Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-1988REGULAR MEETING - Ochober 10, 1988 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, October 10, 1988, in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m., by Mayor Linda Jeffery. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Jeffery. Councilmembers Hegarty, Moffatt, 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. Introduction of New Employee Recreation Director Diane Lowart introduced the City's new Recreation Supervisor, Tracy O'Shea. Tracy previously worked for the San Mateo Recreation Department. She just returned from a trip to Ireland. The Council welcomed Tracy aboard. PROCLAMATION - WHITE CANE SAFETY DAY Mayor Jeffery read and presented a proclamation/declaring October 15, 1988 as "White Cane Safety Day". The white cane demonstrates and symbolizes every blind citizen's ability to achieve a full and independent life. Donna Sexton, a blind resident, accepted the proclamation and demonstrated how the white cane is used by a blind person'. Ms. Sexton indicated that she had not brought her guide dog to the meeting as he wished to stay home and watch "ALF". Mayor Jeffery stated that a good friend of hers is training a guide dog and those blind persons who have a seeing eye dog are very fortunate. PROCLAMATION - COMMUNITY AGAINST SUBSTANCE ABUSE Mayor Jeffery read and presented a proclamation declaring the week of October 23-30, 1988 as "National Red Ribbon Week". October 28, 1988 has been selected as "Wear Red Day" and everyone is encouraged to wear as much red as possible to signify a united stand against illegal use of alcohol and drugs. )+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+> CM-7-298 .Regular Meeting October 10, 1988 Karen Seals accepted the proclamation and passed out red ribbons imprinted, "THE CHOICE FOR ME, DRUG FREE!" to the Council and Staff. Mayor Jeffery stated the Council appreciated all the work that Ms. Seals had done with regard to this campaign. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote, (Cm. Moffatt abstained), the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 26, 1988; Accepted the City Treasurer's Investment Report for Period Ending September 30, 198.8; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 134 - 88 RESCINDING OF REJECTION OF OFFER OF DEDICATION OF PARCEL A, TRACT 4991, AS TO CERTAIN PORTION ONLY; ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER~OF DEDICATION OF PORTION KNOWN AS IGLESIA DRIVE Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 135 - 88 and AWARDING PURCHASE ORDER FOR DECEMBER HOLIDAY BANNERS AND ST. PATRICK'S DAY BANNERS TO VAUGHN DISPLAY, INC. RESOLUTION NO. 136 - 88 AWARDING PURCHASE ORDER FOR STREET BANNER HARDWARE TO KALAMAZOO BANNER WORKS, INC. Received a Status Report on 1-580 and 1-680 Freeway Improvements; Approved Change Orders 1 and 2; accepted improvements under Contract 88-4 Annual Street Overlay and Repair & Dougherty Road Bike Path; authorized final progress payment and retention ($96,336.97) to Les McDonald Construction; and authorized additional appropriation in the amount of $154,146.99 from General Fund and Gas Tax Reserves to cover those project costs which carried over into Fiscal Year 1988-89; Received a Status Report on the East Dublin General Plan Amendment/ Specific Plan Studies and EIR; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $740,178.45 Cm. Snyder stated he did not wish the Warrant Register pulled from the Consent Calendar, but he did want to make a request with regard to a check for the annual dues for the Emergency Services Network. He asked that Staff request the ESN to make a presentation related to their services to the Council. ¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢+¢ CM-7-299 Regular Meeting October 10, 1988 City Manager Ambrose stated he would contact ESN and make this request for an upcoming agenda. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT PARCEL MAP & VARIANCE~ 7450 AMADOR VALLEY BLVD. Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Planning Director Tong advised that the Applicant is requesting that the Public Hearing on the Appeal of PA 87-159.2 be continued to the October 24, 1988 Council meeting. Mr. Tong advised that he is Scheduled to be out of town on October 24th, and that Staff recommended that the item be continued to the November 14th meeting. No public comments were made related to this item. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. By a Council consensus, this item was continued to the November 14, 1988 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT OF ROLLING HILLS DRIVE - STUB END OF CREEKSIDE DRIVE Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. City Engineer Thompson explained that at the meeting of August 22, 1988, the City Council adopted a resolution of intention to abandon the stub end of Rolling Hills Drive east of Creekside Drive. At the time that Tract 4991 (a part of the Kaufman & Broad single-family homes) was developed, Rolling Hills Drive was perceived as being a through street that would cross Creekside Drive into Tract 5402, the Dolan School Site. Therefore, a stub end of Rolling Hills Drive was accepted as part of Tract 4991. When Tract 5402 (Dolan site) was developed as Vista Green Terrace by Castle Construction, Rolling