant to install a fence along a portion of the easterly Property line to create a visual barrier and to contain discarded items outside of the trailer on-site; install 3 parking spaces for those utilized for the trailer; and have the Applicant participate with other businesses in having an on-site after hours security guard. A site .along the northern portion of the property was the most preferred by the business owners. Concerns identified for this alternative were visual impact, seCurity and parking. Potential mitigation measures were discussed. Suggested was requiring screening plants/trees to be installed in the planter area along Starward Drive and having the trailer located as close to the driveway as would be safe for traffic circulation so as not to be in the Koto Restaurant window view area. @%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@ CM-8-1 29 Regular Meeting March 27, 1989 Security concerns were minimized as the site would have lighting from on-site building lights as well as from street lights which are located along Starward Drive near the trailer site. Additionally, the trailer would be more visible to Starward Drive where police patrol cars could easily observe and monitor the site. Staff advised that 2 draft resolutions were prepared; one for the alternative north side and one for the original easterly site. This would be for a I year approval. Mike Flynn stated that they all got together to discuss this and there was a general consensus that the problem was looking out and seeing the trailer. He advised that he had been out looking at fences today. They are a service oriented industry and are trying to make everyone happy. He requested that they locate the trailer on the north side. He also questioned exactly what a 15 gallon tree was. Staff advised that it would provide the specifics for him. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, (Cm. Snyder absent), the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 36 - 89 MODIFYING THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION APPROVING PA 88-150 GOODWILL INDUSTRIES DONATION STATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 25' LONG TRUCK TRAILER LOCATED IN THE SHAMROCK VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER PARKING LOT ALONG THE NORTH SIDE NEAR GOODWILL STORE, 7767 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD PUBLIC HEARING - HOWARD JOHNSON's, 6680 REGIONAL STREET APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TEMPORARY RETAIL SALES & AUCTIONS WITHIN EXISTING CONFERENCE/BANQUET ROOMS~ PA 88-148 Mayor Moffatt announced that Cm. Snyder, who appealed the temporary retail sales/auctions portion of this application, was not present due to a sudden illness, and therefore, Council deliberation would be postponed until the next meeting. Mayor Moffatt stated that the Council would receive public testimony, for the record, at this meeting and then declared the public hearing opened. Planner Laura Hoffmeister advised that in December, 1988, the Applicant made a Conditional Use Permit application to consider additional uses at the hotel which were not included in previous conditional use permits (barber/beauty shop, hair salon, gift shop, offices, a dance floor in the Lord Dublin Restaurant Lounge), and to allow for temporary retail sales and auctions to occur within the conference/banquet rooms. @%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@ CM-8-130 Regular Meeting March 27, 1989 On February 21, 1989, the Planning Commission considered and approved the Conditional Use Permit with conditions. On March 3, 1989, the Commission action was appealed by Councilmember Snyder. The appeal was in regards to only the Commission action which allowed the establishment of temporary retail sales and auctions within the conferenCe/banquet rooms. Cm. Hegarty questioned whether the 5 or 6 other hotels in the surrounding area allow temporary retail/auctions. Since things are becoming more and more competitive and if it is allowed across the freeway, and we are not allowing it because we must make the findings, he wanted to know how other cities allow it. Johnson Clark, one of the partners in the hotel stated that they have had temporary sales and auctions in the hotel for 16 years with no problems. The Planning Commission had no problem with issuing a Conditional Use Permit. They checked many other cities and there are no restrictions, except they must get a business license. They compete with hotels in all the other cities, and if there are delays, customers will just go across the street to Pleasanton. Mr. Clark felt they have always cooperated with the City and hoped that the City will cooperate with them. Cm. Hegarty questioned how they could have been holding these events for so many years with no permits. City Manager Ambrose stated that it came to his attention that on several of the occasions, it was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and in other cases they applied for an ACUP. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, (Cm. Snyder absent), the Council continued this item to the Council meeting of April 10, 1989. AWARD OF BID-REPLACEMENT OF PUMPS @ DUBLIN SWiM CENTER~ CONTRACT NO. 89-5 Public Works Director Thompson advised that this is the second half of what has been a fast track process to get the pool opened. On January 9, 1989, the City Council authorized Staff to advertise for bids for the replacement of the pumps and motors at the Dublin Swim Center. At the March 13th meeting, the Council authorized Staff to purchase the pumps outright from Paco Pump Company. Contract No. 89-5 is for installation only of the pumps and motors and any other appurtenant work required to make the pumps functional. Due to several problems encountered with the specifications during the bid process and the resulting issuance of two addenda,.the bid opening had to be delayed until Friday, March 24th. Mr. Thompson advised that the low bidder was the Martin Company with a bid of $7,950. Staff anticipates delivery of the pumps approximately April 11th, with installation to follow within 5 working days. Once the pumps are installed and operational, Staff will be able to determine what repairs are necessary to the heating system. @%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@ CM-8-131 Regular Meeting · March 27, 1989 On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, (Cm. Snyder absent), the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 37 - 89 AWARDING CONTRACT 89-5 DUBLIN SWIM CENTER PUMP REPLACEMENT TO THE MARTIN COMPANY ($7,950) REVIEW OF POLICY FOR USE OF SAN RAMON ROAD BANNER POLES Public Works Director Thompson advised that on December 13, 1983, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 