Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-13-1989REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 1 3 w 1989 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, March 13, 1989, in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 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. Shamrocks from Bray, Ireland Mayor Moffatt introduced Audrey Hutchinson, who introduced her nephew from Bray, Ireland, Dublin's Sister City. Her nephew presented the Council with shamrocks that he brought with him from Ireland and the people of Bray. Citizen of the Year Cm. Vonheeder explained the background of the Citizen of the Year award, which recognizes outstanding volunteer service to the community. She presented the award to Steve Jones, who has been active as a coach for Little League and youth soccer and basketball programs, as well as with the Lions Club. Mr. Jones will also serve as Grand Marshal for the St. Patrick's Day parade on March 18th. Mr. Jones thanked the City Council for the award and said that he felt Dublin is the best city in the Valley. Organization of the Year Cm. Vonheeder presented the Organization of the Year award to the Dublin San Ramon Lions Club. CM-8-103 Regular Meeting March 13, 1989 PROCLAMATION: "ARC-MENTAL RETARDATION AWARENESS MONTH" Mayor Moffatt read a proclamation declaring the month of March, 1989, as "ARC-Mental Retardation Awareness Month." The proclamation was accepted by Ernest Ellis, who thanked the City Council on behalf of ARC and said that he felt public information was the most important part of their program. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Mayor Moffatt introduced Betty Croly of the Alameda County Planning Department, who made a presentation regarding the Final Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Ms. Croly briefly discussed the background of the Plan and indicated that the issues of greatest concern to the public were (1) location of the facilities for treating, processing, and disposing of hazardous waste; and (2) procedure for approving a facility that treats, processes, or disposes of the waste. Step I - Inclusionary Criteria: The Plan's approach in dealing with the siting process identifies areas within the County which may be appropriate based on current zoning and general plan land use designations of general of heavy industrial. The areas must be near hazardous waste producers, have good access to freeways, and be consistent with goals and policies established with the Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Ms. Croly streSsed that the counties would take care of their own waste or possibly set up an agreement between two counties but that one location would not be expected to handle waste from the entire state. Step II - Exclusionary Criteria: This step removes lands that do not meet the criteria noted in Step I from consideration. Another set of restrictions is applied which removes areas near earthquake faults, dam or reservoir failure flood areas, approach zones for airports, and environmentally sensitive areas. Step III - Conditional Criteria: Sites that were not eliminated by Steps I or II are assessed for specific limitations relating to the land and its surroundings, such as proximity to schools, residential zones, or hospitals; availability of emergency services; location within a 100-year floodplain; access to sewers; air quality and noise impacts; soil conditions; groundwater situations, etc. No area in Dublin meets the site selection criteria. The nearest facilities could be located in Livermore, which includes sites for transfer, storage, treatment, and incineration facilities, The only site within the County that appears suitable for a residual repository is west of Vasco Road near the Contra Costa County Line, just north of Livermore. It is possible that the site may be removed from the list if a current proposal for residential rezoning is approved. Ms. Croly continued that the most significant requirement of the program is that the local government must appoint a Local Assessment Committee (LAC) at least 90 days before a land use permit for a hazardous waste CM-8-104 Regular Meeting March 13, 1989 facility is applied for. The LAC is to negotiate with the developer regarding terms and conditions for project approval. Following adoption of the Plan at a future public hearing, the City's General Plan would be required to be amended to include the Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Senior Planner Rod Barger added that Dublin has no general or heavy industrial lands, and the Hazardous Waste Management Plan does not propose any transfer, storage, treatment, incinerator, or residual repository facilities in Dublin. He noted, however, that since 1-580 and 1-680 are major transit routes for carrying waste material, there is a potential for spills to occur in Dublin. The Waste Management Authority has requested that the City Council provide comments or concerns to be included in the Plan, which would be returned to the City for final review and adoption. Mayor Moffatt asked if the plan was just for disposal sites or if it would include curbside Pickup of hazardous materials. Ms. Croly stated that the plan was for removal of the materials outside of Dublin and that no curbside pickups were proposed. One facet of the Plan could be to provide a place that residents could take hazardous waste material. Cm. Hegarty asked where most hazardous waste originated and