Hills Drive was not extended. The street system was established using Iglesia Drive, which intersects south of the location originally anticipated. The stub end of Rolling Hills Drive is not needed for public street purposes, and the public rights to it should be abandoned. Alfred Bilotti, 8116 Creekside Drive, questioned who will do something on this property. He understood that it was given to the water company to build a pump station on. This is not a good place to put a pump station. City Engineer Thompson stated this would be up to DSRSD. It is proposed to be put underground. Mr. Bilotti indicated that this was planned 2 or 3 years ago. DSRSD said that in order to pacify them, they would put a park bench over it. When water comes down the hill, they get water under their house. >+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+> CM-7-300 Regular Meeting October 10, 1988 Mr. Thompson stated that there was a lot of flooding a couple of years ago in that the erosion measures gave way. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Snyder made a motion which was seconded by Cm. Vonheeder to adopt the Resolution vacating the street. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the City keeps the area will this have any relationship to DSRSD. Mr. Thompson stated that they can go under the streets with an encroachment permit. Our easement is done. Cm. Moffatt clarified that if a pump house goes in, the correct agency to deal with would be DSRSD. Mayor Jeffery suggested that the City send a letter to DSRSD indicating people's concerns. Cm. Hegarty questioned if the City has control. City Attorney Nave stated that the City has control for street purposes. Cm. Hegarty stated that people also have expressed concerns related to the noise factors. If we retain control can we specify how the pump goes in. Mr. Nave stated that the only reason we have this easement is for street purposes. We will not be able to control the height of the pump station. Cm. Hegarty clarified that all we are saying now is that we have no further use for this for street purposes. Mr. Thompson stated that it will revert to Kaufman & Broad and DSRSD would need to have a permit to work in the public right-of-way. Cm. Hegarty expressed concern in that right now, the City has some control. Although just because you own a piece of real property, you don't have a right to do anything you want with it. He questioned if the City will retain the right to control it if we give this parcel up. Mr. Nave indicated he would need time to further review this. Cm. Hegarty did not feel there was any need to rush with this decision. Cm. Snyder withdrew his motion to adopt the Resolution and Cm. Vonheeder withdrew her second to the motion. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council reopened the public hearing and continued the item to the next Council meeting. >+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+> CM-7-301 Regular Meeting October 10, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING' ABANDONMENT OF PARCEL Ar TRACT 4991 Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. City Engineer Thompson advised that on September 12, 1988, the Council adopted a resolution of intention to abandon Parcel A of Tract 4991. Parcel A was originally offered for dedication as the City wasn't sure of the location of the future street, connection to Creekside Drive from Tract 5402 (castle Construction's Vista Green Terrace (Dolan site). The location of Iglesia Drive has now been determined and the street constructed. The offer of dedication of Parcel A was rejected; however, the City has rescinded the rejection and accepted the portion of Parcel A which is the right-of-way of Iglesia Drive. This abandonment procedure will negate the offer of dedication on all of Parcel A except for that within Iglesia Drive, and the City's rights in this parcel will revert to Kaufman & Broad. Mr. Thompson advised that it was Staff's understanding that Kaufman & Broad intends to transfer the portion of Parcel A south of Iglesia to the adjoining property owner and the portion north of Iglesia to the Homeowner's Association as part of their open space. Cm. Moffatt.questioned if this piece of property was integral to the other piece discussed. City Attorney Nave felt it would be a good idea to review this item also. Cm. Hegarty expressed concern with the open space going to Kaufman & Broad. Nothing is being maintained by the homeowners associations yet. He has received a lot-of complaint calls. The City has already signed off for K & B and. the space that is supposed to be maintained is not being maintained. Perhaps this will give the City a chance for some leverage. Jeff Grist, 8050 Iglesia Drive, indicated that he has talked with the Council about this and wants to know who is going to landscape this area. He felt the residents would not mind taking it and maintaining it. City Engineer Thompson gave a brief history related to this topic. John Walker, 8042 Iglesia Drive, stated he moved from Echo Park to get away from all the noise. He was annoyed that people let their dogs run and mess in this area. You can never get in touch with Animal Control. There is a sewer line that goes right through his property and it is blocked with cement and other debris. Bill Myers, 8136 