Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25-1988REGULAR MEETING - April 25, 1988 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday,'April 25, 1988, in the meeting room of the DUblin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7'32 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 alle- giance to the flag. Howard Johnson's Sign Ryan from Dublin stated he wished to question why the Council turned down the Howard Johnson sign request at the last meeting. The delay caused by the Council's action is unnecessary. Planning Director Tong explained that what the Council did was to initiate an amendment to the Zoning ordinance. State Law requires that Staff prepare an analysis which goes to the Planning Commission for review. The Planning Commission then makes a recommendation to the City Council and the Council holds public hearings. Cm. Hegarty suggested that Ryan review the minutes and perhaps go back and research the records related to this sign request. A~..pha Beta Store Mabel Raglin questioned if there was going to be a new tenant in the old abandoned Alpha Beta Store. She had heard that Salvation Army was moving in. Staff advised that no permits had been processed, but Mr. Tong stated he had heard similar information. Valley High School Relocation to Cronin School Site Dorothy Freeman indicated she had recently attended a Planning Commission meeting where the Planning Commission denied the School District's request to relocate the Valley High School students to the Cronin School site next to Wells. Ms. Freeman indicated that on Wednesday night, the School District will be meeting to override the Planning Commission's decision. She questioned if this was legal. %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%.%*%*%*%.%.%.%*%*%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.% CM-7-140 Regular Meeting April 25, 1988 City Attorney Nave advised that the School District Board of Trustees does have the right to override a Planning Commission or City Council decision related to school use. They are not subject to the zoning laws of the City. Ms. Freeman questioned if they can override the City's decision, why bother to try to get a permit in the first place. Mr. Nave advised that they were trying to comply with the City's rules and hoped to obtain permission. CONSENT CALENDAR On motiOn of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 11, 1988; Approved Financial Report for Period Ending March 31, 1988; Denied a claim submitted on behalf of Michelle Salgardo and directed Staff to notify the Claimant and the City's Insurance Provider; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 57 - 88 ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS TRACT 4930 (FOOTHILL ESTATES, PHASE III) and authorized Staff to accept a maintenance bond at a future date; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 58 - 88 DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ANNUAL REPORT FOR STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 59 - 88 DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ANNUAL REPORT FOR LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 83-2 TRACT 4719 Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 60 -' 88 DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ANNUAL REPORT FOR LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 86-1 TRACT 5511 %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%.%,%.%,%*%,%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.% CM-7-141 Regular Meeting April 25, 1988 Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 61 - 88 AWARDING CONTRACT 88-3 ANNUAL SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM & HANDICAP RAMP CONSTRUCTION TO AMBO ENGINEERING ($104,417.15) and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement and authorized additional work for handicap ramps; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 62 - 88 AWARDING CONTRACT 88-4 ANNUAL STREET OVERLAY & DOUGHERTY ROAD BIKE PATH TO LES McDONALD CONSTRUCTION ($369,429.50) and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement; Authorized Staff to solicit bids for janitorial services for the Dublin Senior Center at Fallon School Multi-Purpose Room; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $620,481.52. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FROM JEB ENTERPRISES REQUESTING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, CLASSIC HOT DOG CART Planning Director Tong advised that on March 9, 1988, the City received a letter from JEB Enterprises requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit (subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit), a Hot Dog Cart in the C-2 District at the Pak' n Save site, 6605 Dublin Boulevard. They are proposing to locate the Hot Dog Cart on a permanent basis outdoors adjacent to the exit door of the Pak' n Save Market. The City's Zoning Ordinance requires all principal uses in the C-2 District to 'be conducted within a building. Exceptions to this requirement are limited to specific uses such as automobile sales lots, drive-in restaurants and plant nurseries, all of which require approval of a CUP. On a temporary basis, the Zoning Ordinance also permits arts and crafts fairs subject to approval of a CUP or Administrative CUP, depending upon the number of fairs held per year. Outdoor seating for a restaurant use requires approval of a CUP as an ancillary use to the principal restaurant use. JEB's proposal to locate a Hot Dog Cart in front of the Pak' n Save Market is not consistent with the Zoning Ordinance or City policy concerning outdoor vendors. The proposal would be similar to the outdoor brass sales and outdoor fruit sales which the City Council previously found were not consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff indicated that it did not feel that outdoor vendors are an appropriate use in the C-2 District, unless the shopping center is specifically designed to accommodate the outdoor vendor. %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%,%.