how it was transported. Mr. Barger responded that the largest facility was in Kettleman Hills, and that it was taken by truck. Cm. Jeffery asked if the procedure for handling a hazardous material spill was included in the Disaster Preparedness Plan rather than in the Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Ms. Croly stated that the EPA had outlawed open pit dumping, and that the Waste Minimization Program lessened the amount of waste being transported. Most of the transporting would be on 1-880. The Disaster Preparedness Plan also includes procedures for handling spills. Cm. Jeffery said she felt that a lot of work had already gone into the Plan and that a letter should be written agreeing with its content. Cm. Snyder agreed that much work had already been done and that comments had already been included. Most of the previous comments had been relative to the Inclusionary Sites. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the City Council directed Staff to write a letter to the Waste Management Authority expressing agreement with the Plan as written. CM-8-105 Regular Meeting March 13, 1989 CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 13, 1989; Approved a request by the Rowell Ranch Rodeo Committee to waive the portion of the City's policy for use of the San Ramon Road banner poles requiring the event to be held in Dublin, and authorized Staff to issue an encroachment permit to advertise the Rodeo during the weeks of May 7 and May 14; Denied a claim submitted by Pacific Bell for damage to a cable incurred during the San Ramon Road Phase III project and directed Staff to notify the claimant and the City's insurance provider; Authorized Staff to advertise for bids for Contract 89-4 Annual Slurry Seal Program (engineer's estimate $42,000); Accepted the City Treasurer's Investment Report as of February 28, 1989; Authorized a budget transfer in the amount of $4,978.81 from unallocated reserves in order to pay an invoice for Stagecoach Park that was budgeted in FY1987-88; Authorized the Mayor to sign an agreement with Jones, Hall, Hill, and White for the purpose of determining the arbitrage calculations of the refinanced Certificates of Participation; Waived the provision of the City's Purchasing Ordinance that requires competitive bids for purchases over $5,000 based on the finding that the purchase is an emergency and will be made from the nearest source of supply and authorized purchase of pumps for the Community Swim Center from Paco Pumps in the amount of $6,569.80; Authorized the Mayor to execute an amendment to the Solid Waste Agreement dated March 10, 1986 for collection and disposal of waste (revision to Schedule 1) and authorized the City Manager to execute an amendment for special pickups; Approved Warrant Register dated March 13, 1989, in the amount of $620,880.98; Approved the Financial Report for February, 1989. Cm. Snyder requested that the Agreement with Hughes, Heiss and Associates for a Management Audit of Development Services be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. City Manager Richard Ambrose stated that since time was of the essence on this project, Staff had not had time to get a reading from the consultant, Hughes, Heiss and Associates, regarding the City's standard Consultant Agreement prior to preparing the Staff report. There were two items in the standard agreement that did CM-8-106 Regular Meeting March 13, 1989 not suit the agreement being proposed, and therefore, Staff was asking the City Council to approve the agreement with two modifications. The first modification is that the standard agreement provides for 1/3 payment after 90 days. Since this project is to be completed in 90 days, it was proposed to pay 1/3 of the agreed amount at the outset and the balance upon completion. The second modification relates to the section requiring errors and omissions insurance. The City Attorney agreed that it was not imperative that errors and omissions insurance be required for this type of work. Therefore, Staff recommended that this section be waived. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vOte, the City Council approved the agreement with Hughes, Heiss, and Associates with the two modifications and authorized the Mayor to execute. DUBLIN SPORTS GROUNDS - REQUEST FROM CALIFORNIA YOUTH SOCCER ASSOCIATION T0 WAIVE FIELD USE FEES Recreation Director Diane Lowart stated that the United States Youth Soccer Association (USYSA) had selected Dublin, Pleasanton, and San Ramon as the site for the Far West Regional Soccer Championships during June 16-20, 1989. Correspondence was received from Brian Leonard, Tournament Director, requesting that the field use fees associated with the use of the Sports Grounds be waived for this tournament. Teams qualify for the tournament by winning a State championship; therefore, fees are not charged to winning teams. The USYSA hopes that tournament expenses will be offset by donations of goods and services from local businesses, sales of advertising, and snack bar profits. Use fees for a tournament of this nature would be $5 per hour per field, or an estimated total of $625. The fields have been reserved by the Dublin United Soccer League, which is assisting USYSA in staging the tournament. The City of Pleasanton does not charge fees for their youth soccer programs. The City of San Ramon is considering a waiver~of fees at a future meeting. Ms. Lowart stated hosting a tournament of this nature is considered an honor and that Staff recommended the City Council waive the fees. The tournament is estimated to draw at least 25,000 people to the Tri-Valley area over the five-day period. Cm. Jeffery agreed that selecting Dublin as a tournament site was an honor. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the City Council approved waiver of Sports Grounds use fees for the USYSA tournament. CM-8-107. Regular Meeting March 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF PA 88-150 GOODWILL INDUSTRIES DONATION STATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT~ 7745 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Planning Director Larry Tong stated that in October of 1988, a request was approved for Site Development Review waiver for Goodwill Stores to allow minor exterior alterations to an existing commercial building within the Shamrock Village Shopping Center in connection with a building permit request. Subsequently, the Applicant filed an application for a use permit request to consider a 25-foot long trailer donation station within the easterly portion of the parking lot of the Shamrock Village Shopping Center. The Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit application on February 6, 1989. On February 16, 1989, the City received three letters of appeal regarding the Planning Commission's action from nearby business owners or operators. Two additional appeal letters were received after the appeal period closed. Mr. Tong continued that the City's Zoning Ordinance does not list a specific category for this use, but it is considered to be similar to a recycling center. Recycling centers are allowed in C-1 districts when operated in conjunction with a permitted use on the same premises, subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The appeal letters presented concerns regarding the trailer's impact on parking, circulation/access, visual impact, and after-hours donations. Staff's analysis indicated that the loss of 4 parking spaces does not create a problem as there is sufficient parking remaining on-site to meet parking requirements, although 3 spaces could potentially be added to the lot at another location. Alternate locations for the trailer on the lot posed greater circulation problems or made the trailer more visible from Amador Valley Blvd. The trailer is proposed to be open during normal business hours of 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., seven days a week, with a pickup of goods left outside the trailer each evening prior to 11:00 p.m. The Planning Commission had specified that informational signs be posted so as to be visible after hours and that a 24-hour emergency or complaint phone number be available. The Commission also required that the Applicant reapply after I year so that the operation could be reviewed. Mr. Tong added that the City Council might wish to consider requiring addition of the 3 extra parking spaces or requiring pickup of items outside the trailer within 12 hours. Mr. Mike Flynn of Goodwill Stores said that he was willing to comply with any conditions and that he felt his organization provided a valid service to the public. He presented photographs of the site with the trailer in place, taken from various angles. Cm. Jeffery asked how long it took to fill the trailer. Mr. Flynn responded that it took about a week to fill a trailer so that it would be removed and replaced with an empty one. Regular Meeting March 13, 1989 Cm. Snyder stated that in the past, Dublin had had two different sites for Goodwill trailers and asked if Mr. Flynn had any knowledge of dumping problems relative to those trailers. Mr. Flynn said to the best of his knowledge there had been no problems and added that many organizations in the recycling business had unmanned drop-off locations that were sometimes messy. The Goodwill donation station triggers the same response. He added that an effort would be made to keep the site clean. Mayor Moffatt asked if the property owner had approved the trailer. Mr. Flynn responded that the property owner's approval had been granted. Dr. Ed Kemprud of the Amador Valley Medical Clinic stated that he appreciated Staff's response to complaints and efforts to come up with a solution. He felt that Goodwill intends to maintain the station. His objection was that the trailer would be within 10 feet of where patients enter the clinic, and he had a concern that the patients would object to debris or feel that they might be accosted. The trailer attendant would be leaving at 5:30 p.m., and patients arrive until 9:00 p.m. He continued that the size of the trailer would detract from professional businesses that surround the proposed site. The parking issue was not as big a concern. Dr. Kemperud stated that he felt locating the trailer at the proposed site was a disservice to the businesses, and that it should be located further north. The northside location would be more visible from Starward Drive but would not be as close to where people were moving around. Mr. Willard Moore of Dublin Dinettes said that cars could not circulate when the delivery trailer was making a delivery to the store. He added that he was not opposed to the collection trailer but that he wanted it located further back. Dr. Mark McAdams, who also has offices in the Amador Valley Medical Clinic, said that he had never seen a donation station in early morning that was not littered with debris. He said that within the first week the