Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-22-1988REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 22r 1988 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, August 22, 1988, in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Mayor Linda Jeffery. ROLL CALL' PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Moffatt, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Jeffery. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. CONSENT CALENDAR 0n motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Adjourned Regular Meeting of August 4, 1988 (joint meeting with Dublin Unified School District Board) and the Regular Meeting of August 8, 1988; Received the spring quarterly activity report from the Recreation Department; Set October 1, 1988, as the date for the Kolb Park dedication ceremony, approved the plans, and directed Staff to proceed; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 113-88 A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO VACATE A PUBLIC STREET (ROLLING HILLS DRIVE EAST OF CREEKSIDE DRIVE) (setting a public hearing date of October 10, 1988) Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 114-88 AWARDING CONTRACT 88-7 SAN RAMON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PHASE III TO GALLAGHER AND BURK, INC. ($927,797.90) and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement; Denied claim submitted on behalf of John Woods, et. al., and directed Staff to notify the claimant and the City's insurance provider; ************************************************************************* CM-7-259 Regular Meeting ~August 22, 1988 Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 115-88 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT NO. I TO LIVERMORE/AMADOR VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT Authorized the City Manager's attendance at the International City Management Association (ICMA) Conference to be held on October 23-27, 1988, in Charlotte, North Carolina; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $994,279.55; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 116-88 ESTABLISHING A DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN (ICMA Retirement Corporation) LETTER FROM SENATOR BILL LOCKYER REGARDING SB 45 (BRIDGE TOLL INCREASE) City Manager Richard Ambrose stated that a letter had been received from Senator Lockyer which requests that elected officials review the language contained in Senate Bill 45. This bill would increase bridge tolls to $1.00 for passenger vehicles and impose a 50% increase on commercial vehicles. It was noted that commercial tolls had not increased the last time passenger tolls were raised. The bill is anticipated to raise $40,000,000 for bridge improvements in the first year, and one and one half billion dollars over a 20-year period. Improvements proposed are development of a new Benicia Bridge, replacement of the Carquinez Bridge, widening of the San Mateo Bridge and western approach to the Dumbarton Bridge, improvements to the Richmond Bridge, and reconstruction of major interchanges and access corridors. The bill also requires that a minimum of 90% of the revenues derived from the toll increase for Class I vehicles on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge be restricted exclusively for rail transit capital improvements designed to improve vehicular traffic on the Bay Bridge. Seventy percent of the funds would be used for projects in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, including the BaYfair-Livermore rail transit corridor. The bill has been signed by the Governor, and the measure will appear on the November, 1988, General Election ballot. Mr. Ambrose further stated that City Staff had been in contact with Sen. Lockyer's office and confirmed that funds from this measure would benefit the Tri-Valley Area. Mayor Jeffery asked whether any of these funds would go toward the second Dublin-area BART station. Mr. Ambrose responded that they could. ************************************************************************* CM-7-260 Regular Meeting August 22, 1988 Cm. Moffatt stated that he felt the measure was a good idea and that in discussions with ABAG, it was felt that greater increases in bridge tolls for vehicles with one or two people might be appropriate in order to encourage car pooling. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the City Council endorsed SB 45 (Bridge Toll Increase). PUBLIC HEARING: LIMITED PARKING AT 6398 DOUGHERTY ROAD Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Chris Kinzel of TJKM, the City's Traffic Engineer, presented the Staff report, which stated that a letter had been received from Roger Smith of Pack & Ship located at 6398 Dougherty Road requesting consideration of a limited parking zone in front of his business. Mr. Smith operates a packing and shipping service and has received,a contract from the U.S. Postal Service to open a branch post office. His concern was that most of the businesses in the complex are of a type that tend to leave vehicles parked either all day or for several days, leaving little or no space for his short-term customers. There are 9 businesses in the complex including Pack & Ship and 26 on-site parking spaces at the front of the building, plus more parking at the side and rear. In their investigation of the request, TJKM spoke with Mr. Smith, and they agreed that approximately 190 feet of 20-minute parking would be appropriate. There is a fire hydrant near the center of the proposed 190-foot limited parking zone, and 15 feet on either side of the hydrant would be designated a no parking zone. The