%.%.%*%,%.%,%*%*%*%*%.%.% CM-7-142 Regular Meeting April 25, 1988 Mr. Tong advised that if the Council does not choose to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to permit Hot Dog Carts and similar outdoor vendors in the C-2 District, no action is necessary. Cm. Hegarty felt the Council should stick to its current policy. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council took no action on this item. PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES FOR EASTERLY EXTENSION OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN DOUGHERTY ROAD & THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC R-O-W Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. City Engineer Thompson advised that this item was introduced at a public hearing on April 11, 1988. This action will establish right-of-way lines for the extension of Dublin Boulevard and a connecting road between the extension and Scarlett Court. No protests were received. Mr. Thompson displayed illustrations of the proposed plan line. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the angle of the curve was a little sharper, could the amount of land necessary to be taken be lessened. Mr. Thompson advised that Dublin Rock & Ready has a house located near the edge of their property, which is a non-conforming use. Mayor Jeffery 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. 12 - 88 ESTABLISHING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES FOR THE EXTENSION OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN DOUGHERTY ROAD AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND FOR A STREET CONNECTING THE DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION WITH SCARLETT COURT PUBLIC HEARING REVISED PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Assistant to 'the City Manager Rankin advised that on April 11, 1988, the City Council conducted an extensive public hearing regarding Ordinance No. 7-88, which was adopted on March 1, 1988. The Ordinance addressed property maintenance and established specific conditions which would constitute a public nuisance. In addition, the Ordinance provides mechanisms to remedy any nuisance situations. %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%,%.% CM-7-143 Regular Meeting April 25, 1988 At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council directed Staff to review specific provisions within Ordinance No. 7-88. They requested that the sections relating to trash cans, clotheslines, and the definition of a nuisance be revised. In addition, it was reqUested that the enforcement through a complaint only process be defined. The City Councilmembers requested that the revision on trash cans address the fact that some resi- dents need to store their containers in a side yard. Relative to the condition under which a clothesline would be a violation, the Council indicated a desire to allow clotheslines within the side yard. From an overall standpoint, the City Council requested a clarification of what constituted a nuisance. Mr. Rankin explained the modifications which have been made to the Ordinance based on these concerns. Definitions: The terms "Back yard", "Front yard", and "Side yard" are now defined. The purpose was intended to clarify in understandable terms, portions of the property which may be affected by the Ordinance. In addition, the term "Property" was redefined to identify two specific components: non-residential and residential. Residential property was further defined to include only front yards, the unfenced portion of side yards, the unfenced portion of back yards on corner lotS, driveways, walkways, and sidewalks. This more clearly identifies the property as being the area which is typically not fenced. These terms should provide a better understanding of what is covered in the Ordinance. Nuisances - Residential Property: Section 2.1 was revised to clearly identify those items considered a nuisance on residential property. The main section was also amended to include a requirement stating that the violation must exist thereon for an unreasonable period of time and be visible from a public street. This eliminates the need to reference these conditions in each of the subsections (a) - (k). Cha. n~.es to Specific Nuisances (a) - (k)' In addition to the change discUsSed above, the following revisions were made to help clarify the Ordinance: Subsection (b) was revised to only address clotheslines or clothes hanging only in front yards, in accordance with City Council direction. Subsection (c) in the original Ordinance referred to trash, garbage, or refuse cans, required to be stored in accordance with the Solid Waste Ordinance. The Solid Waste Ordinance does not allow trash cans to be visible from a public street on the day after collection. The City Council directed Staff to revise the Ordinance to allow their storage in a side yard. Staff determined that it would be clearer to revise the Solid Waste Ordinance and remove the reference to garbage cans from the Property Maintenance Ordinance. The proposed amendment is contained in a separate agenda item which will be considered under a separate public hearing. Subsections (c) and (d) in Ordinance No. 7-88 have been combined and are now shown in subsection (c) in the proposed Ordinance which is now under consideration. Staff had also received an inquiry as to whether fire wood was included as lumber. In order to clarify this situation,' the term fire %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%.