The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-11-1988 Adopted CC MInREGULAR MEETING - April 11, 1988 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, April 11, 1988, in the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7'35 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. , The Gregory Group Ryan from Dublin indicated that there was a contract with the people on Via Zapata that the people had with the County that had some stipulations in it. When the City took over that property, Ryan questioned if the City also took on the responsibilities and will honor the contract. City Attorney indicated that if he could see the document to which Ryan was referring, he would be able to give a better opinion. He was not aware of any contract between the County and the homeowners, but there may have been some type of a condition imposed regarding approval, such as a tentative map approval. Mr. Nave requested that Ryan provide him with information and he would get an answer and get right back to him. BART Ryan, P. O. Box 5117, Pleasanton, questioned how the Council stood on the issue of BART coming to the Valley, knowing that there is a shortage of funds and that it will cost taxpayers more money. Mayor Jeffery indicated that the Council has supported BART coming to the Valley. Also, the issue was put on the ballot and the community passed it. Voters approved it by adopting Measure B. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Cm. Snyder indicated that he would abstain from voting on the Minutes approval only as he was not in attendance at the March 28th meeting; CM-7-101 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 28, 1988; Approved the City Treasurer's Investment Report for Period Ending March 31, 1988; Denied a claim submitted by Jeanette Bueno on March 17, 1988 and directed Staff to notify the claimant and ABAG PLAN Corporation; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 50 - 88 AWARDING CONTRACT 88-1 MAJOR ARTERIALS SOUNDWALLS TO B & B CONCRETE and authorized the Mayor to execute the Agreement; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 51 - 88 SUPPORTING "YOU'VE GOT THE POWER, REGISTER AND VOTE" WEEK APRIL 18-22 1988 Approved an Agreement with Michael R. Nave for Legal Services modifying the billing rate to $125 per hour; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 52 - 88 AWARDING CONTRACT 88-2 FOR DOLAN PARK PHASE II TO MORI HATSUSHI & ASSOCIATES ($222,252.75) and authorized the Mayor to execute the Agreement; Regarding Shannon Community Center Renovation Architectural Services 1) approved the revised scope of work to include design services for both Phase I and Phase II improvements for Fiscal Year 1987-88; 2) retained the firm of Associated Professions, Inc., to provide architectural services for renovation; and 3) directed Staff to prepare the documents necessary to execute the contract agreement at a cost not to exceed $38,000; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $472,801.57. PUBLIC HEARING PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. She indicated that the Council would give everyone who wished to speak on the Ordinance an opportunity, but due to the number of people who wished to speak, there would be a 3 minute time limit per person. Those persons wishing to speak were requested to fill out a speaker's slip and turn it in to the City Clerk. ~4~1o~4~1o~1o@ ~@ ~4~4@ ~o~4~/o~4@ ~/o~4@ ~4@ ~@ ~/o~4@ ~@ ~1o@ ~@ ~/o@ ~@ ~@ ~@ ~@ ~@ ~@ ~/o~1o~4~1o~4@ CM-7-102 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 Paul Rankin, Assistant to the City Manager advised that at the regular meeting on March 28, 1988, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a report on the newly enacted Property Maintenance Ordinance. Staff prepared several documents which outline the various issues in depth. Staff explained that the Ordinance was developed in response to public requests to provide a mechanism whereby nuisances can be abated. The goal is to actually obtain the rehabilitation of property. Staff explained that the Ordinance was originally proposed by the Planning Commission in 1985. At that time the Council favored an attempt to obtain the voluntary compliance of property owners. Councilmember Snyder was involved in an effort 'to extend the "Dublin Pride'' concept to the entire community and have a special community clean-up, fix-up, paint-up type week and encouraged businesses to also participate. In addition, when the City negotiated its franchise agreement with the garbage company, we provided for, in the rate structure, 2 free community pick-up days for customers of Dublin-Livermore Disposal Company, and in addition, through some special funds obtained from the garbage company, the City was able to fund an additional 2 pick-ups, thereby providing 4 Saturday clean-up days throughout the year. Mr. Rankin identified that the next scheduled pick-up day will be on Saturday, April 23rd. For 2 years, the Council attempted to evaluate the results of the voluntary efforts to encourage people to maintain their properties, and found that it was not reaching the objective that they had desired. Each year, the City Council, in a public meeting, meets to decide their goals and objectives for the upcoming year. In February, 1987, the development of a property maintenance ordinance was identified at their meeting as a high priority for the Building and Safety Department. In addition, prior to the ordinance actually coming to the City Council, a resident spoke at a meeting in August, again requested that the Council consider the development of such an ordinance. Because of the misinformation and incorrect assumptions that have arisen, Staff prepared a sample timeframe report scenario for discussion and explanation purposes. The example used was that a reported violation occurred involving broken furniture left in a front yard. The scenario identified that a total of at least 83 days would elapse before the situation could be abated or a citation written. Staff felt that the example presented represents a best case scenario, and in most actual cases the 83 days would be exceeded. Staff felt that it was important to note that every opportunity will be made to provide the resident with an opportunity to correct the violation. A ~'reasonable person" standard will be used to determine the time allowed. Flexibility would exist in order that an attractive nuisance to children could require faster compliance. Staff felt that the current language in the Ordinance would allow adequate time for a response by the property owner. The Ordinance also allows the opportunity to grant additional time. At the February 8, 1988 Council meeting, Staff advised that the Ordinance would be enforced on a complaint-basis. The initial investigations would be conducted by the Zoning Investigator, which is consistent with the enforcement policy adopted by Council Resolution on other zoning matters. CM-7-103 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 In July, 1984, the Council adopted Resolution No. 75-84, which establishes a procedure for the enforcement of Zoning, Building and Housing Violations. Staff could prepare an amendment to the Resolution to include the Property Maintenance Ordinance. This would help avoid an inconsistent application of the property Maintenance Ordinance and confirm that Staff actions are in accordance with the policy desired by the City Council. In order to correctly disseminate information to the public, Staff prepared a report in a "Question & Answer" format. Mr. Rankin advised that it appears, from questions received at City Offices, that many individuals are not aware of all provisions of the Ordinance and that some have read sections out of context. City Staff and the Assistant City Attorney have met and discussed the Ordinance in detail. As with any written document, it is possible that additions can be made to clarify the City Council's intent. Within the Question & Answer section, there are some issues raised which may be different from the City Council's intent. One policy issue relates to the exclusion of all non-residential buildings. This may be appropriate for some of the specified nuisances, while inappropriate for others. For example, graffiti on a commercial building visible from a public street may constitute a nuisance, however, this Ordinance would not be applicable. Another section which may be a candidate for revision would be the inclusion of the word backyard in the definition of property. Staff's understanding was that the Council's intent was to only apply backyards to attractive nuisances contained in Section 2.1(e)o The majority of backyards would not be visible from public streets and this would provide for consistent treatment of all property owners. Mayor Jeffery indicated that in order to allow everyone an opportunity to speak~ it would be necessary to limit each speaker to 3 minutes. Harvey Tulchinsky, 8917 San Ramon Road, reported that he has been a member of the community for 22 years. He is President of the Dublin Cha~nber of Commerce and he reported that the Chamber did support the ordinance~ and that perhaps language clarifications would be appropriate. Harold Kleckner, 7885 Firebrand Drive, expressed concern regarding rental property. He questioned the definition of owner, and what if the owner cannot get the tenants to fix things. He is in the insurance business, and sees a lot of heavy tenant damage. He felt the City should go after the tenants. Mr. Kleckner questioned if the City would be responsible for the property if the tenant destroys it. City Attorney Nave explained that the definition of owner would be any person shown on the latest Assessor Parcel Rolls, or the leasee, tenant or other person having control or possession of the property. Mr. Nave indicated that this is a matter between the landlord and the tenant. CM-7-104 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 Zev Kahn, 11708 Harlan Road, indicated that he is a Physician who has taken a concerned interest in Dublin over the last few years. He currently serves as Vice Chair of the Dublin School Facilities Improvement Task Force. Mr. Kahn expressed sadness at the events that have taken place with regard to this new ordinance. The attack by Mr. Burton and his followers has done nothing to instill pride in the City. The national media coverage brings a negative impact to our City and attempts to further a negative image of Dublin. Mr. Kahn indicated he was present at the second City Council meeting dealing with the ordinance. He found out about the meetings because of his attempt made to know what is going on in the City. The meetings are noticed and the agendas are posted in City Offices, as well as the Library before each meeting. He pays $11 per year and gets his agendas mailed to his home. Having been a public figure at one time, Mr. Burton should know how to keep aware of what happens at City Council meetings. You can always call City Offices to find out what's going on and you can state your concerns to the City Council at their meetings. He did not see Mr. Burton or Mr. Babbitt at the previous meetings when the ordinance was considered. If you don't like how an issue is handled then you should make yourself an informed citizen. The elected representatives have been willing to listen to issues. Mr. Kahn indicated that he did not appreciate this negative impact on the City. He blamed the press for not regularly keeping up with the issues on a timely basis. He blamed people like Dave Burton and Don Babbitt who fail to take notice of the positive attributes of Dublin. Mr. Button's irresponsibility encourages people to not have responsibility. He took exception to Mr. Babbitt disappearing from the public scene after his loss in the 1986 Council election° He questioned when was the last time Mr. Babbitt attended a Council or Planning Commission meeting or volunteered his time and effort to this City. Everyone living in Dublin should take pride in the community, or leave it. Jeanne Landreth, 7236 Burton Street, indicated she was in favor of the ordinance, but also opposed to it. The blanket approach and the language is almost frightening. She has lived here for 12 years and felt the quality of life in Dublin has decreased steadily from the time she moved here, particularly since we became a City. She stated that perhaps she lives in a fantasy world. She does not attend every Council meeting. She indicated she felt uncomfortable and felt intimidated and unwelcome to speak. She was opposed to the idea of the garbage cans. Her cans are located on the side of her house in order that the garbage men don't let her pets out of her backyard. She indicated she was tired of Dublin's knee-jerk reaction to other cities, and tired of being the tri-valley step-sister. We should try to create things for other cities to envy. Kenneth Johnson, 7865 Tamarack Drive, has lived in Dublin for 18 years. He is known as a dirty old man who takes a nip of the bottle and loves dancing. He indicated he was a little reluctant about the City Council's and the City Manager's way of coming across with this clean-up area. He felt the City Manager could pick the person that he wants to come around and inspect the property. This is fine, but who is to say that he may have a ~'good old boy" that's a builder going around to inspect the buildings. Deals could be made and money could pass under the table. It has been known to happen. He felt CM-7-105 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 the question and answer report