remaining space for 20-minute parking would accommodate approximately 8 vehicles. Staff recommended that the City Council introduce an ordinance establishing the 20-minute parking zone. Cm. Moffatt asked whether the proposed 20-minute parking was on private or public property. Mr. Kinzel responded that this was on public property. Cm. Vonheeder stated that there was a rather steep incline between the on-street parking and the level of the on-site parking lot and building and wondered if stairs had been considered. Roger Smith of Pack and Ship stated that he had spoken with the building manager and that a walkway was under consideration. He felt the incline was not that severe and said that a pathway had been worn through the groundcover. In regard to the proposed post office, he explained that the Postal Service had approached him, as they were seeking an additional station in order to relieve some of the pressure on the main Post Office on Village Parkway. Mr. Smith stated that he had investigated some of the other branch post office locations in the area and discovered that ************************************************************************* CM-7-261 Regular Meeting August 22, 1988 a significant amount of business, hence the request for a number of 20- minute parking spaces. The Postal Service told him he could expect to gross approximately $65-70,000 during the first year but that one of the branch locations in Pleasanton does $250,000 annually. He further stated that since his lease did not provide for on-site parking for his three employees, they would agree to park at'the end of the building. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and introduced the ordinance establishing a 20-minute parking zone in front of 6398 Dougherty Road. PUBLIC HEARING: PA88-055 SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, SECOND FREESTANDING SIGNSr & PA 88-056 SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT~ SERVICE STATION PRICE SIGNS Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Maureen O'Halloran presented the Staff report which stated that at the April 11, 1988, meeting, the City Council had reviewed the appeal of PA 87-138 Shell Service Station Price Sign Variance and the appeal of PA 88-017 Howard Johnson Hotel Sign Conditional Use Permit and Variance. At that meeting, the City Council did not take specific action on the appeals but adopted Resolutions initiating zoning ordinance amendments to provide for increased sign area for service station price signs where four or more fuel products are offered for sale by a service station and an amendment to the Sign Ordinance provisions for determining location, sign area, and sign height for second freestanding signs. In conjunction with the City Council-initiated zoning ordinance amendments, Ms. O'Halloran stated that Staff recommended amendments to existing sections of the Sign Ordinance, including clarification and reformatting of the sections. The proposed ordinance amendments were considered by the Planning Commission on July 5 and July 18, 1988, and resolutions were adopted recommending City Council approval of the Negative Declaration and the draft Ordinance amending the Sign Ordinance. Service Station Price Signs: Ms. O'Halloran stated that the City's Sign Ordinance permits service station price signs, restricting the maximum sign area to 16 square feet for a single-faced sign or 32 square feet for double-faced signs. The draft ordinance includes an amendment to increase the sign area for service stations selling four or more fuel products by allowing a maximum 24 square feet for a single-faced sign or 48 square feet for a double-faced sign. The proposed maximum 48 square feet of sign area was based upon the Shell Service Station request to facilitate listing diesel fuel as the fourth fuel product on the station's price sign. Second Freestanding Signs: The City's Sign Ordinance permits, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit, two freestanding signs on parcels four acres of greater located adjacent to 1-580 or 1-680. The ordinance ************************************************************************* CM-7-262 Regular Meeting August 22, 1988 also establishes the property line adjacent to 1-580 or 1-680 as a street frontage for purposes of determining sign criteria. The second freestanding sign provision of the ordinance applies to 13 specific properties within the City, many of which are adjacent to the flood control channel property. Ms. O'Halloran stated that provisions determining sign height, location, and sign area of second freestanding signs are overly restrictive for properties adjacent to the flood control channel, as the setback of the second freestanding sign from the freeway right of way is increased by the channel, resulting in reduction of visibility. The proposed amendment to the Sign Ordinance would allow the flood control channel to be used as the reference point or "pseudo" property line for purposes of calculating sign area, height, and location of second freestanding signs, allowing a reduction of actual setback from the freeway right of way. Ms. 0'Halloran said' that, using the Howard Johnson Hotel as an example, a second freestanding sign with 156 square feet of sign area would be restricted to 23 feet in height with a 26 foot setback from the rear property line under the present Sign Ordinance. Under the proposed amendment, the same 156-square foot sign would be setback 10 feet from the rear property line, and subject the the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, could attain a maximum 35 foOt height. The proposed amendment would not, however, allow location of signs on the flood control channel property nor allow use of the flood control property line for purposes of determining building setback restrictions. The proposed amendment identifies specific provisions or restrictions applicable to the second freestanding sign rather than referencing the ordinance section number as the existing ordinance does. A number of miscellaneous format changes and clarifications were explained by Ms. O'Halloran as follows: 1. The existing numbering system format is confusing and proposed to be revised. 