%*%.%,%.%.%*%.%,%.%*% CM-7-144 Regular Meeting April 25, 1988 wood has been specifically included in the amended Ordinance subsection (c). Staff felt it is important to understand that with all of the subsections, they must exist for an unreasonable period of time and be visible from a public street. Subsection (d) in the amended Ordinance is largely the same as was written in subsection (e) of Ordinance No. 7-88 adopted in March. The only change is that the March version indicated that refrigerators, freezers, hazardous pools, ponds, and excavations were a violation anywhere on the property. In the amended Ordinance, these conditions would only be in violation if they remained for an unreasonable period of time and were visible from a public street. Subsection (1) in the amended Ordinance was amended to refer exclusively to graffiti. The Ordinance adopted in March was redundant by including words and letters on the exterior of a building. The Ordinance also included a reference to drawings. It was brought to Staff's attention that in one case, a private home has a mural on a garage door. Staff assumed that the City Council's intent was to address graffiti and revised the Ordinance accordingly. Subsection (j) in the amended Ordinance was revised by including boats which are included in the Recreational Vehicle Ordinance No. 3-86. Also, the City Council had amended that Ordinance through the adoption of Ordinance No. 28-87. The proposed Property Maintenance Ordinance will include a reference to both the original Ordinance and the amendment. New Section 2.2 - Non-Residential Property Nuisance' The proposed Ordinance ha's'""~"e'~'n ~'mended to clarify the condi~'ion~ which constitute a nuisance on non-residential property. This section largely repeats conditions described in the residential section discussed above. The non-residential section does not address the issue of clotheslines, since this is typically a residential condition. However, two items which are not addressed are the conditions related to graffiti and abandoned, boarded up, partially destroyed, or buildings in a state of partial construction. These were not included in order to be consistent with the Ordinance as adopted in March. The Ordinance already adopted by the City Council defines "Building" as the various types of residential buildings typically found in the City. As noted in the public hearing on April 11, 1988, the current Ordinance does not apply to commercial or industrial buildings. Therefore, all nuisance conditions which relate to buildings have been deleted from the description of property nuisances on non-residential property. Staff recognizes that there are non-residential buildings which may be appropriate to address under this type of Ordinance, however, as stated above, the proposed revised Ordinance has not been expanded to include conditions beyond those adopted by the City Council in Ordinance No. 7-88. Staff advised that if the Council desires to include non-residential build- ings, the proposed Ordinance would need to be amended in the following areas: %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%.%.%.%.%*%.%.%.%*%.%.%,%.%.%.%,%.%.%.%.%.% CM-7-145 Regular Meeting April 25, 1988 1) Section 1.2 - The definition of "Building" would need to be expanded to include non-residential buildings. 2) The language in Subsections 2.1 (h) and (k) in the amended Ordinance would need to be included as Subsection 2.2 (i) and 2.2 (j). 3) Section 3.12 would need to be amended to include a reference to 2.2 (j). These amendments would expand the application of the Property Maintenance Ordinance for non-residential properties only. Reference to Specific Infraction Maximum Fines: Section 5.2 (b) in the adopted' Ordinance specific~'i'ly defines maximum penalties. For the most part, this section recites the language found in Government Code Section 36900. The proposed Ordinance would reference the State Law instead of repeating current language. The City Attorney has recommended this approach since the State Law may be amended at any time. The reference to the section will assure that if and when State Law is amended, that the City Ordinance will.continue to be consistent with State Law. Section 5.3 - Repeal of Ordinance No. 7-88: The final revision found in the proposed Ordinance is a section whiCh repeals Ordinance No. 7-88 adopted on March 1, 1988. Instead of adopting an Ordinance which only amended specific sections, Staff felt it would be clearer to repeal the current Ordinance. This will assist in the administration of the Property Maintenance Ordinance by having a single Ordinance which is referenced in the investigation of any complaints. It should also make the specific conditions within the Ordinance