clarified some things, but it doesn't excuse some things. He felt something should be done to promote a little friendliness, where people won't feel unwanted. Beauty with pride would make more sense. Martha Burden, 7332 Glenoaks Way, stated she wished to establish the fact that she is not opposed to cleaning up the City. However, she felt this is a sledgehammer approach. The ordinance should be rewritten in a more applicable manner. The Mayor, the Council and the City Manager are here to serve the people, not to alienate them. There is a right approach and a wrong approach. You don't have to use threats and intimidation to get people to do what should be done. She felt people did a lot better managing themselves than the City Manager has. She hoped this could be corrected. There is a lot of hostility and a lot of misunderstanding. Mayor Jeffery questioned if Ms. Burden could specifically state some of the areas she felt needed to be reworded. Ms. Burden indicated she did not have a brief with her, but could bring this to the City. One of the things that particularly bothered them was the power of the City Manager to appoint somebody from his office to come out and issue these citations or to arrest people. If this is the case, why do we have duel police forces. Mr. Ambrose advised that the Police Chief reports to the City Manager. If something involved a health and safety issue that was so serious and an individual refused to leave, which has happened on 1 occasion under our housing code, a Building Inspector actually had to call the police department to have somebody removed from the premises. This is how the process actually works. The City is not planning to create a duplicate police force or inspection or patrol group that has been publicized. Ms. Burden felt the wording of the ordinance issues ultimatums, and people do not respond well to ultimatums. Verbally, this sounds very mellow, but the written ordinance is frightening. Sections need to be rewritten in layman terminology and with consideration of the citizens. City Attorney Nave responded that the ordinance does not provide for anyone to be arrested. The misdemeanor portion of the ordinance only comes into play when there has been 3 citations within 1 year to an individual. As pointed out by Mr. Rankin at the beginning of the meeting, the likelihood of any arrests being undertaken by the Sheriff of this County or the Police Department of this City for a misdemeanor of this nature is highly unlikely. John Viscovich, 7446 Larkdale Avenue, has lived in Dublin for 22 years. He was a former school teacher and businessman. He felt we were better controlled when we were under the County. The ordinance does not specific- ally say what is an eyesore. He just recently returned from Yugoslavia and was concerned with all the you can't do this and you can't do that mentality. If he wanted to live in this type of a situation, he would have bought into a homeowner's association type of situation. He wants freedom in his home, and felt there were enough Alameda County laws on the books currently to take care of this type of an ordinance, lie felt it was unneeded. CM-7-106 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 Helen Wagenhoffer, 11713 Serra Court, indicated she was in favor of this ordinance and was behind the City Council and the City Manager. We do need ordinances in Dublin for clean-up. She stated she would welcome anyone in Dublin to observe certain areas around town where there is garbage and yards are terrible, and nuisances exist. Mabel Raglin, 7458 Larkdale Avenue, indicated she was happy to see such a good turnout. She and her husband presented a petition containing approximately 50 signatures supporting the ordinance. She indicated that the people are in favor of clean-up. She has been here for 26 years and loves Dublin. She felt the word ugly was the easiest way to explain what the community wanted to get rid of. If something is not pretty~ it's ugly. Everyone should go home and try to look at their home from someone else's point of view and ask themselves if it is nice looking or if is it ugly. She has seen a lot of people out working painting and pulling weeds. Under the County we were unrestricted for so long that we have gotten just like a comfortable old pair of'worn out shoes. We are now wondering how we let this happen. She would not want her property to devaluate someone else's property. She wants to be proud to say she lives in Dublin and she has been embarrassed by the news media. She called Channel 7 and told them they were making a laughing stock out of Dublin and that she didn't appreciate it. She wants to be friends with all of her neighbors. We should not blame our City government. We voted to beco~ne a City. The Council is also feeling their way and may be patterning after some other cities, but they are doing it in fairness to residents. They are following guidelines. Most all homeowner associations are much more restrictive. Marie North, 7048 Allegheny Drive, indicated she wanted to echo everything Ms. Raglin had said. She appreciated this because Dublin suffered under County management. She relayed a situation of living next door to people who had 5 dogs that barked night and day and there was nothing she could do about it. With City government, however, she can do something. City representa- tives are elected not by the people that live in Castro Valley, but by the people that live here and if they are not doing what the citizens want them to do, then let someone else. The elected people have enacted something that should have been done 10 years ago. She felt people should get behind them and support them. Bruce Fiedler, 6589 Hemlock Street, indicated that they ~noved into their house about a year ago. They looked at a lot of properties and bypassed several larger, newer and much cheaper homes because they did not look as good as the one they bought in Dublin. Appearance is very important to them. They told their real estate agent not to bother showing them any homes in broken down neighborhoods. He supports the ordinance. Contrary to what he has read in the press, he did not feel that ordinances existing prior to this one were sufficient to meet the needs. The proof of this is the attention that this new ordinance has brought. This ordinance goes right to the heart of things and it provides an orderly process for abatement. He hoped that others, once they read through it, would also support it. Norm Pitchford, 7700 Bonniewood Courts has been a 25 year resident. He and his wife Alice like the ordinance and wanted it developed sooner. A blight condition seems to be contageous. They obtained information from various CM-7-107 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 other cities who have this type of an ordinance. Alice spoke with the City Manager and inspectors in San Leandro about their property maintenance ordinance. Mr. Pitchford felt that San Leandro property values have probably risen. All this ordinance is actually requesting is that people remove the unsightly materials from their front yards. Unattractive sights in the neighborhoods decrease property values thousands of dollars. When one spends 26 years keeping up and improving a piece of~property because it is part of their investment in their standard of living, then that person's rights are being violated by people who have no care for what their property looks like. He urged the Council to keep the ordinance. David Burton, 11396 Dillon Way, presented petitions and stated he would try to recommend where the wording is wrong in the present ordinance. A number of people passed petitions around and just about everyone signed the petitions in the areas that were covered. The petition said that they request that the Council rescind and rewrite the ordinance for the following reasons: the objective of the ordinance is commendable, but the terminology is ambiguous and can be used unfairly in its interpretation. He related to the 8 or 10 pages that Staff used to explain the ordinance, but found it very difficult to match the ordinance with what was explained regarding the intention of the law. There is quite a bid of variances. Mr. Burton stated that the petition continues to state that the ordinance does not state that it will only be enforced on receipt of a complaint. The City Manager has stated this several times, yet he doesn't put it in the ordinance. Mr. Burton stated he had no idea why someone would be afraid to put this into the ordinance. Thru enforcement of this ordinance, the City Manager or his employees can enter private property and arrest the person without due process and win or 'lose, the citizen would have to pay for his defense. All the city's expenses could be charged to a citizen if they lose their appeal and this could be a lot more than the $500 or $100 or $200 that people have been talking about. They have no objection to the health and safety issues~ but they feel the ordinance should be rewritten to delete those enforcement threats to private property rights. The ordinance states that the City Manager is the enforcement officer and shall have the power to designate particular officers or employees to have the authority to arrest persons who violate any said provisions. He heard tonight that we don't do this, but it is in the ordinance. They strongly urged the City Council to form a citizens advisory committee to suggest recommendations that will accomplish the same objectives of improving the appearance of Dublin. They have no problem with everyone not wanting people to have dirty yards and cars and things like that. They do, however, have a problem with what everyone is saying about the ordinance, and what it really says. Nearly 400 signatures were accumulated. There is obviously a lot of misinformation and a lot of hard feelings in the community and bitterness. People should have an opportunity to speak, but also to have ~the ordinance rewritten in a form that will take away this fear. Staff has done this in its explanation and the report was nicely done, but it isn't in the ordinance which is the law. CM-7-108 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 Eric Olson, 7934 Diana Lane, indicated he supports the ordinance. He lived here before incorporation, voted for incorporation, and remembers what it was like living under County government with non-representation. He remembers the broken down fence on Village Parkway. The City Council has put up soundwalls and has encouraged the parks to be redone. The City has made many positive changes. Kolb Park is being completely redone. Mr. Olson stated he would be glad to take anyone on a tour if they doubt that these situations exist. He indicated that someone on his street runs a scrap lumber and steel yard out of his front yard. Two abandoned cars have been sitting there for about 7 years. Applicances sit on the street around the corner from his house. He advised that there is a lot of community support for this ordinance, and urged the Council to continue to support it. Carl Aaron, 7888 Ironwood, felt we need some help in straightening up the place. He suggested that since we have the ordinance on the books, why not try it a while and see how it works. Sandra Reed, 11915 West Vomac Road, stated she was very much in support of this ordinance and would like to see it extended to along San Ramon Road where there is an embankment of dirt. She would like to see this beautified. She moved into her house about 4 1/2 years ago and one of the reasons they moved into the neighborhood was because of the beauty of it. Since that time, they now have 2 neighbors who have let their yards go. Mayor Jeffery advised that the City will be working along San Ramon Road this year. Don Babbitt, 11626 Regio Court, felt everyone was present for the same thing and that is to support this ordinance. They are not trying to turn it down, they support it. As he has stated all along, as a new home owner, he has lived here 28 years and he was in an older neighborhood down by the fire station on Ironwood Drive. Just last year, he bought a brand new home and he plans to stay here. He is now looking at relocating his business from Pleasanton, back to Dublin. He is in total support of this community. He serve on the Rotary Directors, he is a past Director of the Chamber, he serves on the Valley Economic Development Council, Building Industry Assoc- iation Educational Council. He runs a lot of seminars, and golf tournaments for scholarship funds to help educate people. Mr. Babbitt indicated that his concern is some of the ambiguous language that could be cleared up if there were a citizen's advisory committee. This committee could sit down and work with some of the Councilmembers and Staff. He was concerned for the first time buyers in Dublin. It is already hard enough because prices are really high and now with things like this, you might have a situation of a new buyer that would have to realize he needs money 'to keep the place in a state of repair. He is looking for some wording to protect this type of a person, whether it gives them a year and a half or two years to take care of some of the issues. As a new home buyer himself, he is in a state where he has been there almost a year and has put in some landscaping in the back for his kid, but he hasn't done much in the front. He feels a new home buyer needs a reasonable amount of time to get his yard fixed up. With Dublin growing older, he expressed concern regarding senior citizens and disabled people that may not have the financial resources