Creekside Drive, questioned if a pump station is put in who will be responsible. He felt the biggest difficulty with debris being dumped is from construction and people coming up there from out of the area and dumping their garbage. >+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+> CM-7-302 Regular Meeting October 10, 1988 Mr. Thompson advised that DSRSD will be responsible for the pump house, and for servicing it. Howard Horwitz, 8026 Iglesia Drive expressed concern that this parcel might be givenback to K & B. They won't take care of the weeds. He felt the City is more responsive and would rather have the City take care of it. He'was not interested in obtaining the property. Mr. Thompson clarified that K & B owns the property already. The City has simply been offered dedication for street purposes.- We have no use for it or power-over it. The problem with weeds should be directed to the Fire Department' City Manager Ambrose advised that if K & B does not keep the weeds down, the Fire Department contracts for the removal and then bills them. If they do not pay, the Fire Department can put a lien on the property.' Myles Spann, 8083 Brittany Drive questioned other uses for this strip of land, i.e., a'par course or mini-park. He also expressed concern if it reverts to K & B. Speaking as a member of the homeowners ~association west of Creekside Drive, he would not.be responsive to taking over this parcel. He would.not welcome .the burden of maintaining additional land. Mr. Thompson advised that it has been offered for dedication for street . purposes, so we cannot use it for other purpOses. Mayor Jeffery asked, how wide the parcel is. Mr. Thompson stated it varies from 30' to 50'. K & B. It is already owned by Ms. Nubia Walker, 8042 Iglesia Drive, stated that people.on Creekside Drive dump their garbage and lawn clippings. If K & B controls, it, they should at least maintain it. Mayor Jeffery felt the City could have them control it to some degree. She questioned if the homeowners association have to accept it. Mr. Nave responded that they did not. Aldred Bilotti, 8116 Creekside Drive, stated that all the people come from the new area walking their dogs. He felt the City should take it over. It is-a real mess. Cm. Snyder stated that if the City takes it over, the homeowners would have to pay for maintenance. Jim Levine representing Kaufman & Broad addressed the Council and stated that this has been a nightmare for them as well. He gave a brief history of the parcel and Stated they had hoped that. the City would take over this property. At this time, they can either give it to the adjacent homeowners which would cause' problems across the street with regard to >+)+>+>+>+>+>+)+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+)+>+)+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+> CM-7-303 Regular Meeting October 10, 1988 views. They guaranteed that the views would remain clear. .They want the City to decide what it wants to do there, so they can then make an offer to the community association. Mr. Levine advised that at one'time, DSRSD considered taking over the entire parcel and landscaping it. They have decided-against this, however, so they look for the community association to take it over. Mr. Levine apologized for K & B being a bad neighbor and not cleaning up their property. Jeff Grist questioned who guarantees the views.. Mr. Nave advised that unless there is an easement for view, there would be no way that the people along Creekside Drive would have a guaranteed view for eternity. K & B might be able to secure the view by retaining a small strip of Parcel A and deed the remainder to the landowners. Mr. Levine stated'that K & B is concerned.not so much with the legal view requirements, but that they must disclose what will most likely be there in the future. They do not want to retain ownership of the property. Mr. Ambrose clarified that the City Attorney was suggesting a compromise. This would be done between K & B and the homeowners. Mitch Molitor, 8034 Iglesia Drive, questioned if there was any code for trees. They would like to increase their privacy by planting trees. Planning Director Tong advised that there is no restriction regarding typical landscaping other than if you put in a fence or a hedge that becomes a wall.. Bill Meyers.indicated that he has a pool and homes look down into his yard, so he will'be planting some trees. Mr. ThompsOn advised that Bordeaux Estates is also a part of the association. Bill Walker stated that everywhere Kaufman & Broad goes, they leave a mess. The City Council should lean on K & B. Mr. Nave. advised that the tentative map conditions might take care of the peoples concerns. He will review this to determine what can be done. On motion of Cmi Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council continued this Public hearing to the next Council meeting regarding what can be done and also requested that Staff get information from DSRSD regarding the pump station. >+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+> CM-7-304 Regular Meeting October 10, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHMENT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES FOR NEW ROAD PARALLEL TO AND SOUTHERLY OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD (BETWEEN AMADOR