easier for the public to understand. Enforcement PolicY.., At the public hearing on April 11, 1988, the City Council confirmed their intent to have the Ordinance enforced on a complaint basis. The City Council has a similar policy as it relates to Building, Housing and Zoning violations. In 1984, the City Council adopted a Resolution which established enforcement policy and procedures for Zoning, Housing and Building regulations. The Resolution amended an earlier policy by proposing to investigate all similar violations that are visible from a site where a violation is being investi- gated. The procedures included in this Resolution have now been superceded by Ordinances which establish the infraction mechanism as a means of enforcement. Also, State Law regulates many of the procedures originally identified in the Resolution. Staff advised that the Assistant City Attorney has reviewed the current policy in accordance with the City Council direction at the public hearing. In a Memorandum dated April 20, 1988, Ms. Silver identified that the Resolution format is generally used for matters which are not legislative in nature. The decision as to how the Property Maintenance Ordinance will be enforced would fall into this category, since it is a matter of policy. This would also be consistent with the past action taken by the City Council. %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*% CM-7-146 Regular Meeting April 25, 1988 Staff prepared a Resolution which would rescind the current procedures and establish a consistent policy for enforcement of violations of the Zoning, Housing, Building and Property Maintenance Ordinances. The actual language is based on the current policy. Cm..Hegarty questioned if the City could act to clean up a commercial building that is vacant. He also questioned what in the ordinance addresses public health and safety. Planning Director Tong advised that if it became a vector problem, we might be able to handle it. City Manager Ambrose advised that the Fire Department enforces the weed abatement program. Assistant to the City Manager Rankin advised that this ordinance would be an additional tool in order to abate a nuisance. Cm. Moffatt questioned if this ordinance would make it illegal to have a lot in town which stores RV's. Staff responded that it would not. Cm. Hegarty questioned the section that relates to notifying people in person, or by certified mail or first class mail.- He suggested that it read "by certified mail" only, Mr. Rankin advised that the City could get it returned marked "refused to pick up". Mr. Nave explained that the wording is consistent with State Law. Ryan from Dublin questioned if the section that says if you can see it from the street, does this mean the backyards visible from San Ramon Road. Mr. Ambrose advised that these are not included by definition. Mayor Jeffery advised that if a complaint is unfounded, it would be eliminated through the first process. If no violation exists, it would not be pursued. Beth Grant DeRoos commended the Council for listening to all the pros and cons on this issue. She questioned if a complaint has to come from a neighbor, or could it be someone across town. What about people who might drive around town and list 40-45 complaints. There are a few people who have the time to do this and she hoped that before someone complains, that they would offer to aid the family first. She would like to see civic groups, boy scouts and religious organizations involved to have some type of assistance program. She questioned what about those individuals who don't take the newspapers and don't know about this ordinance. How can we get this information out to everyone. % * % * % *% *% *% *% *%. % * % *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *%, % *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *%. % *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% CM-7-147 Regular Meeting April 25, 1988 Mr. Ambrose advised that the Council established policies in 1984 that said Staff will not be out looking for violations. The important fact will be that a circumstance has been brought to the City's attention. There was an individual who patrolled the neighborhoods when the RV Ordinance was adopted, and reported violations. Staff will make sure that the content of the ordinance gets distributed to each household in Dublin. Cm. Snyder indicated that in 1985 when he suggested Dublin Pride Week, the point of the whole thing was to have people do these things voluntarily. Key people who were influential in the community were asked to participate. Joan King, Dublin High School Principal indicated during the Dublin Pride campaign, that there are a number of high school students who would be willing to help. Dave Burton indicated that his initial opposition to the ordinance did not mean that they were against the concept, but rather some of the wording. He felt there was still a question on how people would get noticed. If you give a person 7 days notice, and the mail takes 4 days, this becomes an important factor in preparing for a hearing. If a person did not pick up a notice, the consequences could be critical. Mr. Burton did not understand why Section 5.2 which relates to violation and penalties was necessary. Mr. Nave again advised that the notice provisions are consistent with State Law. Under the appellant procedure, everyone is presumed to know the law and anyone can