or may not be able to get the work CM-7-109 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 done for whatever reasons. He would like to see some wording in the ordinance to protect them. Supposedly there are some programs to help them financially, so let's get that stated in the ordinance. Mayor Jeffery questioned if Mr. Babbitt's understanding of the ordinance was that it would require people to put in yards. Mr. Babbitt indicated that that's what he reads into it although he did not see anything specific in it. Mayor Jeffery stated that this is not what the City is saying. Mr. Babbitt stated, t~then put that in there". City Attorney Nave responded that it does not say that anywhere in the ordinance. Overgrown vegetation is a lot different than vegetation that doesn't exist. Robert Patterson, 11552 Rolling Hills Drive, has lived here for 2 years. Since becoming a City, Dublin seems to be improving greatly. He supports the ordinance and felt the Council, in this respect has done a great job. People who do keep up their yards have rights to clean neighborhoods. He was against some of the backyard controls mentioned. Mayor Jeffery indicated that most backyards are not 'publicly viewed. Bob Anderson, 7016 Tory Court, has lived here for 13 years. He made some notes concerning a KCBS interview with someone who lives in Dublin. There was some mention of buying a house and how difficult it is to do landscaping and how expensive it is. He did some research at one of our local stores and obtained list prices to purchase grass seed, fertilizer, and redwood compost. The total would be about $26.95 without tax. He thought most people would be willing to spent this amount to make their property look a little nicer. He supported the ordinance. Christine Campbell, 7604 San Sabana Road, commended the Council for putting in this law which will protect the rights of the homeowners who maintain and take pride in their property, and take pride in Dublin. People who don't care or just don't bother that devalue others' property values. There is a section in the Staff Report that discusses the community pride where people had the opportunity to clean up their property. They did not take advantage of it. There is also a progra~n that allows low income people to take advantage of their program to clean up their property. San Leandro has the same program in effect and it has been a considerable success. Property ownership is a responsibility that is assumed when one makes that major investment. If you don't want to take the responsibility, don't buy property. This applies to landlords and everyone else. It is a business. The solution to the fear of arrests or court costs are very simple. Just clean up your property. It doesn't take somebody with a high IQ to figure 'this out° She moved here from Washington about 10 ~nonths ago and she sees this ordinance as a very positive step to change the attitudes of those people that think that Dublin is a second-class community. She requested that the Council please' enforce this ordinance. CH-7-110 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 Randy Livingston, 11462 Bloomington Way, supports the ordinance. There was one thing that has come up that he doesn't understand. He asked that someone explain what weeds are. People seem to be worried that if they have weeds in front of their house they will be cited. Assistant to the City Manager Rankin explained that the section that specifiCally mentions the word weeds reads, ~'dead, decayed, diseased or hazardous trees, weeds or other vegetation constituting unsightly appearance dangerous to public safety and welfare, or visible from the public street". So, it would need to also comply with being dangerous to public safety and welfare. There is also a section related to overgrown vegetation that is likely to harbor rats, vermen and other nuisances. Mr. Livingston felt that the City Council would be open for discussion and possibly making amendments to this law as problems do happen. The first time out, it might need corrections, but he felt the Council would listen. He bought his house about a year ago and he has a nuisance problem across the street. A picture was provided to the Council. He paid almost 1/4 million dollars for his house and there is a vacant lot with a cement slab on it. This is not something one wants to look at every day. George Butler, 8667 Bloomington Court, indicated he was in favor of the ordinance. Bruce Sanderford, 11397 Bloomington Way, indicated he was definitely in favor of this proposal. He recently moved here and he considered this to be one of the better areas in which to live. If he wanted to live in an area which had unsightly objects on the lawn, he would have moved to Oakland. Candi Larson, 7313 Castle Drive, indicated she has always been in favor of an ordinance such as this. She was flipping the television channel last week and saw some familiar neighborhoods and couldn't believe that some very unsightly homes in Dublin were being broadcast from San Francisco to Atlanta, and beyond, over CNN News. She highly resented that Dublin was shown in such a negative light. She thought people viewing it would say we must be crazy if we think we don't need this ordinance when you look at those messes, and then for Mr. Burton to stand up there to say that we didn't. Mrs. Larson felt Mr. Babbitt was a consumate politician as she saw a total flip-flop tonight in front of everybody. This man has gone out totally against this ordinance and then stands up here tonight and totally flip-flops his position. He is obviously testing his constituency and thank heavens tonight his constituency is very much in favor of this ordinance. It is unfair to a responsible homeowner who takes pride to have an uncooperative neighbor. She takes a lot of pride in her home and loves to have friendly feelings toward her neighbor. She found it interesting that people who abuse their property only consider you friendly if you are willing to put up with their offenses. These types of unsightly situations can definitely be detrimental when it comes to selling a home. An unkept home next door to a good one definitely brings down the price. This is not socio-economics. She is in a business where she is in people's homes every single day around the entire valley area. She has seen large beautiful homes totally trashed by people who happen to have an attitude problem. She considers her home to be CM-7-111 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 a prized possession as there are very few people in this world that have their own homes and she finds it personnally offensive to see people totally abuse them. She would prefer that an ordinance such as this did not have to exist, but laws are usually enacted because voluntary action is not taken. Thus, people finally have to turn to some kind of lawmaking body where citizens can turn for leverage in getting something corrected. There have been times when she has disagreed with things the Council has done, but she appreciated t~he fact of the time and effort that goes into their job. She appreciated the improvements that the City has made along our major streets. Driving around town, she feels a great sense of pride and she did not feel that Dublin deserves some of the negative stigma it has gotten. People should be made to realize that they do have a responsibility to respect themselves and their neighbors by taking better care of their property. Jack Phillips, 7421Hansen Drive, moved here about 12 years ago. At that time, the appearance of Dublin was tenuous at best. We were being raped and pillaged by County government. The City has gone a long way to correct this situation. They should continue. It appears that there is a lot of rental property in Dublin and he blamed the property owners rather than the renters, as the owners do not bring the property back up to standard when renters move out. He understood that this is expensive, and it is necessary to rent to people that we don't know, but there are services and ways 'to do this. He felt it was the rental property that needs to be looked at, in order to bring it up to standards that we can all live with. Most of the honest homeowners here do take good care of their property. Those that don't are in the minority. It's time that we had something and he supports the measure fully. Carol Keller, 11856 Dublin Green Drive, indicated she has a very pretty house. She felt that Mr. Rankin did a very good job of explaining a lot of unexplained things. She thought it would be a good idea to publicize what he said so that everyone would understand. There is a lot of talk going on in the community 'that is really dumb about this ordinance. Ms. Keller expressed concern regarding a situation next door to her mother who lives in another town. She thought though, that it might be unconsti- tutional, to call someone and tell them she didn't like what they were doing. She asked what if a person was reported and they happened to be on welfare and had no job. If they were barely getting by financially she questioned if the City would step in and clean up the situation. If he can't pay the bill, she questioned what would happen to this person. Does he go to jail and the taxpayers have to pay to keep him in jail? The City would therefore be paying for his clean-up and then to keep him in jailo City Attorney Nave explained that if such a situation were to occur in Dublin, and the process was followed to its conclusion, the individual would have plenty of opportunity to explain his economic straights and why he could not maintain his property to the community's Satisfaction. If, after the appeal process, the City Council determined that the nuisance should be (ioRe abated, the Council would haw~ '-' ..... " ~...~.e ~I. oCll. e~...J._OT'~. ~ 0 ]~ave ~;.e work cost of the work would become a lien on the property, This lien is no~- i~terest bearing and would remain on the property until the property ~as sold, CM-7-112 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 Ms. Keller thought this could be a never ending process, because the City would have to keep up the property. Mr. Nave stated that if a situation such as this were to occur in Dublin, it is the kind of thing that we will learn as we handle. What he stated would be the legal conclusion. Ms. Keller strongly urged that Mr. Rankin's report be publicized somehow. Many people came to the meeting tonight worried that if a neighbor didn't like the color of your eyes, pretty soon this ordinance would require a change. This is what the rumor is. Mayor Jeffery stated she realized this and the purpose of this meeting is to clarify the misinformation. Beatrice Burton, 11396 Dillon Way, has lived here for 13 years. She was very happy to see that we are all of one accord tonight. She hasn't heard one person speak who doesn't want a clean and beautiful City. What doesn't seem to be coming across is that what people have heard in ora]_ promises and clarification, does not conform with the ordinance,.as written. She chal- lenged everyone to read the ordinance carefully to see if it is what they really want. The problem that she sees is whether the price is too high when you read the ordinance. This ordinance goes far beyond what people have heard tonight. She came to report on what she has heard going door to door carrying a petition. She did not ask that the ordinance be trashed, but that the ordinance be rewritten to conform with our constitutional rights. Ninety four people out of 100 that she contacted felt it should be rewritten with more of an incentive plan toward trying to clean up the City. We are all very proud of what Cmo Snyder has done and contrary to what people have said, she did feel that it was effective. Everyone should thank him and applaud him for what he did. She especially appreciates, the 4 special trash pick-ups per year. Mrs. Burton stated that you learn a lot when you are walking the streets, especially door to door. Several specific situations related to handicapped and elderly people were mentioned. She saw no provisions for hardship circumstances. She heard comments such as "unconstitutional", "unenforce- able'', "who wrote the law anyway?