PLAZA ROAD AND REGIONAL STREET) Mayor Jeffery opened.the public hearing. Planning Director Tong advised that the City Council had held'public hearings on this item.on June 27, July 25, August 8, September 12, and September 26, 1988. The ordinance'establishing the right-of-way lines was introduced at the September 26, 1988 meeting. Mr. Tong explained that the Circulation Plan for the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan includes recommended changes to improve downtown circulation. One such improvement is a new street parallel to and southerly of Dublin Boulevard, 'connecting Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road. The Downtown Plan shows the approximate location of this road midway between Dublin Boulevard and 1-580. The road would have area-wide circulation benefits by providing an alternate route. The proposed right-of-way would be able to accommodate about 17,500 average daily trips. Staff explained that no direct financial impacts would occur from the recommended action. Costs to the City as a result of development of the road would depend on the.financing mechanism selected for this project. A separate action would be required by the City Council to authorize financing the project. Property owners in the area raised questions and conerns with and protests to the proposed.right-of-way. Mr. Tong advised that no'precise schedule has been established for constructing the road. Timing of the improvement may be dependent on land development in the area. The need for the road may become critical when BART develops their property or when other lands develop more intensively. Preliminary estimated costs to acquire property, design the improvements, construct the roadway and mitigate environmental impacts would be about $3 million. Cm. Snyder questioned why the Eneas are protesting this now. Planning Director TOng advised that Robert Enea entered a protest at the September 12th meeting and Staff has not heard further from them'. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Moffatt asked if this closes the door for any future realignment. City Manager Ambrose responded'no, this is just a plan line. Cm. Snyder. felt that everyone understood this at the last meeting. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted >+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+> CM-7-305 Regular Meeting October 10, 1988 ORDINANCR NO. ]9 - 88 ESTABLISHING RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR. ANEW ROAD PARALLEL TO AND SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD (BETWEEN AMADOR PLAZA ROAD AND REGIONAL STREET) LOPEZ/MacDONALD REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL' TO INITIATE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT' At the September 12, 1988 council meeting, Mr. Peter MacDonald, representing Mr. Henry Lopez, asked the Council to initiate a Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Mr. MacDonald submitted proposed revisions and the Council continued the item to the October 10, 1988 meeting, in order to give Staff time to review the revisions and provide input. At Mr. MacDonald's request, the Planning and Building Staff inspected the Lopez addition and a number of items were noted that do not conform to the building cOde, as well as several items that need to be verified by inspection. Staff's concerns relate to: 1) not meeting the intent of the yard requirements, including sideyard and'rear yard setback requirements and separations from detached accessory structures; 2) the inequity of approving a 20 year old illegal structure while requiring a newer structure to meet current zoning and building code requirements; 3) the lack of evidence to adequately verify the date the structure was completed; 4) that the current and previous building code regulations for room additions are substantially the same; and 5) that the building code has a provision.for processing a variance for a specific case when that case has merit. On October 5, 1988, Mr. MacDonald submitted a third proposal that focuses on zoning code modifications for structures in the rear yard. Staff indicated that the concerns with this proposal relate to: 1) not meeting the intent of rearyard requirements; 2) inequity regarding age of illegal structures; and 3) lack of adequate verification. Peter MacDonald, 533 Peters Avenue, Pleasanton, stated they have been working diligently with Staff. Eleven changes have been made to the proposed ordinance as a result of concerns expressed by Staff. Vic Taugher was very thorough and prompt with his inspections. This struc- ture was a solidly built building, built according to the specifications in 1964. Mr. Lopez wants to cooperate. Mr. MacDonald explained the differences between coming in for a variance and looking at developing a policy. Cm. Moffatt questioned if there was any documentation that would back up the statement that the building had been there since 1964. Mr. Lopez stated that the only documents are in the possession of the City. Mr. MacDonald stated that when there is a fact, it can be proven somehow. >+>+>+>+>+)+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+> CM-7-306 Regular Meeting OctOber 10, 1988 Cm. Snyder stated that if, in fact, this was built 20 years ago and with a permit, consideration of a grandfathering situation