73-83, which set the policy for installation of a banner on the San Ramon Road banner poles. This policy provided that non-profit organizations advertising events to be held within the City could apply for an encroachment permit fOr a banner and that the fee would be waived. Staff has received some requests involving events being held outside Dublin, but which benefit Dublin residents. Rather than continuing to grant waivers, Staff requested that the Council consider modifying the adopted policy. Staff suggested that considera- tion be given to charging an encroachment permit fee for organizations that are holding events outside the City in order to cover'the cost of installing the banners. In addition, the present encroachment permit fee schedule does not include a fee for banner installation. In order to revise a fee schedule, a public hearing must be held and must be noticed 10 days in advance. Staff indicated that if the Council wishes to proceed in this manner, the public hearing would need to be scheduled for the second April meeting in order to meet the noticing requirement. City Manager Ambrose advised that the City has had the banner poles up since about 1983, and they are starting to be used very heavily. If you consider the almost $400 per installation, it becomes quite expensive. Cm. Hegarty felt that most of the users are non-profit organizations that request the City to waive the fees. Cm. Vonheeder indicated that she sees the banners as a public service and does recognize that there are costs associated with it. She questioned what happens when the City receives 2 requests from people outside the community for the same time. She feels that City non-profit events have to come first. There should be a fee, but it doesn't necessarily have to cover costs, but more of a token fee. This would, however, probably only create more paperwork for City Staff. Cm. Jeffery indicated she likes the idea of a $50 fee. very inexpensive advertising. This is actually @%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@ CM-8-1 32 Regular Meeting March 27, 1989 Mr. Ambrose advised that the current policy allows the waiving of fees for organizations in the City. What we are facing are requests from organizations outside Dublin, but which they say benefits our residents. Cm. Jeffery felt that when we have a banner for activities in Dublin, people come into the community and spend their dollars in town. On the other hand, as an example, the Wings for Charity banner would not benefit Dublin. Cm. Vonheeder stated that her scout troop got almost $1,000 from this event. Mayor Moffatt stated he would like to see a fee charged to groups that have less than 51% membership in the community. He felt we owe some advantage to groups in Dublin. Cm. Vonheeder felt that there always seems to be a problem coming up with the 51%. Liz Schmitt stated it is also very difficult to verify this type of information. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by majority vote, (Cm. Snyder absent), the Council established that a $50 fee should be charged, with no exceptions. The Council determined further, that this fee is not appealable to the Council. Mayor Moffatt voted NO on this motion. Staff was directed to come back with a-change to the Fee Ordinance to be presented at the April 24, 1989 Council meeting. SENIOR CENTER FACILITY USE POLICY Recreation Director Lowart advised that one of the goals adopted by the City Council was the development of a Facility Use Policy for the Dublin Senior Center. A proposed policy was drafted. A draft policy was developed by the Senior Center Advisory Committee and was then reviewed by the Park & Recreation Commission. A joint meeting was held between the Committee and the Commission to finalize policy prior to submittal to the City Council. The proposed policy is patterned after the Shannon Center Facility Use Policy, however, it has been tailored to the specific needs and requirements of the Dublin Senior Center. Ms. Lowart advised that the areas which differ related to: 1) classifi- cation of users; 2) reservation procedure; 3) general regulations; and 4) fee schedule. Cm. Hegarty questioned the debate related to the use of any type of alcoholic beverages. It appears this would mean no celebrating 50th wedding anniversaries with champagne, no toasts with wine, etc. Ms. Lowart explained that the Senior Center Advisory Committee felt very strongly about this and wanted this restriction added. @%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@ CM-8-1 33 Regular Meeting March 27, 1989 On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, (Cm. Snyder absent), the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 38 - 89 ESTABLISHING POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND RENTAL RATES FOR THE USE OF THE DUBLIN SENIOR CENTER OTHER BUSINESS Tri-Valley Joint Council Meeting City Manager Ambrose advised that Dublin will be hosting the next meeting of the Tri-Valley Joint City Councils. The dinner meeting will be on Thursday, April 27, 1989, and the Council expressed a desire to have the meeting at The Fishery. Planning Department Management Audit Mr. Ambrose questioned how the Council wished to handle having Gary Golitz with Hughes Heiss & Associates interview the Chamber of Commerce leadership. Mr. Golitz has advised that if this is a group meeting, it could be included in the scope of work, but individual interviews would be an additional $600-$900. Cm. Jeffery questioned what the Chamber's issue was. Cm. Vonheeder felt that the City has received a lot of flack from the Chamber and this is an opportunity to sit down with them and get their input. Consensus of the Council was that the Consultant should meet with the Chamber representatives as a group. Mr. Ambrose advised that he will contact the Chamber President and provide the ground rules. League of California Cities Dinner Cm. Vonheeder advised that Friday, April 28th, is the date for the quarterly League dinner. It will be held at Centennial Hall in Hayward. Quintin Kopp and DeLaine Eastin will speak on transportation. The Council will be getting notices. @%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@ CM-8-1 34 Regular Meeting March 27, 1989 Community Television Cm. Hegarty advised that he had recently attended a meeting of the Tri- Valley Community Television Corporation. He advised that this group will be asking for an increase in the contribution amount. CLOSED SESSION At 9:55 p.m., the Council recessed to a closed executive session to discuss potential litigation. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. @%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@%@ CM-8-1 35 Regular Meeting March 27, 1989