~', "they can't make the ordinance stick", "we want a clean City, but this law is an invasion of our privacy". She also heard concern expressed that it would be unsafe for City Staff to try and enforce this ordinance. One thing that everyone agreed on - to establish a law enforcement body in the City Manager's Office such as described in this ordinance, is a kangaroo court and any enforcement should be done through our existing police department who are trained and it would also be more economical and not a duplication of efforts. Mrs. Burton indicated she was very sorry to see her friend the doctor who chose to personalize ithrough a written statement and make very derogatory remarks about 2 citizens of our community. In return, Mrs. Burton stated that "if his medical ~diagnosis are as impulsive as his social diagnosis, then for God sakes, go to another doctor". CM-7-113 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 Mr. Nave indicated that the ordinance was, in fact, prepared by an attorney, and he feels that the ordinance is constitutional. It is based on a number of laws which have been held to be constitutional by the California Supreme Court, as well as the Supreme Court of the United States. One of the things that the Constitution does require of any law enforcing body is that people be given due process. Everyone is entitled to procedural due process, which means you are entitled to notice and hearing and this applies whether you are talking about Civil Law or Criminal Law. This ordinance is replete with due process. Initial written notice is but one of several that occur all the way through the appelant process. An individual does not have to agree with the City Council, who sits as the appellant tribunal, and this is no different from any zoning matter. It is the City Council who determines if'there is a zoning violation or whether any other type of law has been violated. Any person who does not agree with a Council decision can take their case to a court of law. This City of Dublin follows a City Manager form of government and the City Manager is entrusted by the citizens and the City Council with the day-to-day operation of government in the City. This is common in most of the cities within the State of California. As the top official for this City, he has the right to appoint any individual on the City Staff to do any lawful undertaking such as the Zoning Enforcement Officer can be appointed by the City Manager to be the investigating officer. So, any responsibility given by this ordinance to the City Manager is consistent with the laws in the State of California as they relate to the City Manager form of government. City Manager Ambrose advised that he is held accountable by the Mayor and the City Council and if the citizens and the Council feel that he is not enforcing Council. policy in the form of an ordinance, the Council can fire him or give him different direction. The Council are the top elected officials in this City and he has the day-to-day responsibility for enforcement of all ordinances within the City of Dublin. Some of these responsibilities are delegated to Department Heads such as the Police Chief or the Building Official, but he is still ultimately responsible for enforcement and if it is done improperly, the Council holds him responsible. Bob Brester, 6712 Birch Court, did not feel that most people remember what this was when it all started. He saw this town many years ago when it was an orchard. It was very embarrassing to go to work and have the whole world tell him what a joke ihis town is. He works for the government and everyone nationwide, knew about the joke in Dublin. He and his wife are very involved in sports and other community activities and to have someone tell him that his grass or his yard or his house isn't painted right and they're going to bill him for it, that's absurd. If you want an ordinance to clean up the town, that's fine, but there should be some definite guidelines on how far this Council or anybody else can go to enforce it. There are a lot of people who cannot afford some of these things. In response to the man who indicated it only cost $26 to Put in a yard, perhaps someone can't afford to feed their new baby. Everytime iyou turn around, the water bill goes up, PG&E goes up. He has raised 5 kids iand it is very expensive. A poll was taken and 95% of the graduating students in this town thought they were going to get a car for graduation. People are trying to bring up their kids to think for themselves and do for themselves and respect themselves and their neighbors, and now you CM-7-114 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 are going to pass laws. If he wanted a glass house like the places up in Blackhawk where everything is done for him - he works 7 days a week and when he's not in sports he doesn't have a lot of time, but his house looks pretty nice most of the time because he takes pride in it. This is not because somebody made an ordinance and told him he has to keep it painted and the grass cut. To tell him that he has to put his clothesline in the middle of his backyard and take space away from his dogs and family and grandkids, because somebody might see it, is totally absurd. If it were an eyesore or danger to somebody where they would get hurt, then he could understand it. There's already laws for all of this stuff. He has been involved in enough legal litigations over lawsuits to know that there's laws to cover everything we've talked about. If the people want this, that's fine, but you must put governing lines on the ordinance where the people cannot tread. In Concord, you cannot work on your car more than 20 minutes in your driveway and he felt this was ridiculous. Mike Phyillaier, 7629 Brighton Drive, stated that it was mentioned that we need laWs so that we will have something to enforce. He wasn't sure about everyone else, but he commutes to work and there is a 55 mph speed limit which is the law, but he doesn't abide by it. Just because there is a law doesn't necessarily mean that people will abide by it. He does not oppose the ordinance, but does oppose what is trying to be done by regulating and questioned what residents will do when their water is shut off. Weeds will grow. The City was at fault because they put a 15" main over his sewer pipe and it broke, but they told him it was his fault. He dug up his whole lawn trying to find his problem and it ended up it was the City's problem. He ruined his front yard and then there was a water shortage and so he did not have a front yard, but did have some weeds and roots and it was a real eyesore. He questioned if the City was set for discrimination. The way everybody is sue happy nowadays concerned him, and everyone is in with a lawyer one way or another. If somebody comes to his house and says that his yard isn't this or that and we go through this just process and he ends up with a lien on his house, they'd better make sure that every house in this City which has 1 item for which he has been cited, and they have not, then the City is going to get sued for discrimination. He hoped there was something in this ordinance that would make up for that. If something is bad in one place, it's bad in another, so we are going to be writing and citing a lot of people. San Leandro has been mentioned several times, but he can take you to San Leandro and show you. some bad weeds and peeling paint and everything else. Just because they have the ordinance, something is wrong, either their wording or their enforcement of it. His main concern was that just because we pass this ~ordinance doesn't mean that all this stuff is going to go away. He felt there were enough problems in our City right now that we don't need this little add-on problem which could occur by putting an ordinance together that some of the wording is not really clear. Our City AttorneY, who should be dealing with other legal things will be affected in small matters. For $125 per hour, he did not feel he should be wasting time getting somebody to cut their weeds. Cm. Snyder indicated that Mr. Phyillaier talked about the City installing a water main through his yard. Cm. Snyder clarified the fact that the City has no responsibility for water or sewer services. He was concerned that the public was getting misinformation. CM-7-115 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 Mr. Phyillaier stated that the City installed a 15" water main down through the street, over his sewer line, that broke his sewer line and he went to the City and told them that he had a sewer problem. The City, in fact, said no, it's not our problem. Mr. Phyillaier indicated he went to the City and a settlement check came from the City. City Manager Ambrose indicated he would get some more specifics regarding this item. He clarified the fact that the Dublin San Ramon Services District is the water service provider and perhaps Mr. Phyillaier thought he was dealing with the City, but the Dublin San Ramon Services District is a separate political entity that has a separately elected Board of Directors. The City does not join responsibilities with DSRSD. Jack Easterling indicated he did not live in Dublin but has been familiar with Dublin since 1960. He felt there was a concern about the wording and also about the area being nicer. He commended the Council for what they are doing. He has taken the time to drive around the area and he has found that the homes upon the hill are well kept up and the homes down in the old village are not kept up. His observation was that a lot of the homes in the old village are rentals. There are also a lot of boats on lawn areas. Ryan, Box 5117, Pleasanton questioned if he could get a citation if an investigator finds a violation while investigating an initial complaint. City Manager Ambrose responded no, they have to go through the dUe process that has been described tonight. If the Zoning Investigator finds a violation, they would bring the information back to his office, after giving the individual a reasonable opportunity to remedy the violation. Ryan questioned if you could have a violation without a citation. Mr. Ambrose stated this would be correct. Ryan then questioned what would tell you that you have a violation. Mr. Ambrose stated that the citation is the enforcement action, or the result of proving that there is a violation and enforcing that particular portion of the ordinance. Ryan felt that then the answer to his question was yes. If you cOme in and find something else, you can get cited for it or whatever you call it that causes him to do something that the City can come after you. Mr. Ambrose stated that this would not occur until we have gone through the hearings. Ryan questioned what hearings. Mr. Ambrose stated he referred to the hearings we have been discussing all evening. Cm. Snyder clarified that if he has a violation relative to this ordinance and the Zoning Investigator or whoever the investigator might be, goes to his place of residence, responding to this complaint, and sees an illegally parked vehicle, the Zoning Investigator or whoever then has the obligation on behalf of the City to also find the violation. Mr. Rankin clarified that provided that violation allowed a citation, which means that you. are directed to go to the Municipal Court. Staff felt there was confusion regarding "a person can be cited", not "a citation applied to a cite". There is a difference to the terminology. CM-7-116 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 Ryan questioned what makes a clothesline in the back yards along San Ramon Road different than one in a sideyard partially blocked by a fence. Mayor Jeffery indicated this would be one of the questions the Council would be addressing. Ryan felt this ordinance should be enforced all over the City and not wait for a complaint. Otherwise, there are too many chances 'for retribution and people getting mad at each other, and filing frivilous complaints. This should be changed. Chuck Smith, 7881 Firebrand Drive, stated he was opposed to this ordinance. When this first came up 3 years ago, over at Shannon Park, the people were firmly against it then and this was why it got dropped, not because the Council thought it was a.bad ordinance. The people were against it and the Council tried to go on the incentive program and it didn't work out. Mr. Smith stated he would be happy to pick up appliances and cart them to the dump if people wanted him too He goes to the dump every couple of months anyway. He did not want to see anyone being harrassed or getting a ticket because it's there. He has an RV and a boat and is having a run of bad luck blowing engines and everything. He cannot afford to have the engines replaced at $35.00 an hour, and the next thing you know the City will be 'telling him he can't work on his own boat in his driveway. This is a bunch of junk and he felt it was a harrassment tactic on everybody's part. Cm. Snyder stated that the reference to boat repair in his driveway is relative to an ordinance which was passed 2 years ago and is dealt with in a different fashion and doesn't relate to this ordinance. Mro Ambrose reported 'that it was the RV ordinance that addressed only recreational vehicles on private property, not property maintenance. This was the hearing that was held at Shannon Community Center, and the ordinance was adopted. Joan Bennett, Amador Valley Boulevard, stated that she felt ~ith regard to trash cans, there is nothing ~rong with a trash can sitting on the side of the house as long as it has a lid. She felt it ~as ridiculous to have to keep it in your backyard. Cm. Snyder felt that perhaps people did not kno~ that they don't have to put their trash can out unless they want to. Dublin pays for its residents to have backyard pickups. Randy Brower, Bloomington Way, felt you can never please people 100%. There are always 2 sides to every story. We live in a democracy where everyone talks about it and we all decide, and whatever most of us want, that's the way things go. From the comments this evening~ it certainly sounds like ~nost everyone wants to have something on the books that will create a nice place to live and keep things from getting too bad. Many people have brought up some good points and it appears that the Council is willing to review them and take 'them into consideration° It appears that the City has a good system. If someone has special circumstances, these types of things would be addressed during the hearing process. He doubted the City would take a lady CM-7-117 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 who was incapable of doing so~nething and say your only choice is to leave the neighborhood. He was firmly in favor of ~the ordinance, and felt the main thing is even though it may not work 100% in the beginning, the important thing is to do something° You try it and see what works and down the road you