would create minimal exposure. Also, he felt everybody should be treated the same if they have a situation that they could prove~ He did not see that this is any different.from something that was illegal just prior to 1982. One of the reasons for incorporation was to eliminate the possibility of these things happending. He felt that if there was an agreement to dismantle the patio cover and the room is found to be sound, the City Council should do whatever is reasonable with the legislative capabilities it has to allow this to exist. Cm. Hegarty felt we should bear in mind that the City has granted a great deal to Mr. Lopez already. The Ordinance requires a 20' setback in the rear yard, but for a variance it allows the Planning Director to grant him permission to build within 10' of that property line. The building, however, sits 8 1/2' from the property line, so it was built illegally. We have an ordinance which allows flexibility. This structure had to have been built without a permit, or else the County would have caught this, through the inspection process. To allow something beyond this, the City must be able to make the findings. If this is granted, he felt the City would be granting a special privilege. Regardless of whether the situation occurred 20 years ago, or 2 months ago, what's right is right and the proper way of doing it is'the proper way of doing it. Cm. Hegarty felt there was no question but what this building has to be brought up to code. When it comes to the fOot and a half, this must conform with. what the City Ordinance says can be allowed. He did not feel the 5' backyard as proposed by their ordinance was acceptable for Dublin. · Cm. Moffatt questioned if the City would have any financial liability if a grandfather clause was adopted. If a structure was built (no matter what the condition was), before the City incorporated, could anybody come back to the City and claim the City was responsible. Mr. Nave stated he did not feel that anyone would be successful in bringing action against the City. Cm. Snyder felt construction is the key. The building has to meet the code. Mr. Ambrose stated that when you talk about "grandfathering", the other issue you must consider is what about People who have built 4 1/2' or 2' from the line. At what'point do you draw the line? Or do you draw a line, or simply allow everybody in, regardless of whether they have any rear yard at all? Cm. Hegarty asked if Staff had any idea.how Dublin's Ordinance related to the other 13 cities in the County with regard to rearyard setback requirements. Mr. Tong stated that he thought typically, the requirement is approxi- mately 20'. He stated that he was aware that in Pleasanton there is a provision that they can go down'to as low as 15'. >+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+> CM-7-307 Regular Meeting October 10, 1988 Cm. Moffatt.questioned condominiums or apartments or the Ponderosa Homes. Mr. Tong advised that multi-family project's (condominiums, townhomes and apartments) have a different set of requirements. They typically have common areas and.maintenance provisions. The Ponderosa units meet the 10' rear yard requirements, but do deviate in the sideyards. They have a special provision whereby they effectively have 10' on one side and none on the other side. This was accommodated through a Planned Development Zoning provision. Cm. Vonheeder felt that there are probably quite a few situations like this in the community. She felt that if they are addressed individually as situations arise, the Council could at least treat each one fairly, based on the circumstances. What-is being proposed is general in nature, and she did not want this. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote, the Council denied the variance request. Cm. Snyder voted against this motion. Mr. Lopez'questioned the status of the McCartney case which was the same situation. .. Mr. Nave stated that the City lost in trial court, but won in appeals court. It has yet to be reset for trial. The City cannot do. anything until there is a retrial. OTHER BUSINESS Development Application Process City Manager Ambrose"adVised that surveys had been sent out to all the members of the'Council, Commissions and Staff that are involved in the development application process. They requested that these be completed and returned by October 12th, so that the responses can be pooled and some direction obtained for the preparation of an RFP for a consultant to conduct the management audit of the development application process. ACTEB Cm. Moffatt reported that the governing board of the Alameda County Training and-Employment Board received a letter from Governor Deukmejian selecting'Alameda County Jobs West Out of School Youth Program as California's nomination for the National 1987-88 Presidential Award program. >+)+)+)+>+)+)~)+>+>+>+>+>+>+)+>+>+>+)+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+>+> CM-7-308 Regular Meeting oCtober 10, 1988 ~ DRFA City Manager Ambrose reminded those Councilmembers who sit on the DRFA Board that there will be a DRFA meeting. Thursday night, October 13th, in the San Ramon Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT There being'no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p.m. CM-7-309 Regular Meeting October10, 1988