challenge any law or action taken by any City at any time. Mr. Ambrose advised that it is standard practice at all of our hearings that the individuals are advised of their appellant rights. Ken Johnson indicated he had an article which appeared in the Valley Times recently related to San Ramon's efforts at cleaning up their City. He was really impressed with the way they are getting ready to spruce up for a spring clean-up. He hoped that Dublin would try this approach as it is much softer. Cm. SnYder indicated that Dublin did try this approach 3 years ago. They went about it in exactly the same way to request voluntary efforts. The schools'held a poster contest and the posters were displayed all over town. A group from the high school sold "Dublin Price" buttons. There was a lot of publicity. Dorothy Freeman felt it would be very beneficial to list the various organizations that might possibly be able to help the community in the City's Newsletter, so that people are made aware of these groups. She knew that the Boy Scouts would be'very happy to be contacted to serve in the community. Most churches are also willing to'serve in any which way they can to help. She did feel that 7 days might not be long enough to get organized assistance. Mayor Jeffery requested that Staff look at the pOssibility of listing telephone numbers of organizations that could assist people when we publicize the ordinance in the Newsletter. * * * ~ * * * * * * *Z'Z* *Z*%*%*%*%* *%*%* * * * * ,, * * * * * * ~ * * * CM-7-148 Regular Meeting April 25, 1988 Mr. Ambrose advised that the way this will work is not that the City Manager immediately goes out and sends a notice, but rather City Staff will talk to the people to determine what the best way would be to solve the violation. Ms. Freeman questiOned what would happen if the house isa rental. Mr. Ambrose advised that in some cases, the tenant could be responsible. We have been very successful in the last 6 years with the way we are enforcing the City's ordinances. Bob Wright discussed sideyard fences, or retaining fences. He questioned what controls fencing materials. Some of the fences could be made of anything from chicken wire to plywood. Mr. Rankin advised that this ordinance does not address fencing materials, nor does the Zoning Ordinance. If a fence were in such a state of disrepair that it encroached into a sidewalk or created a hazard, we might be able to do something. Martha Burden thanked the Council for rewriting the ordinance. She indicated she was primarily concerned about costs that could be levied upon a person for court costs, etc. If it were a false claim, it is not fair to the person trying to defend themselves. How can we avoid ~this type of a situation. Mayor Jeffery stated that this is the whole point of having a hearing with the City Manager. She questioned how the City would handle an anonymous complaint° Mr. Ambrose advised that the information related to the person who complains will be treated as confidential and Staff does not give out this information. Mr. Rankin advised that anonymous complaints would be investigated to determine if they are a danger to public health or safety. Ms. Burden asked what would happen with complaints that are not valid. Mr. Ambrose advised that no action would be taken. Ms. Burden questioned how someone could get the name of someone who complains. Mr. Rankin advised that a court of law could require that the information be given. Mabel Raglin stated she wished to clarify something that someone had printed in the newspaper related to her being inexperienced in dealing with City matters. She stated that you don't have to be a politician to be interested in your community. She has been very concerned about this issue and did not understand why there has been such a fuss about it. When you live close like we do in Dublin, you must be considerate of your neighbors. The people who maintain their homes and property are upholding the values for those who don't. We must be fair. She appreciated the fact that we now have an ordinance and hoped it would work peaceably. %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*% CM-7-149 Regular Meeting April 25, 1988 Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Snyder stated he did not understand why the section pertaining to graffiti is addressed differently for a commercial building. There is more chance for graffiti on a comercial building than residential.' Mr. Nave indicated that the Council could add "commercial building" to the list of definitions, which would mean any building other than that described in Section 1.2. RECESS Mayor Jeffery announced that a short recess was called in order to allow time for the City Attorney to develop the proper verbage. Ail Councilmembers were present when the meeting was reconvened. Mr. Nave advised that the changes made were' Section 1.2' BUILDING. "Building" shall mean any house, garage, duplex, apartment, condominium, stock cooperative, residential and non-residential structures. Section 1.8' PROPERTY. "Property" shall mean (a) all non-residential zoned real property and any building located on such property ... Additions to Section 2.2' UNLAWFUL NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY NUISANCE. (i) Graffiti on the exterior of any building, fence or other structure; (j) Buildings which are abandoned, boarded up, partially destroyed, or left in a state of partial construction and such buildings which are un- painted or where the paint on the building exterior is mostly worn off. Section 3.12' DEMOLITION. No property shall be found to be a public l(k) or 2 2(j) and ordered demolished nuisance under Sections 2. .... Cm. Moffatt expressed concern related to vacant buildings that are looking for renters. Mr. Nave advised that the Administrative Officer has the discretion to hear evidence, and Mr. Rankin advised that Section 2.3 defines the methods to be used for correcting a sitUation. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an Ordinance relating to Property Maintenance and repealing Ordinance No. 7-88, and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 63 - 88 ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ZONING, BUILDING, HOUSING, AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE iVIOLATIONS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 75-84 .,o ,~o ~o ~o zo ~o .,o ,,o ~o zo ,,o zo ~o lo ~o lo ,~o Io Io Io /o Io /o /o /o /'o /o /o /o /o /o /o /o /o /o /o /o /o CM-7-150 Regular Meeting April 25, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL RAMIREZ SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE @ 8686 DAVONA DRIVE Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Planning Dir. ector Tong advised that Mr. Ramirez is requesting a Variance to allow an existing accessory structure attached to the main structure to project into the required side yard setback, resulting in no side yard setback on the south side of the house (where a minimum 6' side yard is required by the Zoning Ordinance). The structure is approximately 8' tall. It spans from the sidewall of the residence to the adjacent property line fence, resulting in no remaining sideyard setback. It is open on all sides except on the top where there is a transluscent corrugated plastic cover that acts as a sunshade and weather protectant. According to Mr. Ramirez, the structure was constructed prior to his purchasing the home in 1973. City records indicate that no building permits had been issued for the structure. Staff advised that this structure was viewed at the time that the Zoning Investigator responded to the subject site to determine whether or not a tool shed in the rear yard complied with zoning restrictions. The Zoning Investigator requested that the Applicant either remove it or apply fora Variance. On February 11, 1988, after a public hearing, the Zoning Administrator determined that he could not make the findings, and denied the Variance request. Mr. Ramirez appealed this decision to the Planning Commission, who on March 21, 1988, held a public hearing and also denied the Variance request. On March 31, 1988, the Applicant appealed the Planning Commission's action to the City Council. Dublin's Zoning Ordinance specifies that every accessory building attached to a main building shall be subject to all setback/yard requirements applicable to the main building. In the case of this site, a 6' side yard setback is required. Because the accessory structure is attached to the house, it must be setback 6' from the side property line. Staff explained the 3 findings which were detailed in the Staff Report which must be made prior to granting a Variance. Cm. Hegarty questioned if it weren't attached to the fence and it was modified to be 2 feet from the fence, would it still require a Variance. Planning Director Tong responded yes, because it would still be within the 6 foot required side yard. Cm. Hegarty indicated that he understands the fire safety factor, but there is no obstruction which prevents people from passing through. It is a clear path. %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%,%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%.%*%*%.%*%*% CM-7-151 Regular Meeting April 25, 1988 Cm. Moffatt questioned if the structure were not fastened to the fence or the structure, would it need a 'Variance. Mr. Tong advised yes, it would still be a structure in the side yard. This area is to be free and clear of any types of structures. Mr. Ramirez indicated that he has lived there for 16 years. This was an integral part of the main structure when they purchased the house. Even though it does not meet the strict interpretation of the code, there have been no complaints in the past 16 years. He felt that since this is now a matter of public record, they might be victims of selective enforcement. They do not now have the privilege of waiting for a citizen complaint. He questioned what their liability would be if someone were to be hurt. Mr. Ramirez indicated that he is a supporter of the new Property Maintenance Ordinance and he wants to make this a proud place in which to live. Cm. Hegarty questioned if Mr. Ramirez could modify the structure. Mr. Ramirez indicated that it has been a real pain to have to go through this process of applying for a Variance. He did some research and reported that the Library does not have a complete set of City ordinances. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Hegarty stated he did not feel the Council has a choice in this matter. The findings are not there to make the decision to allow a Variance. Cm. Hegarty made a motion to uphold the Planning Commission's denial. Many years ago, he was aware of a similar situation where a Variance was granted by the Alameda County Zoning Administrator. Cm. Hegarty encouraged Mr. Ramirez to seek out possible changes that could be made in order to comply. Cm. Snyder seconded the motion to deny the Variance request. Cm. Vonheeder questioned what Mr. Ramirez could do to bring it into a situation where a Variance could be granted. Mr. Tong indicated that Staff has looked at possible means of compliance, and could not come up with anything that could be done to make it legal. Cm. Vonheeder questioned what would happen if Mr. Ramirez were to research old files and find a Variance that was granted. City Attorney Nave indicated that the Council could continue this hearing for a certain amount of time. Cm. Hegarty indicated he would be willing to withdraw his motion and to give extra time for Mr. Ramirez to do some research. He elaborated on the location of the house that had gotten a Variance for a similar situation back in 1978. Cm. Snyder indicated he did not see the relativity of a decision made by Mr. Flynn many years ago, to this situation. He indicated he was unwilling to withdraw his second to the motion. %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*% CM-7-152 Regular Meeting April 25, 1988 Mr. Nave reminded the Council of a similar case that has been to the Court of Appeals and back. The Council denied a setback appeal. It was challenged in trial court and it was lost, but the City is currently appealing. Mr. Nave agreed with Cm. Snyder that it is not appropriate for the Council to use action taken by Mr. Flynn as a basis for their decision. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by majority vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 64 -88 UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION AND DENYING PA 87-176 RAUL P. RAMIREZ VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ATTACHED TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE TO PROJECT INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK, RESULTING IN NO SIDE YARD SETBACK ON ONE SIDE OF THE HOME (WHERE A MINIMUM OF 6' IS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE) AT 8686 DAVONA DRIVE Cm. Vonheeder voted against this motion. Mr. Ramirez questioned what he was to do now with an unsafe situation. Mr. Nave explained that the Council's action would enforce a law that is in effect to protect the public health and safety. Mr. Ramirez felt the City is now in a situation where it must find violations. Mr. Nave stated that a situation must be called to the attention of the City before it can be held liable. Mayor Jeffery directed Staff to provide a complete set of ordinances to the Library. PUBLIC HEARING - SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE LOCATION OF TRASH CONTAINER & ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Assistant to the City Manager Rankin advised that at the regular City Council meeting on April 11, 1988, the City Council conducted a public hearing regarding the recently enacted Property Maintenance Ordinance. The Property Maintenance Ordinance contained a requirement that garbage cans not be stored in front or side yards and visible from a public street. This language was consistent with Section 5-202 of the Solid Waste Management Ordinance No. 2-86. The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2-86 on March 10, 1986. The Ordinance was adopted at the time that the City of Dublin assumed responsibility for the supervision of garbage collection service franchise agreement. Section 5-202 of the Ordinance includes the requirement that "... by the day after collection, all residential collection containers must %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*% CM-7-153 Regular Meeting April 25, 1988 be removed so as not to be visible from the street ..." This requirement was carried over in the Property Maintenance Ordinance. Staff pointed out one difference in the two Ordinances is the enforcement mechanism. The Solid Waste Ordinance currently provides that all violations are considered a misdemeanor. For the majority of the Solid Waste Ordinance, this is appropriate, since among the purposes is the establishment of a franchise system providing for the rate-regulated collection and disposal of solid waste. The Property Maintenance Ordinance allows violations to be enforced either through an abatement action, or as an alternative, through an infraction process. The City Council requested that the Property Maintenance Ordinance be revised to delete trash cans placed in a side yard from the listing of nuisance conditions. Staff reviewed this request with the City Attorney's Office and it was recommended that the City Council amend the Solid Waste Ordinance and delete the reference to garbage cans in the Property Maintenance Ordinance. The proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 2-86 would provide an exception to the requirement that garbage containers not be stored in a place visible from a public street. The exception would allow containers to be stored in a side yard. In order to establish a feasible enforcement mechanism, it was also recommended that sections related to residential garbage service should be established as an infraction instead of a misdemeanor. This remedy can be more effective in obtaining compliance than the lengthy process of seeking a misdemeanor complaint through the District Attorney's Office. Staff has also discussed the change with the Vector Control Program Manager. This agency is under the direction of the County Health Officer and is authorized to enforce provisions of the Solid Waste Ordinance. The County Vector Control representatives feel that an infraction provision would be more useful than the current enforcement mechanisms in obtaining compliance. Ryan from Dublin questioned if the side yard description is the same as applies to the Property Maintenance Ordinance. Mr. Rankin explained that the definitions would be the same. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an Ordinance related to Solid Waste Management and Amending Ordinance No. 2-86. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FROM JEB ENTERPRISES REQUESTING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, CLASSIC HOT DOG CART June Bacon-Bercey, President of JEB Enterprises, addressed the Council and apologized for arriving late to the meeting. She had misunderstood the location of the meeting and gone to City Offices. % *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% CM-7-154 Regular Meeting April 25, 1988 Ms. Bacon-Bercey indicated that the Planning Commission has given her an inordinate amount of time ~to deal with 'this. She felt the Council was very fair. She indicated that they are not about selling hot dogs, but rather they are merchants building a franchise. They are determined to make this succeed. She requested that, through a special use permit, the Council consider granting her request. If the Council can't clear this, she would like to request proceeding with a Planned Development Rezoning for the Pak' n Save site. Mayor Jeffery clarified that in dealing with this, the Council is not referring only to hot dog carts, but other outdoor sales as well. The City has gone to great lengths to control outside vendors. This was done partially at the request of the Chamber of Commerce and other reasons. Cm. Hegarty asked if Pak' n Save would allow them to locate inside the store. Ms. Bacon-Bercey responded that they would love to be .inside, but there is insufficient space and their operation would create a bottleneck situation. They have demonstrated that they are very credible. Cm. Snyder stated that the City was not questioning their credibility, but rather how this use relates to a C-2 situation. The City has gone through this for many years and has come up with a policy that the City feels in appropriate. /Ms. Bacon-Bercey stated she would like to request that if their request is denied that she be able to proceed with a PD rezoning. City Manager Ambrose advised that a PD rezoning is not appropriate as the City Council has taken no action. ANNUAL TRAFFIC SAFETY REPORT ACCIDENT LOCATION ANALYSIS AND DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC MONITORING Chris Kinzel advised that this report was continued from the April llth Council meeting. TJKM, the City's Traffic Engineering Firm, prepared a report on two studies. At the Council meeting of March 23, 1987, in making a 6-month review of the stop signs on Donohue Drive, the Council directed Staff to perform an annual review of intersections with a high incidence of accidents. The report indicated 257 accidents in 1987, with 197 property damage only, 58 involving injury and 2 fatal accidents. A comparison chart was prepared for 1986 and 1985. Six locations having the highest number of accidents were~ identified in the report. At most of the locations identified, some improvements have been constructed during 1987. There are pending improve' ments at some of the others. The primary purpose of these improvements is to provide more capacity, with a secondary benefit.of accident reduction. %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*% CM-7-155 Regular Meeting April 25, 1988 TJKM's report included a description of the types of accidents occurring at each of the intersections and current or future mitigations measures were summarized. The Downtown Specific Plan, adopted in July, 1987, contained, several strategies in its implementation plan. The circulation strategies included a traffic monitoring program which recommended that traffic counts be conducted periodically at key locations and intersections. The new signal interconnect system will permit TJKM to determine 24-hour traffic counts at 3 locations on Dublin Boulevard on a monthly basis. The overall review indicates the importance of conducting at least a limited annual review of traffic conditions as an aid to short and long-term planning for the downtown area. It was recommended that annual intersection counts be taken at the 4 downtown intersections, plus Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road and San Ramon Road/Alcosta Boulevard, the key gateway locations for the City. The Council endorsed the concept of monitoring key intersections. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council received the presentation by TJKM and directed Staff to include recommended safety improvements in the Capital Improvement Budget. OTHER BUSINESS Camp Parks Property, City Manager Ambrose advised that the County, East Bay Regional Park District and the Army are trying to get together with the City to discuss the Camp Parks property. Library Commission Cm. Hegarty requested authorization to attend a Library Commission meeting in Sacramento in May. The Council indicated no problem with this. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10'44 p.m. A%TEST: .~~ , , , , * * * ~ * * * * * * ~ * * * * * ~ ~ * * * * * * * * *%*~,*Z*%*~o*~*%*%*%~o*~o CM-7-156 Regular Meeting April 25, 1988