can make corrections. Ail the people who say no to this and no to that, don't do anything. This just prevents anything from being accomplished. In addition to those who spoke, slips were presented to the City Clerk from others who did not wish to address the Council. People who indicated they were opposed to the ordinance included' Rene Coffey, 8644 Deervale Road Phillip Martinez, 7087 Allegheny Drive R. Soto, 6761 Oak Court Thomas Duda, 7359 Hansen Drive Beth DeRoos, 8467 Deervaie Road Sandra Morones, 8657 Davona Drive People who indicated they were in favor of the ordinance included' Terry Lacey, 7045 Prince Drive Marsha Koutz, 8172 Vomac Road Alice Pitchford, 7700 Bonniewood Court Resident, 8274 Cardiff Drive Mary and Michael Grover, 7626 San Sabana Frank Salaiz, 7021 Tory Court John W. Leal, 1627 159th Avenue, San Leandro C. Garcia, 8466 Wicklow Lane Kay Abreu, 11o_2 Amarillo Court Marcia Bonasch, 11453 Rampart Drive Bert Jamison, 11625 Amarillo Court James L. Abreu, 11622 Amarillo Court Val Hatheway, 7415 Mancini Court Mayor Jeffery thanked everyone for expressing their views on this item and reported that she would now close the public hearing, and 'the Council would deliberate. Cm. Hegarty questioned if the Council made changes in the Ordinance, does it need to go through complete process again. He expressed appreciation that so many people came out to discuss this. City Attorney Nave reported that if the Council makes changes, the amended Ordinance would be introduced and then the Ordinance would go through the normal process. Cm. Hegarty stated that with regard to clotheslines, he had no problem allowing them in side yards. Thirty-five or 40 years ago, everyone hung their clothes out. He also indicated that he would have no problem putting into the Ordinance the fact that it will be enforced on a complaint basis only. It was never anyone's intention to treat the people of this City with CM-7-118 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 some of the adjectives he has read in the paper in the last couple of weeks. It was not his intention to have the City Manager out playing policeman. Cmo Hegarty suggested putting the Staff Report in an upcoming Newsletter, or request the Press to publish the report. Cm. Moffatt felt that people who have questions should call City Offices or the City Council. In this way, they would receive correct information. Block grant funds are available that can be utilized to help people who are unable to financially afford to fix up their properties. Mr. Ambrose advised that the total amount of money received through the block grant fund is fairly small, so it is administered by the County. Cm. Moffatt felt we should define some of the definitions in the Ordinance. He stated he would hope to keep 99% of the Ordinance. Cm. Vonheeder questioned Planning Director Tong with regard to approximately how many complaints were received after adoption of the RV Ordinance. Mr. Tong responded that he thought about 50 complaints were received. Cm. Vonheeder felt ,the Ordinance was a little bit subjective in that we all have opinions on what is good and what is pretty. There is a very lengthy process of appeal in order to make sure that both sides get a fair chance. The issue of trash cans seems to have been blown out of proportion. She thanked everyone for coming to the meeting to be heard. Cm. Snyder stated that the City Manager has been attacked as one who creates ordinances of this type. Cm. Snyder stated that the City Manager has had no hand other than guiding the ordinance through the process. The City Council, with encouragement from the community instigated it. Reading from a recent letter to the editor, Cm. Snyder stated that the City Manager is not a power hungry City Manager who concocts dumb laws. Mr. Ambrose is a very responsive individual of our community. Cm. Snyder indicated he would like to review the section of the ordinance which relates to 'trash cans and also the section in side yards. Consideration should be given to in their side yards. He saw no problem in revie~ 'them in side yards. Cm. Snyder stated he has serious concerns when sc trying to convince people that this is a bad ordi they go and take phrases out of context. The pe¢ On motion of Cm. Snyder~ seconded by Cm. Moffatt~ Council directed that Staff review the sections ¢ that relates to clotheslines those who have clotheslines ,ing this section to allow .~neone goes door-to-door nance, particularly when .pie are mislead. and by unanimous vote, the .f Ordinance No. 7-88 that relate to trash cans, and clotheslines, to define complaint only process~ and provide further definition of property nuisance. The verbage should be made clearer. @%~%~%@%@%~1o@?~1o~!o@?~1o~1o@%~@%@%~1o~!o~1o~!o@%~1o@%~Io~io@%~/o@?o~/o@ CM-7-!19 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 RECESS A short recess was called. was reconvened. Ail Councilmembers were present when the meeting PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHMENT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES FOR THE EXTENSION OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD. BETWEEN DOUGHERTY ROAD AND THE SPRR RIGHT-OF-WAY AND FOR A CONNECTING ROAD BETWEEN THE DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION AND SCARLETT COURT Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that the existing General Plan identifies the general location of the Dublin Boulevard extension with an implementing policy to develop a plan line for a 6-lane divided extension from Dougherty Road to Parks RFTA boundary. This roadway extension is proposed as a 6-lane facility to serve as an arterial to the extended planning area east of Dougherty Road. This road is the only connection to the extended planning area shown in the General Plan. The Dublin Boulevard extension is ultimately planned to extend through the extended planning area and to tie into North Canyons Parkway in the City of Livermore. Dublin Boulevard will serve as a frontage road to 1-580. The adoption of a right-of-way line for the extension will reserve the area specified in the proposed ordinance presented. Adoption of the ordinance will not result in immediate acquisition of any property but rather, its effect is to prohibit construction of buildings in the designated area and to require dedication of the right-of-way under certain circumstances upon future construction. Staff advised that several traffic and land use issues were identified in connection with the proposed right-of-way lines. The lines have been designed to incorporate features which will mitigate adverse impacts. The issues and mitigation features were presented in the Staff Report which related to traffic and land use. The amount of land or building required for individual parcels was discussed in detail in the Environmental Assessment Initial Study. Mitigation measures made a part of the project are described in the Negative Declaration. Staff stated that the extension alignment at Dougherty Road is proposed to be a right angle to Dougherty Road. Alignments which ranged five degrees north and south from a right angle were also examined to see if impacts on existing structures would differ. In all scenarios, the building at the Valley Boat House would be eliminated upon ultimate construction of the street. A right angle intersection is the superior alternative from a design and safety standpoint. Three main alignments were considered. Ail 3 scenarios would required about the same amount of land. Impacts to improvements and existing businesses increase as the line is moved south. CM-7-120 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 If 'the land dedicated, to the extension of Sierra Lane is exchanged for an equal amount for the dedication and improvement of Dublin Boulevard extension, 78.5 feet of right-of-way would be required across the south of the Bridgepoint properties. A balance of 31.5 feet of right-of-way would be required from the properties south of the Bridgepoint properties. The option being prOposed would minimize impacts to the usability of vacant property and would result in fewer costs to the City for constructing the street. Bridgepoint Properties would install frontage improvements for Dublin Boulevard instead of Sierra Lane. The alignment of a connecting street between Dublin Boulevard extension and Scarlett Court is needed 'to improve circulation in the project area. Adjacent to and west of the Alameda County Flood Control Channel is a private road (32.76 feet wide) which could provide access. On the east side of the Channel is a private access easement. Individually, neither one of these accessways is of sufficient width for a public street. Together, however, they could serve as a one-way couplet. This alignment has a minimal impact on existing businesses, as the alignment and right-of-way are currently being used for traffic. In addition, the Channel meets Scarlett Court around the midpoint of its length, making access to the connecting road centralized. Staff explained the effects on the individual parcels: Miracle Auto Paint' Would remove 6 parking spaces from the front of the parcel. The proposed right-of-way would be about 27 feet from the front of the building. Crown Isuzu: Would re~nove a triangle of land approximately 100 feet long and 3 feet wide on the Scarlett Court frontage which is now being used to display cars. Valley Boat House: Would remove the sales building and leave the remaining parcel too small for the boat sales business requiring a complete purchase of this property. Curtis Dodge: Would remove the back half of the existing building on the site together with approximately 1/3 of the rear of the parcel. This may be a total or partial purchase of the parcel depending on the viability of the remainder of the parcel for the existing or other use. Dublin Rock and Ready: Would remove the residence and garage at the rear of the parcel. Dolan Lumber: Would remove a 31 1/2 foot strip of lumber storage at the rear of the parcel. Busick: Would remove 31 1/2 foot strip of paved parking area at the rear of the parcel. Dory Cadillac' Would require the removal of the service building at the rear of the parcel and a 31 1/2 foot strip of land now under the building. CM-7-121 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 U-Haul: Would remove 31 1/2 feet of a proposed parking area at the rear of the parcel. The proposed right-of-way would be approximately 23 feet away from the proposed U-Haul building. Lemoine: Would remove 31 1/2 feet of vacant storage area at the rear of the parcel. Bridgepoint: Would remove 78 1/2 feet of vacant property along the southerly property lines of these parcels. Timing of the improvement may be dependent upon de~nand from development of the extended planning area to the east. Development may be 2 to 5 years from now. If an assessment district is formed, the roadway could be designed and built within a 1-year time period. Preliminary estimated costs to acquire property, relocate businesses (and residents), design the improvements, and construct the roadway would be about $8.2 million. These costs represent approximately $6.8 million for the Dublin Boulevard extension and $1.4 million for the connecting road between Scarlett Court and Dublin Boulevard. Several options exist for paying for this project, including an assessment district for adjacent property owners and off-site improvement requirements for future development to the east. Staff advised that at this meeting, one of two optional ordinances is being proposed for introduction, depending upon whether or not protests were made and denied. Cm. Moffatt questioned with regard to the property where the cul-de-sac is located - would the cul-de-sac remain there or will it be shifted over. City Engineer Thornpson advised 'that the proposal was for the Bridgepoint people to dedicate and improve this in exchange that they would not wind up with double frontage. In addition, they have offered to pay their fair share of the additional off-site improvements. Cm. Moffatt stated the reason for his question was if the Sierra cul-de-sac is eliminated, why not put the whole thing on the other side of the road. He also questioned the timeline, stating that if in 20 years it doesn't happen are the people still held in abeyance forever and ever. Mr. Thompson stated that it does get ~pretty thin back there and it does ~nake for long narrow lots. He advised that they have requested the City to look at an assessment district. A tentative map has been filed, which is currently going through the process at ~s time, to ~ealign the street Cm. Snyder questioned if the bulb in the street belongs to the City. Mr. Thompson advised that the street has been offered for dedication, but has not yet been accepted. Each of the parcels owns a proportionate share of the street. Cm. Snyder questioned what would happen to the drainage canal, would it be covered. CM-7-122 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 Mr. Thompson advised that there would be a one-way couplet with traffic going north on one side and south on the other side. A small portion could be covered, if necessary. Lew Doty indicated he feels it will be great to put the street through. He did, however, have concerns related to his property. It will take his rear building and service bay. Also, a lot of parking spaces will be taken. The major problem is that he must conform to General Motors' guidelines as far as space is concerned. If the City takes this space and General Motors no longer approves his property, where does