2. The existing Sign Ordinance does not adequately explain the concept of aggregate allowable sign area. Three sections of the ordinance were proposed to be amended to indicate that the maximum aggregate allowable sign area is based upon a percentage of the building frontage. The aggregate allowable sign area may then be divided proportionately between either wall signs or a freestanding sign. 3. The current Sign OrdinanCe indicates freestanding signs located within 20 feet of the street frontage must be located in the middle 1/3 of the street frontage. This provision does not address the corner lot situation. In practice, the corner portion of the lot has been considered the middle 1/3 of the lot. The proposed ordinance amendment specifically indicates the corner portion of the lot as the middle 1/3. 4. When the Sign Ordinance was amended in January 1987, the definition section was amended to reduce the minimum number of tenants required for Shopping Center Master Identification Signs from 20 to 10. The chart for ************************************************************************* CM-7-263 Regular Meeting August 22, 1988 Alternate Types of Freestanding Signs was not amended at the time. The proposed amendment revises the chart accordingly. 5. The existing section on Alternative Types of Freestanding Signs does not clearly state that alternate types of freestanding signs are permitted in the front setback, does not specifically indicate that the provisions apply to all alternate types of freestanding signs, and does not specifically state that alternate types of freestanding signs are not subject to the provision regulating other freestanding signs. The proposed amendment clarifies these specific items. 6. The existing ordinance does not clearly indicate that Directional Tract Signs are permitted a maximum of 64 square feet of sign area for double-faced signage. The proposed amendment clarifies this indication. 7. The existing ordinance indicates that one identification sign in any district is permitted subject to approval of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. The proposed amendment clarifies that the provision is applied per parcel. 8. The existing Zoning Ordinance requires four findings of fact prior to granting a Sign Variance. The four findings identified in the Sign Ordinance are not consistent with the three findings required in granting a typical Zoning Variance. The proposed amendment replaces the four findings in the Sign Ordinance with the three findings currently in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. O'Halloran concluded that additional amendments may be considered in conjunction with the pending revisions to the entire Zoning Ordinance. Cm. Snyder stated that the proposed amendments were an indication of good work performed by Staff. Mayor Jeffery said that Staff's work was appreciated and that the proposed amendments would help everyone in reading the Sign Ordinance. There was no public comment on this issue. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. V°nheeder, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 117-88 ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS PA 88-055 AND PA 88-056 waived the reading and introduced the Ordinance Amending City Zoning Ordinance Relating to Sign OrdinanCe. ************************************************************************* CM-7-264 Regular Meeting August 22, 1988 REQUEST FROM DIABLO VALLEY GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG CLUB TO WAIVE THE FACILITY USE POLICY FOR SHANNON CENTER Recreation Director Diane Lowart stated that the Diablo Valley German Shepherd Dog Club had requested that the City Council consider waiving the Facility Use Policy for the Shannon Community Center. The portion requested to be waived was under Classification of Users, Section III (d). The Club is a non-profit organization whose goals deal with the advancement of the German Shepherd breed and encouragement of activities involving the dogs. They desire to use the Shannon Center on a contin- uous basis for regular monthly meetings, the second Wednesday of each month between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. Under the Facility Use Policy adopted by the City Council, continuous use of the Shannon Center is reserved for the City of Dublin, School Districts with whom the City has a reciprocal use agreement, and community groups. The Diablo Valley German Shepherd Dog Club cannot meet the requirement that 51% of the members live in Dublin as stated in Section III(d) of the policy. At present, the Club has no Dublin residents and only three within the DSRSD boundaries in San Ramon. The Park and Recreation Commission's recommendation was to allow the Club to use the Shannon Center on a continuous basis on the requested night for the fall quarter, as the room is available for those nights. However, the Commission also recommended that the group be charged the hourly rate of $37.00 per hour for non-resident groups instead of the $8.00 per hour for