store was opened, a box of shoes was dropped in the driveway of the clinic, and he assumed it was meant for the Goodwill store. He felt that the location chosen is the least generally visible but is the most visible to the clinic and patients. Ms. Phyllis Moldenhauer, representing Professional Travel, said that there were only 17 parking spots for 3 businesses at their portion of the shopping center and that there was not enough parking for the customers. She added that a lot of donations had been dropped off at the Goodwill store so far. Dr. Zev Kahn, Harlan Road resident, said that he was concerned that the donation station site was too close to a residential area. He felt the "flavor" of the street was different from Dublin Boulevard and that the ~ overall look of the street would be changed by the trailer. He said also that there was no physical barrier between the medical clinic and the CM-8-109 Regular Meeting March 13, 1989 proposed trailer site. Dr. Kahn continued that he felt the donation site should be added into the building itself. He asked why the trailer could no longer be located on the Mervyn's lot. Ms. Moldenhauer said that in fairness, Goodwill had come to pick up debris within five to ten hours of being called, but that it did take a call to get them to come and that the debris was a daily occurrence. Mr. Flynn said that he heard two primary concerns, trash and the welfare of patients at night. He explained that there was a difference within the Goodwill organization between the persons, such as himself, that managed the donation stations and the persons who managed the stores. He had not been involved in the store, but he had asked the property owner if a donation station could be located on the property and was told that it could. He stated that it was his job to keep the area clean at night and that a truck was sent to clean up. He said that the station attend- ants call for pickup of merchandise that will not fit in the trailer. He added that the hours the attendant is at the donation station can be extended if it would help allay the patients' fears. Mr. Moore asked if the donation station was approved, what would be done about the delivery truck. Mayor Moffatt explained that the delivery truck was a different issue. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. Cm. Hegarty said that Dr. Kahn's question about why the trailer was no longer located at Mervyn's had not been answered. Mr. Tong said that his understanding from Mervyn's was that they had decided internally not to continue use of the trailer after their store was remodeled. Cm. Hegarty asked whether a donation station could have been added to the Goodwill Store when the building was remodeled. Mr. Tong said there were nO accommodations for additional space, and an addition to the building would probably change circulation at the site. Cm. Hegarty asked if the available parking at the shopping center met the City's parking requirements. Mr. Tong said that the available parking exceeded the City's requirements by more than a few spaces. Cm. Snyder asked if any consideration had been given to placing a fence between the two parcels in order to alleviate the concern of the Medical Center. Mr. Tong said that this had not been considered. Cm. Vonheeder asked if the trailer could be enclosed within some type of fencing like a paper bin. CM-8-110 Regular Meeting March 13, 1989 Mr. Tong said that such an enclosure might make it awkward to move the trailer in and out. Mayor Moffatt said that at the time the bank was in business, there was a 'drive-up window with an overhang, and he wondered if the overhang could be screened off and used to hide the trailer. Mr. Tong said that this could be looked at but that it might be an awkward place to put a trailer. Cm. Vonheeder said she felt the space was not wide enough. Cm. Jeffery stated that she felt Goodwill provides a good service for the community and that part of the service is being visible enOugh that the public can find them. She said that she had no problem with the trailer being visible from the street, and that she would like to suggest that the trailer be attended the same hours that the businesses are open. She said that Goodwill should be requested to make sure that debris is picked up every day. She added that the Goodwill Store would draw people to the area and could be of benefit to the other businesses. Cm. Moffatt asked if Cm. Jeffery was suggesting that the Goodwill people meet with the other businesses. Cm. Jeffery said not really; that her concern was keeping the area clean. Cm. Hegarty said he had a problem in that the proposed donation station was causing a problem for someone else. He stated that Goodwill could have lessened the problem by designing the store so that goods could be dropped off at the store rather than at a trailer. He said that there was a ~place for the trailer but that Staff should research better locations. He added that he would like to continue the iteTM to another meeting so that Staff could look at some type of shielding or fencing. Mayor Moffatt asked if Cm. Hegarty would like Staff to come up with a compromise location. Cm. Hegarty said that he would, and that he felt Dr. Kahn's comments were valid. He said that Goodwill should have had enough foresight to include provisions for a donation station within the building. Cm. Vonheeder said she would support Cm. Hegarty's suggestion and that the Council was not privy to all the concerns of the businesses. She would like to see all the businesses work with Staff rather than have the Council make the decision. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council continued the matter to March 27, 1989, and directed Staff to work with the applicant and other business owners to find a mutually agreeable solution or suitable site for the trailer. ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll ~ll~ CM-8-111 Regular Meeting March 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FORVARIANCE TO SECTION 3301(C) OF THE 1985 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE RELATING TO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN REQUIRED EXITS AT 6800 SIERRA COURT Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Building Official Vic Taugher stated that an inspection had been made at the subject site at noon on March 13, 1989, and that the appellant had complied with the code. The appellant was not present at the hearing. City Attorney Mike Nave said that the best course of action would be to proceed with the public hearing since the appellant was not actually withdrawing the appeal. Mr. Taugher stated that Section 3301(c) specifies the distance required between exits. When two exits are required, the distance between exits shall be not less than one-half of the overall diagonal served. The purpose of this requirement is to provide a reasonable separation between exits so that if one becomes unusable, the other may be expected to be used with reasonable safety.~ In this instance, a permit was issued to divide a large storage area so as to create a separate tenant space of approximately 72' x 96'. The overall diagonal is 120', and the exit doors are required to be 60' apart. The approved plans for the permit included installing a 3-foot-wide swinging exit door in an existing rollup door. Roll-up and sliding doors cannot be used as exits because they can be difficult to operate. The distance between exit doors as shown on the approved plans is approximately 63'. In order to grant the variance, the City Council must find that the variance is consistent with the intent of the Code and that granting the variance will not lessen the protection of the people of the City of Dublin or the property situated within. Mr. Taugher felt that the finding could not be made and that the variance should be denied. Mayor Moffatt asked Mr. Taugher to clarify that the code requirement had been met. Mr. Taugher stated that it had. There was no public comment on this matter. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 24-89 DENYING VARIANCE TO SECTION 3301(C) OF 1985 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE CM-8-112 Regular Meeting March 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE INCREASING CITY COUNCIL SALARIES Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. City Manager Richard Ambrose stated that a public hearing had been conducted regarding this proposed ordinance at the February 27, 1989, City Council meeting. This ordinance wOuld increase the Councilmembers' salaries from $347.29 to $364.65 per month, effective after the November 1990 election. At the February 27th meeting, the City Council requested that the City Attorney investigate whether expenses, in addition to the monthly salary, could be paid at a flat monthly rate. The current policy is to reimburse actual expenses upon submittal of documentation. The City Attorney prepared a memorandum which explains that although it is possible to reimburse expenses at a fixed amount, record keeping is not necessarily eliminated. The amount paid would be subject to an audit to verify that the funds were actually and necessarily required. If payments exceed the actual expenses, this may create tax implications that the excess amount be considered income. Mr. Ambrose continued that if the Council wished to pursue the matter of flat-rate reimbursement, Staff should be directed to prepare the necessary resolution and administrative procedures. Cm. Jeffery asked what kind of accounting would be required. Mr. Ambrose said that the City would be required to demonstrate that expenditures equaled the compensation. Cm. Vonheeder said that there was a choiCe of declaring the per-month allowance as income rather than filing a statement of expenses. Cm. Snyder disagreed with this observation. Cm. Hegarty asked what Cm. Jeffery's concern was. Cm. Jeffery stated that she was trying to simplify record keeping for staff and the Council. There was no public comment on this issue. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 03-89 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6 AND PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE oF THE SALARY FOR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CM-8-113 Regular Meeting March 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 4-87 BY CHANGING PENALTY FOR FAILING TO INSTALL STREET ADDRESS NUMBERS ON EXISTING BUILDINGS FROM A MISDEMEANOR TO AN INFRACTION Mayor Moffatt opened the. public hearing. Mr. Taugher stated the title of the Staff report erroneously identified Ordinance 4-87 as the zoning ordinance. He continued that Section 6 of Ordinance 4-87 provided that failure to post addresses on non-residential buildings after a 10-day notice is a misdemeanor. After adoption of this ordinance, violations of the building code and zoning ordinance became infractions. It is proposed to change misdemeanors to infractions. Adoption of this ordinance at this time would allow the revision to be incorporated into the Municipal Code. Mayor Moffatt asked for the definition of an infraction. Mr. Taugher stated that the penalty for an infraction is a fine only, not a jail term, and court cases are heard by a judge rather than a jury. The court procedure is simplified. The amount of the fine is at the discretion of the judge according to the bail schedule which is given to the court. Fines for infractions range from $100 for a first offense to a maximum of $500. The penalty for a misdemeanor is a $500 fine or six months in jail. There was no public comment on this issue. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the City Council INTRODUCED an ordinance amending Ordinance 4-87 of the City of Dublin Ordinance Code by changing the penalty for failing to install street address numbers on existing buildings from a misdemeanor to an infraction. PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND ORDINANCE CODE BY DELETING SECTION 8-87.87 OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Mr. Taugher stated that Section 8-87.87 was added to the Zoning Ordinance by Ordinance 7-86. This made violation of the sign regulations a misde- meanor. Subsequently, Ordinance 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 7-87. Adoption of this ordinance at this time would allow the revision to be incorporated into the Municipal Code. Cm. Snyder asked if this action was just a technicality. Regular Meeting March 13, 1989 Mr. Nave responded that it was. There was no public comment on this issue. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the City Council INTRODUCED an ordinance 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: 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. Mr. Taugher stated that again the title of the Staff Report was in error and that Ordinance No. 3-87 is not part of the Zoning Ordinance. Ordi- nance No. 3-87 replaced the provision of the County Ordinance relating to enclosure of swimming pools. Ordinance No. 3-87 did not include a provision for penalties in the event of non-compliance. It is proposed to make violation of the pool fencing regulations an infraction. Adoption of the ordinance at this time will allow the revision to be incorporated into the Municipal Code. There was no public comment on this issue. Mayor MOffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the City Council INTRODUCED an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 3-87, which regulates the enclosure of swimming pools by making a violation of this ordinance an infraction. CITY PARTICIPATION IN DUBLIN PRIDE WEEK Assistant City Manager Paul Rankin stated that Mayor Moffatt had been working with community representatives to sponsor Dublin Pride Week, April 15-22, 1989. Mayor Moffatt stated that the committee includes representatives from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, Dublin School District, and service clubs. He requested that the City agree to fund the activities associated with the campaign, primarily ribbons for school contest winners, flyers, and so forth, not to exceed $2,500, and also requested that City Council authorize use of the City seal on special trash bags and auto litter bags during the cleanup campaign. CM-8-115 Regular Meeting March 13, 1989 Cm. Jeffery asked what the thinking was behind having the City seal on trash bags. She felt that the money should be channeled in another direction, possibly to educate the public regarding safe disposal of hazardous materials. Mayor Moffatt said that he agreed with Cm. Jeffery's idea. The use of the seal on the bags was intended to emphasize the City's participation in the program. Cm. Vonheeder said that other things besides the bags were being planned. Mayor Moffatt explained that the schools would be involved by holding a "clean school contest," with the prize being a tree for the school yard, and possibly having the school children judge a similar contest for businesses. He stated that the potential budget would be around $800 to $1,200. Cm. Snyder asked what was proposed for the distribution of the bags. Mayor Moffatt said the committee had thought about having school children distribute them or about having service stations contribute the bags. Cm. Snyder asked if Waste Management (Dublin Disposal) had been consulted about providing free bags. Mayor Moffatt said that they were not willing to contribute bags but might be willing to help in some other manner. Waste Management felt the cost of the bags was too high. Cm. Snyder stated that he felt there was not much demand for car litter bags and that there would be no value in distributing them. Mayor Moffatt said that big bags were also under consideration. Cm. Jeffery said she had a problem with having school children provide the large bags from a safety standpoint and that the bags should be available at the City offices or fire station. She agreed with Cm. Snyder regarding the litter bags and liked Mayor Moffatt's idea about the school contests. Cm. Vonheeder stated that the request for funding was to provide a budget amount and that the committee would continue to discuss ideas. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the City Council approved the City's participation in Dublin Pride Week not to exceed $2,500 and asked that the committee's final proposal for expenditures be brought back to the Council prior to the event. CM-8-116 Regular Meeting March 13, 1989 CONSIDERATION OF 200 SPACE BART PARK & RIDE LOT Mr. Ambrose stated that this item had been placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Moffatt, to determine Whether the Council is interested in working with the Bay Area Rapid Transit District to study the feasibility of developing a 200 space Park & Ride lot on the downtown BART station site. The City previously'litigated the proposed 750 space BART Park & Ride lot facility on this same site some time ago, as a result of the inability of the City and BART to reach agreement on mitigation measures for which BART would be responsible. Since that time, BART has been working with the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore to develop smaller Park & Ride lots to improve the overall parking for commuters using the BART Express Bus system. Staff has met with BART Staff to discuss appropriate ground rules if BART should develop a small Park & Ride facility at the downtown Dublin station site. Both Staffs agreed that the City's traffic engineering firm, TJKM, should undertake a traffic study identifying the increased traffic that might be created by installing the Park & Ride facility, and that BART would be required to pay for the cost of the study. The 750 space Park & Ride lot alternative for the downtown BART Station site will remain within the scope of work for the Rail Extension EIR. Any action toward devel°pment of the 200 space lot would be pursued separately from the Rail Extension EIR. BART has indicated that if the City were interested and both agencies could reach agreement, the facility could be constructed as early as the summer of 1990. Cm. Jeffery said that construction of the 200 space lot would be an additional way to show that the BART station will eventually~be there and how tax dollars are spent. In addition, the proposed lot will solve parking problems in that commuters are currently parking in business lots. Cm. Hegarty said there would still be impacts from the number of cars. Cm. Jeffery said those impacts are already there. Cm. Hegarty responded that Golden Gate Drive was not currently affected. He stated further that he felt if the 200 space lot was approved, BART would ask for additional spaces. Cm. Jeffery stated that the approval process for more spaces and the station was different. Cm. Hegarty said he felt BART should:bring the rails out to show what they are doing. The 200 car lot would not solve anything. There have been too many studies. He added that he was not interested in having the lot and was not in favor of it. Mr. Ambrose said that the study for the interim 750 space lot would be done approximately June of 1989. CM-8-117. Regular Meeting March 13, 1989 Cm. Snyder asked how amenable BART would be toward mitigating impacts, if TJKM's study determined that there were any. Mr. Ambrose said if agreement could not be reached, BART would wait for the results of the larger study. Traffic studies are not being done in Pleasanton or Livermore, but a 200 space lot is considered more significant in Dublin. Cm. Vonheeder asked if anyone could say that a 200 space lot would do any more than move the cars out of the shopping centers' lots. Mayor Moffatt said that the buses would be moved off of Dublin Boulevard. Mr. Ambrose said that the lot would provide a link between the Wheels bus and BART bus, a bus shelter, and a phone. In addition, LAVTA had asked whether they should put a bus shelter on Dublin Boulevard if the buses would not be using that stop in the~future. Mayor Moffatt asked who would pay for the study. Mr. AmbrOse responded that BART had agreed to pay for it. Mayor Moffatt asked how much the study would cost. Public Works Director Lee Thompson estimated $2000 to $3000. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote, the City Council approved the study, with the stipulation that if BART would not agree to mitigate any impacts outlined in the study, the City would wait for the results of the study for the 750 space lot. Cm. Hegarty voted no on the motion. OTHER BUSINESS Management Audit Interviews Mr. Ambrose asked the Councilmembers to choose a time on either Thursday, March 16 or Friday, March 17, for interviews with Gary Goelitz of Hughes-Heiss relative to the Management Audit. Times chosen, were as follows: Cm. Hegarty, Thursday at 6:00 p.m.; Cm. Jeffery, Friday at 7:30 a.m.; Cm. Vonheeder, Friday at 6:30 p.m., Cm. Snyder, Friday at 2:30 p.m., and Mayor Moffatt, Thursday at 7:00 p.m. ABAG General Assembly Mr. Ambrose reminded the Council that the ABAG General Assembly was scheduled for April 20th at the Santa Clara Convention Center. CM-8-11 8 Regular Meeting March 13, 1989 League Legislative Briefing Mr. Ambrose said that the League of California Cities' Legislative Briefing was on March 29th, and forms needed to be returned by the 22nd for anyone attending. AB 160 Mayor Moffatt said that the League was asking for opposition to AB 160, which restricts a redevelopment agency's ability to use eminent domain to acquire property, and asked whether the City Council would be interested in writing a letter. Mr. Nave said that the the State Bar was also opposing the measure, and that it would not pass. Mayors' Conference Openings Mayor. Moffatt said that there were openings on several committees of the Mayors' Conference if anyone was interested in applying. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9'55 p.m. ATTEST: Regular Meeting March 13, 1989