he turn? He questioned if the City would buy the rest of his property so he could move. City Attorney Nave advised that this would be a consideration and is certainly a possibility. If General Motors were to inform him of this, the City could buy the entire property. Also, the City would pay relocation benefits to relocate the busines to a suitable location. Mr. Nave gave an explanation of acquisition issues, and what is provided by law when a public agency acquires land. The law compels the City to offer to any business owner prior to the commencement of any eminent domain proceedings, the fair market value of the property. That offer is premised on an appraisal that the law requires the City to obtain and the portions of that appraisal are furnished to the property owner so he has an understanding of what the City's offer is premised on. If they do not agree with the City's offer, they have the right to litigate in a court of law in what is known as a condemnation act. They would be entitled to several items of compensation in the condemnation action, depending upon how much property is taken in eminent domain. If they own a parcel of property, all of which was needed for a public project, they would be entitled to the fair market value of the entire parcel of land, based on the land value and improvement value of any building that may be on the property that is taken. The law also provides that in the event of a partial taking, such as the Lew Doty dealership, that if you can establish that there is severance damages which accrue to the remainder that is not taken, they are entitled to be paid severance damages. Severance damages can be offset by special benefits, i.e., a court of law or a jury might find that having frontage on Dublin Boulevard has a monetary value greater than severance damages which would accrue by reason of the project to the remaining line. In the event that a business is interrupted permanently, and it can be established to the satisfaction of a court that reasonable efforts have been made to prevent a loss of goodwill, they are entitled to establish what value the goodwill has and would be entitled to claim that loss of goodwill in the framework of the condemnation action. They would also be entitled to relocation benefits which primarily consist of the public agency furnishing them with suitable locations, if there are any, to relocate the business. It would also include reasonable moving expenses. Mr. Nave explained that tenants also have the same rights. They are entitled to be relocated and have the same relocation benefits that have accrued to the owner of the business. As far as compensation for fair market value, they would not be entitled. They are entitled, however, to claim loss of goodwill, if same is lost by the taking. CM-7-123 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 Lew Doty questioned if anyone had a ballpark guess as to when this will happen. Mr. Thompson advised that if the assessment district goes ahead, it could probably happen within the next year. If it doesn't, it could be 2 to 5 years. City Manager Ambrose indicated that this is a very very expensive proposition to the City and at this point, the City feels that it needs to be paid for by those people who benefit by it. The City is not in a position to financially support a project of this magnitude. Ryan questioned who the people were that would incur the expense. Mr. Ambrose explained that we are attempting to ascertain whether there is enough interest in an assessment district at this point in time. Some of the improvements could be built through an assessment district by those property owners that would benefit in the vicinity of the roadway. If formation of the assessment district is not successful, then we would look to other property owners to the east that would require an extension for the development of their properties. John Moore, representing Bridgepoint Properties, indicated he supports the action that the Planning Commission has 'taken on this item. He urged the Council to follow through and take a similar action. They do not wish hardship on some of the property owners that will be potentially negatively affected by the relocation of businesses, but he did recommend that the Council move ahead with the study that is currently being undertaken. They are trying to work with the study to come up with an acceptable road align- ment and would like to see the road go in as soon as possible. Mr. Moore urged everyone to get plugged into what Staff is coming up with in regard to an assessment district. He pointed out that the assessment district is going to be what the property owners would like it to be rather than something being forced upon them. They need to collectively decide what will and won't work. He would like to see this happen now in order that they can get on with potential business opportunities that he sees with this greatly improved roadway condition. 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 INTRODUCED an ordinance establishing right-of-way lines for the extension of Dublin Boulevard between Dougherty Road and the SPRR right-of-way and for a street connecting the Dublin Boulevard extension with Scarlett Court (without protests), and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 53 - 88 ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION PLAN LINE (DOUGHERTY ROAD TO SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) CITY OF DUBLIN Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 PUBLIC HEA~,ING - ESTABLISI-.II~'IENT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES FOR DUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN DONLON WAY AND AMADOR PLAZA ROAD Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that a plan line was established for Dublin Boulevard between Donlon Way and Amador Plaza Road in 1984. Since the adoption of the plan line, other studies and projects have revealed that future 'traffic on Dublin Boulevard will result in unacceptable traffic volumes at peak hours. A revised plan line which would widen Dublin Boulevard and provide additional left and right turn lanes is proposed. The ~najor difference between the previous and revised plan line is the provision of double right turn lanes on the eastbound approach of Dublin Boulevard to San Ramon Road and triple left turn lanes on westbound approach lanes of Dublin Boulevard to San Ramon Road. There would also be 4 westbound lanes on Dublin Boulevard at the westbound approach to Regional Street. The revised plan line involves modifying the lane striping and the location of portions of the median on Dublin BouleVard between Donlon Way and Amador Plaza Road. Staff explained that this plan line would require the acquisition of various pieces of right-of-way. Although additional right-of-way is required for the revised plan line, no significant structures would have to be demolished. Staff pointed out that all of the lane widths in the proposed revised plan line are of very ~sn standards. It may be possible to slightly reduce lane widths in some areas so as to decrease the amount of private property acquisition required. The revised plan line also includes 2 bus turnouts 84 feet in length. These turnouts are in front of Crown Chevrolet and Toys~_, TM Us. Individual parcel impacts would be' Orchard Hardware Shopping Center: Would begin widening just west of the main driveway into the shopping center then on a straight taper to a widening of I0 feet at the westerly property line and would include an additional 12 feet wide by 140 feet long bus turn out. This would impact 34 parking spaces together with adjacent landscaping. Hibernia Bank' Would taper from a widening of 10 'feet at the easterly property line to 14 feet at '~ ~sional Street and would include removal of some trees and a portion of the landscaped berm. Crown Books' Would not affect this parcel as the 12 foot widening was previously constructed with the development of the parcel. Furnishings 2000' Would continue the 12 foot widening across 'the = '- ~_ron~age of this parcel and would remove front yard landscaping. CM-7-125 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 Shell Service Station: Would taper from an 8 foot widening of the right-of- way at San Ramon Road to 13 feet at the western property line and would affect the landscaped islands and a small portion of the drive isle past the gas pumps. Vacant Restaurant, APN 941-1550-3: Would widen 13 feet at the easterly property line tapering back to the existing right-of-way line at 180 feet west of the easterly property line and would remove portions of the landscaping along the Dublin Boulevard frontage. On the north side of Dublin Boulevard: Wards/Toys R Us: Would widen 12 feet for a bus turnout beginning 75 feet west of the westerly curb return into the shopping center and extend 140 feet westerly. This widening would affect landscaping along the frontage and approximately 15 parking spaces. Mervyns: Would widen 12 feet for a right turn lane approaching Regional Street (160 feet long) and would affect the landscaping along the Dublin Boulevard frontage. Homestead Savings: Would widen 12 feet along the Dublin Boulevard frontage for a right turn lane approaching Regional Street and would remove landscaping along this Dublin Boulevard frontage. Grand Auto: Would widen 9 feet along the Dublin Boulevard frontage and remove most of the landscaping strip up to the existing side of the Grand Auto building. See's Candy Parcel: Would widen 9 feet at the easterly property line flaring to a widening of 21 feet at the westerly property line for the beginning of a right turn lane approaching San Ramon Road. Standard Service Station: Would widen 21 feet across the Dublin Boulevard frontage for a right turn lane and a portion of an additional lane on Dublin Boulevard. It would affect the parking and landscaping along the Dublin Boulevard frontage. 76 Service Station: Would widen 7 feet at the easterly property line and taper to meet the existing Dublin Boulevard right-of-way at the westerly property line. Landscaping: Existing street landscaping will be removed when the road is widened; however, new street trees will be planted in their place. Trees and shrubs on private property that are removed due to the road widening will be replaced on-site, if desired by the property owners. Parking: Much of the land adjacent to the existing right-of-way is used for landscape st~ips and parking. In some locations, the plan line cuts through parking spaces, rendering them unusable. The parking in these areas will be restriped at an angle (or as parallel parking) to preserve 'the maximum number of spaces. CM-7-126 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 Costs: Preliminary estimated costs for the right-of-way acquisition, design, and construction of the road widening is $1.7 million. City Manager Ambrose asked Chris Kinzel if TJKM had done any studies regarding the source of the traffic increase. One of the things that Dublin has been concerned about is the fact that we just completed a road improvement project and a few years ago we were talking about being at a certain service level and now, upon completion of the project, we are already at another service level. There really hasn't been enough development on the western end of town to justify or create this increase in traffic. Mr. Ambrose questioned if any studies had been done to determine what kind of impact the construction of the Stoneridge interchange with 1-680 would have on Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road in terms of its capacity. Mr. Kinzel advised that they had made some general studies, lie indicated a large increase in traffic on Dublin Boulevard in the evening peak hour. This increase is primarily in the northbound direction for both through traffic and traffic turning into the downtown area. There has been some growth and development in the downtown area, but it has not been nearly as high as the traffic growth would indicate, so looking further, they discovered that due to congestion related to construction on Dougherty Road, most of the traffic stays in the right turn lane, looking for alternate ways to get to the downtown area. They feel that when the Stone'ridge.interchange occurs in Pleasanton, which they anticipate will be finally approved by the Federal Highways Administration within 3 to 4 weeks, with construction to begin during 'the summer of 1988, a fair amount of pressure should be taken off San Ramon Road° Diana Lewis indicated that Mervyn's did not receive any paperwork related to this until 5:00 p.m. They do not have an over abundance of parking spaces currently and felt they .would lose business if we take away any parking spaces. Currently they let commuters park in their lot. She is a commuter and as she listened to the description of the 3 lanes, she indicated that people are unwilling to wait in long lines. They will cram up to the stop light and the City will have an even bi~ooer traffic problem. Cm. Snyder reported that we have for a long time tried to deal with the . W~ ~O are commuter par~zng problem and he asked Ms Lewis if the commuters parking in the Mervyn's lot were using the BART buses. Ms. Lewis responded that they are using the BART buses and also vanpools. Cm. Snyder reported that when and if BART finally concludes the development of the 14 acres that they have acquired in Dublin, it is our assumption 'that there will be parking available for 700 cars. This could be within the next couple of years. He questioned if this would