community groups. The Commission's feeling was that the continuous use policy was a privilege for local taxpayers. Ms. Lowart submitted a letter just received from the Club which offered to admit the general public to their meetings at no charge so that Dublin residents could take advantage of presentations by veterinarians, guide dog groups, various training organizations, and so forth. Raymond Jacobs, President of the Club, stated that the group has been meeting at the Shannon Center on and off for nine years. Their charter from the American Kennel Club states that they must allow members from other areas, and this is the reason more members are not from Dublin or within the DSRSD boundaries. Mr. Jacobs said that the Club would like to continue meeting at the Shannon Center through the fall or as long as possible. They are now paying $41.00 per meeting, and it would be prohibitive to raise their fee to $37.00 per hour. Cm. Hegarty asked how many members attend each meeting. Mr. Jacobs responded that there were 60 members total but that approximately 30 attended each meeting. Cm. Hegarty said that at that rate, each member would need to contribute about $1.50 per meeting. Cm. Moffatt asked if the dogs attend the meetings. ************************************************************************* CM-7-265 Regular Meeting August 22, 1988 Mr. Jacobs said that the dogs do attend because some of the meetings incorporate obedience classes, which are held outside the building. Other breeds of dogs come as well as German Shepherds. He further stated that Dublin residents could attend the classes at no charge. Mayor Jeffery asked how far in advance the programs were planned. Mr. Jacobs said at least several months. Mayor Jeffery said that this would fit in with the quarterly brochure issued by the Recreation Department. Frank Russkey stated that he agreed with the established regulation requiring 51% residency and that the facility should be reserved for Dublin residents. Cm. Hegarty said that he felt $1.50 per person once a month should not present a hardship and that the established policy should be adhered to. Cm. Vonheeder stated that she did not have a prOblem waiving the continuous use policy, as organizations tend to have difficulties trying to schedule. She said, however, that she did have a problem with waiving the 51% residency requirement for fee purposes. The Shannon Center needs to be available to residents, and it is frustrating to find the Center booked up. with non-resident activities. Cm. Moffatt stated that the Center was built with the money and efforts of the people in the DSRSD area. The rates determined for resident use are "bare bones" charges, and no profit was made even at the $37.00 rate. He further stated that a continuous use waiver should be reviewed after fall quarter. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the City Council determined to uphold the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission to allow continuous use for fall quarter and not to waive the $37.00 per hour fee for non-resident groups. Cm. Snyder stated that he felt that language referring to DSRSD should be removed from the Shannon Center use policy, and requested that consideration of that change should be placed on the Park and Recreation Commission agenda. AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT QUOTATIONS FOR. HOLIDAY BANNERS Public Works Director Lee Thompson stated that while banners purchased in 1987 had experienced some problems, the manufacturer had repaired them and Staff was requesting authorization to solicit quotations on additional December holiday banners. The proposal was to use the same designs as used in 1987 but to increase the quantity by doubling up the banners hung previously as "singles" and by adding additional areas on San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard. ************************************************************************* CM-7-266 Regular Meeting August 22, 1988 Staff also proposed to purchase 24 St. Patrick's Day banners and asked the City Council to make a selection from four proposed designs. Mr. Thompson said if the City Council preferred to have a design other than those submitted, that a Committee be formed to select a design and that once of the Councilmembers sit on the Committee. Cm. Moffatt asked whether the designs for the St. Patrick's Day banners were stoCk and if they could be hung as double banners. Ms. Lowart said that they were stock designs. Mr. Thompson added that while the designs did not form pairs, they could be hung on either side of a street light as "double" banners. Mr. Ambrose stated that he had met with Ms. Lowart and discussed the possibility of using a design that could be incorporated into other St. Patrick's Day items such as posters or signs. Ms. Lowart added that she had spoken with a graphic artist who would be able to come up with designs. Cm. Moffatt asked if the artist would be willing to experiment with several designs. Ms. Lowart said that if the City Council was interested, the graphics firm could design a banner only or other publicity items that would carry on from year to year and would be more personalized for the City of Dublin. Cm. Moffatt asked if the decision on the St. Patrick's banners was as imminent as the December holiday banners. Mr. Thompson said that the St. Patrick's banners could be chosen later but that Staff would like authorization to go ahead and request bids on the December banners. Cm. Moffatt said he would like to see what kind of designs the graphic artist could come up with. Cm. Snyder said he didn't want