relieve or alleviate a lot of the problems with commuters parking in their lot. Woody Dunwoody, a general partner of the partnership that owns the Mervyn's Store questioned when it was anticipated that this work will take place. Mr. Thompson indicated that it' is not scheduled in any of the City's capital projects. CM-7-127 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 City Manager Ambrose stated that we recognize that BART in their develop~nent of this park & ride lot will have an impact on our downtown area and we are concerned and are trying to plan for that so that BART can pay its fair share, as well as any other property owners or developments that impact Dublin Boulevard. In order to be able to do this, we have to have a plan. This is not a project that will be constructed tomorrow, but rather a plan iine that sets the future parameters, or development of Dublin Boulevard in the future so that when some development does impact Dublin Boulevard and adds to the traffic, we can ask them for traffic ~nitigation fees. Mr. Dunwoody questioned how this will be financed, if the City had looked at assessment districts. Mr. Ambrose indicated that we haven't looked at assessment districts, but have looked primarily and attempted to con~e up with other means of traffic mitigation fees that would relate directly to development that impacted that portion of the road. Mr. Dunwoody indicated that this was of concern to him as well as to some of the other property owners that are affected. He did note the possibility of slightly reducing some of the lane widths. He encouraged Staff and the Council to consider this. in the case where some of the landscaping would be destroyed by the taking, would the City require the land owners to restore the landscaping back to original. Planning Director Tong indicated that the City's policy on this would be to work with the property owners to see what their desires are. We would not require the property owner to reduce their parking to maintain the existing amount of landscaping. ~d'r. Dunwoody questioned if there was a provision in the resolution that states that in the case of a partial ~ ' ' ~a~zng that if the landscaping and parking were below what would be the legal minimum requirement that they would still be in conformance with the law. Mr. Tong reported that the Planning Commission initiated a Zoning Ordinance Amendment which would make those properties conforming which would otherwise become nonconforming solely because of this action. They would maintain their conforming status. Patrick Costello, Crown Chevrolet indicated he finds himself in a strange situation in that he agrees with Larry Tong on this issue. .. Carl Thornton, President of Bob's Big Boy, indicated their opposition to this realignment as it would cause them to lose a substantial part of their parking. Losing parking space would greatly affect their business. Mr. Thornton failed to see the need for t'he proposed alignment. They requested that the City not proceed with this or else~ buy their restaurant. Cm. Snyder questioned if they had any reciprocal agreement with Regional Plaza for exchange of parking spaces. CM-7-128 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 Mr. Thornton advised no that the property has been sold and the only recip- rocal agreement they have is a maintenance agreement for the common area driveways. Charles Pillers, Managing Partner of the partnership which owns the Bob's Big Boy property, indicated they wish to go on record as very strongly opposing this particular taking of the property. The City would be destroying business on this corner unnecessarily. The only thing that would make them feel halfway decent would be for the City to sit down and write thegn a check for about $1,200,000. Mr. Pillers felt that for the most part, the traffic patterns and programs that are set up totally ignore the people that are being affected. They are designed for one purpose only and that is to move somebody someplace else, without any consideration as to what the impact is on the immediate area and the businesses there. He suggested that the Council kill this issue before it goes any further, and let the situation take care of itself. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Snyder felt attention should be given to the bus turnout locations in order to interface bus service with LAVTA's Wheels and BART. He felt it was hard to designate bus turnouts on Dublin Boulevard that may or may not be used. It is unfair to-ask businesses to give up property for bus turnouts. It is, however, imperative to look at a plan line for Dublin Boulevard. Cm. Hegarty indicated he felt uncomfortable saying there is no impact after hearing from the business owners. Many times parking spaces become an issue. Improvements need to be made at this intersection, but he wasn't sure what the right answer is. Planning Director Tong clarified that even though there would be no significant impacts on the environment, there could be significant adverse impacts on a business. Cm. Moffatt questioned if there was any urgency to this. City Attorney Nave indicated that t'here is no liability to ene City if it adopts the ordinance. The Council could adopt the ordinance and conceivably wait 15 years and then abandon the project and not have any legal liability. City Engineer Thompson reported that this project was. identified in last years' goals & objectives and in the Capital Improvement Program to get the ' project going. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council continued discussion of this item to the June 13th Council meeting in order to give Staff an opportunity to meet with the property owners. With regard 'to bus turnouts, Staff was directed to request plan lines from BART and Wheels, as we need to advise the bus companies where we want them to stop. Lane widt'hs should also be reviewed, as well as parking agreements between properties. CM-7-129 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING, 6680 REGIONAL STREET HOWARD JOHNSON HOTEL SIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Planning Director Tong explained that in September, 1986, 'the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for a 28 foot tall double-faced freestanding sign totaling 144 sq. ft. of sign area. This sign was never completely constructed. At the time the Planning Commission approved the sign height, sign area, and. sign location, the property had one street frontage (Regional Street) for the purposes of determining the location of the freestanding sign. In January, 1987, as a result of the Applicant's appeal of the Zoning Administrator's and the Planning Commission's actions denying a Variance request to allow two freestanding signs on the parcels the City Council amended the City's Sign Ordinance. The Amendment changed the ordinance to permit 2 freestanding signs on parcels 4 acres or greater situated adjacent to 1-580 or 1-680, subject to approval of a CUP. This amendment also changed the Ordinance by identifying 'the property line adjacent to the freeway as a street frontage for purposes of determining the location, height, area and proportion of a sign. This amendment establishing the rear property line adjacent to 1-580 as a street frontage, resulted in the sign approved under PA 86-081 becoming a nonconforming sign, subject to the amortization process outlined for nonconforming signs in Section 8-87.71 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. On April 29, 1987, a building permit was issued for the 20 foot sign pole; however, the sign face was never erected. The Applicant submitted a revised sign face plan which was approved on May 19, 1987. Agains the sign was not erected and the applicant subsequently revised the proposed sign and a new building permit was issued on September 1, 1987. The Applicant subsequently filed the current Application request for a Variance and Conditional Use Permit. A new CUP is required as the Applicant's current proposal exceeds the sign area previously approved by a total of 12 sq ft. A Variance is required in that the current sign proposal does not comply with the City's Ordinance relating to maximum sign height and sign area and setback requirements. The Applicant's proposed sign area is 95% larger than that which is permitted by the Sign Ordinance based on the proposed location. The proposed sign height is 73% taller than the height permitted by the Ordinance at the proposed location. At the March 21, 1988, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission denied the Applicant's requests as the mandatory findings could not be made to warrant granting the Variance. The Applicant subsequently appealed the action. Johnson Clark pointed out that tomorrow m, orning, if they so desired, they could put up a sign 6' high and 12' wide on the existing poles. They have struggled with this for 1 1/2 years s trying to get a sign up visible from the freeway. CM-7-130 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 Mr. Clark presented a document indicating the amount of money.they had paid to the City in hotel tax funds in the last couple of years. They would like to maintain their 1985 figures. They are competing against 6 hotels in Pleasanton. Cra. Hegarty questioned if the Howard Johnson corporate people would not c~ange the s~n Mr. Clark indicated that the sign they received is larger than what was ordered, due to utilization of standard size tube bulbs. Vegetation has grown up in the last 14 years and the hotel is not very visible from the freeway. Ryan, from Dublin, indicated he has been at several meetings where this has been discussed. He drives this section of the highway, and it is difficult to see Howard Johnson's Hotel from the freeway. He felt that due to the money they bring to the City, the Council should grant the sign variance. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Snyder felt that this situation, and the next hearing for the Shell Service Station sign request, are similarly related. They are tied to a major corporate sign program. Unfortunately, when doing a sign ordinance, we do not recognize national programs.' Without question, Johnson Clark acted in good faith in ordering his sign. If an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance were to be adopted, he would favor supporting this resolution. Cm. Hegarty indicated that he has previously been opposed and is opposed now. He wanted to review the Sign Ordinance and make changes previously. He does not want to have everyone come before the Council. Everyone is looking for height and identity. He felt the ordinance should be further reviewed. What will the City do when all the non-confor~ning signs come due. He did not feel that the findings could be made to allow this variance. Cm, Snyder stated that amending the Zoning Ordinance will not change the findings that rnust be made. Cm. Vonheeder stated that when a new law is enacted, things can come up that aren't anticipated. Logic would tell her 'that when you have a 6' fluorescent light tube, you are not going to be able to fit it into a 6' can of any sort, and therefore, you will end up with a 6' 6" situation. We are continually running into some type of major national corporate situations that we had not originally thought about. Since Howard Johnson's is 'the only hotel in town, she considered this to be a special circumstance. We need to do whatever is necessary in order to allow this sign to go up. Cm. Moffatt felt we are running into problems with some of the larger businesses regarding signage and we need to address those particular needs. He felt that we need to relook at the Sign Ordinance to be able to consider these different kinds of things. Ci'.