to go through selecting a custom design again and that he preferred option "C." Cm. Vonheeder said she also liked option "C." Mayor Jeffery asked if a majority of the Council preferred one of the stock designs and said she liked option "A" because of its simplicity and because it could be used for other events. Cm. Snyder stated that he preferred to use different designs for different events. ************************************************************************* CM-7-267 Regular Meeting August 22, 1988 Cm. Moffatt asked how well the banners wear. Mr. Thompson said that some wind damage was experienced but that the banners had been repaired or replaced by the manufacturer. Also, wind holes were requested on the original specification but were not put in when the banners were originally manufactured, and these were added after the fact. Cm. Moffatt asked if all the banners had to be the same design. Mr. Thompson said that there would only be 24 St. Patrick's banners and that Staff preferred to use all one design as the message is more definite if repeated. Cm. Vonheeder said she liked the "pot of gold" as it designated Dublin shopping. Cm. Snyder stated that he agreed. Cm. Hegarty said that he preferred not to let commercialism enter into the holiday celebration. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the City Council authorized Staff to solicit bids for the banners and selected option "C" for the St. Patrick's Day banners, specifying that the "yellow" shown on the example be printed in "gold" ink instead. LAFCO Study of Dublin and Livermore Spheres Mr. Ambrose said that Mayor Jeffery and Cm. Snyder had attended a recent meeting of the Local Agency Formation Commission regarding the boundary area between the Dublin and Livermore Spheres of Influence and the possibility of an independent study to determine the boundary. Mayor Jeffery said that LAFCO had volunteered to mediate between Dublin and LiVermore and to do an independent study if paid for by the inter- ested parties. A meeting will probably be arranged for the following week. Bay Area NFL Franchise Mr. Ambrose stated that Mayor Jeffery had received a letter from Lionel Wilson regarding soliciting an NFL franchise for the East Bay and asked if the Council would be interested in receiving a presentation on the matter or if this should be handled as a Consent item. The City Council concurred that this item should be placed on the Consent Calendar. ************************************************************************* CM-7-268 Regular Meeting August 22, 1988 League of California Cities Cm. Vonheeder said she had been doing budget work for the East Bay Division of League of California Cities and that they were trying to find revenue sources to fund a part-time staff person. At the present time, someone from the City of San Leandro is serving the function at a cost of approximately $2,400 per year and that having the services of this person had improved continuity and recordkeeping for the League. The cost per city would be about $70 and might be handled through an increase in dues. This would increase Dublin's dues from about $30 to about $100 per year. Community Cable TV Channel CTM. Hegarty said that the City of Livermore announced they would not be making their contribution toward the community cable TV channel. The agreement was that all 4 cities would contribute. Livermore has a problem with their appropriations limit and indicated they would not be budgeting funds for cable TV. Cm. Hegarty further said that he felt it was a good idea for the City to pay the amount budgeted for cable TV in two increments. Mayor Jeffery asked when the next installment would be due. Mr. Ambrose said the first payment had not yet been made and that the second payment was to be made in December or January. Cm. Hegarty said that Pleasanton and San Ramon indicated they would go ahead with their contribution and also that this item should be placed on a future agenda for discussion. He felt that if the City was going to decide not to make the entire contribution, the cable TV corporation should be so advised. Mr. Ambrose stated that the corporation should address the budget consequences with the City of Livermore and that if all the cities did not participate, no payment would be made. Cm. Snyder said that the cities should morally abide by the contracts and that something greater than the dollar amount was at stake. Mr. Ambrose said that the only commitment made was for $1,000 as part of the franchise agreement. Cm. Hegarty stated that anything in excess of the $1,000 was not required but was what the cities had agreed to pay. He said that he would recom- mend to the corporation to readjust their budget and would also report the results of the Council discussion when the item is placed on the agenda. Also, he stated that his term on the Board is up in September but that he would continue to serve if desired. Mayor Jeffery asked Staff to place the item on the agenda for the September 12th meeting. ************************************************************************* CM-7-269 Regular Meeting August 22, 1988 Tri-Valle¥ Transportation Committee Cm. Vonheeder asked if the Council had all received the report on the last meeting of the .Tri-Valley Transportation Committee. CLOSED SESSION At 8:45 p.m., the Council recessed to a closed executive session to discuss personnel issues under Government Code Section 54957. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. ATTEST: Ci t~y CXl~rk ************************************************************************* CM-7-270 Regular Meeting AugUst 22, 1988