~-7-131 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 54 - 88 INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO MODIFY THE PROVISIONS FOR DETERMINING LOCATION, SIGN AREA, AND SIGN HEIGHT FOR SECOND FREESTANDING SIGNS Cm. Hegarty and Mayor Jeffery voted against this motion. Cm. Moffatt questioned what this action does to Mr. Clark's sign variance request. Is it still on the ground while the Council debates it for 2 months, or what happens next. Mayor Jeffery pointed out that Mr. Clark has already been granted a variance~ and there are some things that have already been given, it was also pointed out that if he ~noves the sign back a bit, he would still have the same vision line. City Attorney Nave explained that the motion essentially has the effect of a denial until such time as a potential amendment is enacted. Cm. Vonheeder questioned if the Council could grant a variance to the current one. Staff indicated they could if they could make the findings, but Staff could not concur, and would have difficulty in making the necessary findings. Cm. Snyder questioned if this action in effect at the same time continue the public hearing relative to this issue or would it need to be instigated all over again. Mr. Nave indicated that it would have to be instigated all over again. City Manager Ambrose advised that if he applied for a sign and it was in compliance with any ~nodifications made to the Ordinance, then it would be unnecessary to go through this process. Staff felt that realistically, for this amendment to go through the necessary channels, it would be approximately 3 months. PUBLIC HEARING SHELL SERVICE STATION PRICE SIGN VARIANCE APPEAL, 8999 SAN RAMON ROAD Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that the Applicant is requesting approvaI of a Variance to allow two 4 ftx 6 ft double faced price signs, each with a total of 48 square feet of sign area (one on San Ramon Road and the other on Alcosta Boulevard). Each price sign exceeds the maximum permitted sign area by 16 square feet. The existing sign is considered illegal as it does not comply with the sign ordinance in effect while the City was under the jurisdiction of Alameda County. CM-7-132 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 The City's Sign Ordinance permits service station price signs indicating gasoline prices and available service. Service stations are restricted to one price sign per street frontage to a maximum of two. The sign area is restricted to 16 square feet for single-faced signs and 32 square feet for double-faced signs. A typical price sign is approximately 3 ft x 5 ft 4 inches. The maximum permitted sign height for a price sign is 6 feet. These regulations have been in effect in Dublin since at least 1980, prior to the City's incorporation. The location, size and content of Service Station price signs are also regulated by the California State Business and Professions Code pertaining to Weights and Measures and Petroleum Products. The State Code requires Service Stations selling motor vehicle fuel to the public to advertise "the price of the 3 major grades of motor vehicle fuel offered for sale". The City's Sign Ordinance is consistent with the State Code governing Service Station price signs. The Applicant feels that the increased sign area is necessary to compete with the Service Station on the north side of Alcosta Boulevard, located within the City of San Ramon and to advertise the sale of diesel fuel. The City of San Ramon has informed Staff that the existing price signs at the Chevron Service Station exceed the City of San Ramon Sign Regulations. Don Theobald indicated that as a leasee, you take the general direction of the major oil company, in this case, Shell Oil Company. They.are the only major oil company in Dublin that markets 4. basic products. Union Oil, which also sells diesel, only has 2 other products~ regular unleaded and super unleaded. They, therefore, have no need for a 4 price sign. Shell Oil markets all 4 products. He felt that regular gasoline will be phased out in the future, but at this time, they have need for a 4 product sign. This station does as much business selling regular as it does on diesel - 14% on both product lines. Mr. Theobald indicated that they compete with the Chevron Station across the street in San Ramon and that San Ramon is still utilizing Contra Costa County's Sign Ordinance. They have not adopted their own. Mr. Theobald indicated they use a 4 product sign in many surrounding cities such as Concord, San Leandro, Pleasanton, Alamo, and Danville. They are in conformity with all the cities' regulations. Cm. Snyder questioned if they would be willing to accept a sign lower to the ground. Mr. Theobald indicated they would. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Snyder stated that this is a similar situation as the last case. Even though it is a lengthy process, we can offer some form of relief. He stated he did not wish to sit in a Council meeting and be compared to the City of San Ramon. We need to worry about ourselves rather than our neighbors. CM-7-133 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 Cm. Snyder felt the Council can deal with this in an appropriate fashion by initiating a study of t'he Zoning Ordinance to understand what is an industry standard sign. Cm. Hegarty indicated 'that the Council was talking of maki' ~,no just one amendment to allow this to take place. Mayor Jeffery s~.a~ed they would be initiating an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to provide for increased signage. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 55 - 88 INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE INCREASED SIGN AREA FOR SERVICE STATION PRICE SIGNS WHEN 4 OR MORE FUEL PRODUCTS ARE OFFERED BY A SERVICE STATION Cm. Hegarty voted against this motion. City Attorney Nave reported that this action will deny the variance request. REQUEST TO UPGRADE CRONiN PARK The City has received correspondence from Lenora Holmes, President of the Dublin Joint Unified School District Board of Trustees, requesting that the City consider making improve~nents to the Cronin Park area. Limited funds preclude the School District from developing and maintaining the park at an appropriate level. The School District recognizes the recreational value of this piece of property, but wants to maintain title to the land in the event it is needed for future projects associated with Cronin or Wells Schools. The Dublin School Facilities Improvement Task Force, with appointments made by the Council, was formed to investigate the need for additional indoor and outdoor facilities for community use and to identify those schools that could be upgraded to fulfill this need. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to forward the School District's request for consid- r~ ~ 1 · eration by 'the Dublin School Facilities Improvement ~s~ Force EAST BAY REGIONAL '.o o~: _ ,,,¥ ~, ,'A~:~,K DTSTRICT - LIAISON CO[~'I~IITTEE The City has received a letter from John O'Donnell, Director of the East Bay Regional Park District Ward that includes the City of Dublin, indicating his interest in establishing a Liaison Committee relationship between the City of Dublin and the East Bay Regional park District. Cm. Snyder suggestea looking at the possibility of having someone on the City's Park & Recreation Commission se?ve on this Committee. @ ~'o~/o@ ~'o~/o~'/o~/o@?o~/o@ ~'o@ ~'o@ ~'o~'4@ ~'o~4~'/o@%~/o@ ~o@ ~o@ 7o~4@%@ ~@ ~o~'4@ ~o@ 7o~'4~'4rff"4@ ~o~/o@ ~o@ ~o~/o@ ~o~'/o@ CM-7-134 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 Mayor Jeffery felt there should be at least 1Councilmember on the Committee and she had no objection to having a Park & Recreation Commissioner also. City Manager indicated that upcoming issues would deal with the land swap and also the future of Tassajara Park. Mayor Jeffery suggested that Staff send a letter to the East Bay Regional Park District indicating that the City would be willing to participate on this Liaison Committee. CHILI COOK-OFF - REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE Mayor Dale Turner of Livermore has challenged the Dublin City Council to participate in a Chili Cook-Off on June 4, 1988 at the Buenas Vidas Ranch. The Ranch and the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District are sponsoring this cook-off to support Summer Youth Volunteer Programs at the Buenas Vidas Ranch. Following discussion, the Council directed Staff to advise Mayor Turner that the Dublin Council accepts the challenge and to send in the registration form. LETTER FROM TRI-VALLEY CONSERVATION COMMITTEE SAN FRANCISCO BAY CHAPTER - SIERRA CLUB RE TRI-VALLEY WASTEWATER AUTHORITY Mr. Douglas Abbott is requesting that the City Council request the Dublin San Ramon Services District to place the Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority (TWA) project on the November, 1988 ballot. Because of the somewhat complex and technical nature of the project, and the pending lawsuits that the Sierra Club and others have filed against the project, Staff recommended that the City Council request the TWA and DSRSD Staff provide an update and technical briefing on the project for presentation at a future Council meeting. Mr. Doug Abbott addressed the Council and reiterated his request. Ms. Marjorie LeBar indicated that the project could cost up to $160 million and she encouraged the financing mechanism to be General Obligation Bonds. Cm. Moffatt questioned if they were requesting a regional, County or Citywide vote. Mr. Abbott felt it would be best it it were a Countywide vote. Cm. Moffatt felt a vote might be a bit premature in that there is currently no proposal on which to vote. CM-7-135 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to contact the Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority and the Dublin San Ramon Services District and request the TWA and DSRSD Staff to provide an update and technical briefing on the project for presentation at a future Council meeting. EAST DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT REPORT Staff advised that on Marcln 9, 1987, the Council reviewed a request from Mr. Ted Fairfield to consider authorizing the Dublin Ranch General Plan Amendment Study and Specific Plan Study. At that meeting, the Council asked Staff to contact surrounding property owners to determine their interest in partici- pating in and sharing in the cost of the studies, and identify the general types of land use they would like 'to see studied. They directed that Staff bring the item back to Council to 1) review property owner input; 2) define the size of the study areas; 3) determine the scope of the land uses to be studied, and 4) authorize Staff to select a consultant team. At the meeting of May 26, 1987, Staff presented the Council with a list of property owners interested in participating in 'the studies and sharing in the cost. In addition, those property owners indicated the types of land uses they would like to see studied for their land. Based on that information, the Council defined the boundaries of the General Plan and Specific Plan Study Areas, and also clarified the land uses that would be addressed in the studies At the conclusion of -~ ~ec~ Staff 'to . that meeting, the Council direc~ ~ obtain proposals and cost estimates for consultants' services to complete the studies and to develop the method in which costs would be allocated among properuy owners. Staff discussed the various issues: Request for Proposals & Proposal Costsl Recommended Consultant Choice; Cost Allocation Options; Payment Options; Alameda County Participation; and Expanding 'the Specific Plan Study Area. Martin Inderbitzen indicated that Ted Fairfield was unable to attend this meeting due to illness, so he would be representing the interests of the Chang So Lin family. They would support Staff's recommendation, along with the option (2.b.) of having the City contribute Staff time at a cost of up to $50,000 and to seek voluntary property owners contributions to help offset Staff processing costs. Cm. Snyder questioned if option 2.b. assures us that the County will participate. .... tna~ none of 'the options assu'~eo that anyone City Manager Ambrose reported ' ~ ~=o will participate. The potential exists that there could be a shortfall. Mike Durkee, representing the TMI property, thanked Staff for ~ k' ~ ~or. zn~ with them. They would like to see the City's commitment 'toward this project. CM-7-136 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 Don Redgwick indicated he endorsed the recommendation by City Staff, particularly by a time commitment. If.the County doesn't participate, then suddenly the private property owners are inheriting a substantial responsibility. John DiManto owns a small amount of property~ but it is an expensive piece. He expressed the feeling that it was necessary for the Council to contribute something more than Staff time. This Council needs 'to get excited about annexing this eastern area. Cm. Hegarty stated 'that it was originally agreed that the developers were going to pay for this study. We also need to get the County excited about this. There is a monumental ~ ~ . ~as~ ahead of us Cm. Moffatt expressed concern about the $50,000 and the fact that development could be t~ed~ 'to whether or not we get sewers. We. may be just ~,~'~i~'~~_ _~ here spinning our 'wheels. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed that Staff' 1) Expand the boundaries of the Specific Plan Study Area-to include the 138 + acres of land owned under the separate ownerships of Anderson, Branaugh, ~.~zgnetti and Campbell 2) Determined that' the City will contribute Staff time at a noc to excee~ figure of $50,000 and seek voluntary property owners contributions to help offset Staff processing costs. 3) Seek Alameda County contributions toward 'the General Plan Amendment Study. 4) Authorized Staff to secure from sponsoring property owners their individual allocated share of the cost of the studies prior to entering into a contract with 'the consultant~ or develop an alternate payment agreement that is acceptable to both Staff and the property owners; also, directed Staff to develop a reimbursement program that will collect monies from non- sponsoring property owners in the Specific Plan Study Area that are not willing to pay for the study at 'this time. 5) Authorized Staff to enter into a consultant services contract with 'the firm of Wallace Roberts and Todd to complete 'the East Dublin General Plan Amendment Study, Specific Plan Study and Environmental hnpact Report at a price of $500,240 once dollar commitments have been received from property owners, 6) Authorized Staff to proceed with all tasks associated with completing the General Plan Amendment Study, Specific Plan Study and EIR. CM-7-137 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 ANNUAL TRAFFIC SAFETY REPORT ACCIDENT LOCATION ANALYSIS & DOWNTOWN TRAJ.~. lC MONITORING TJKM, the City's Traffic Engineering Firm, prepared a report on t~o studies. At the Council meeting of i~arch 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. Due 'to the lateness of the hour, the Council directed otaff to carry this item forward to the next meeting on April 25, 1988. VALLEY COMb,~UNITY SWIM ~m~i~.,z,, FEE SCHEDULE The City assumed the aquatic programming from the Dublin San Ramon Services District for the Valley Community Swim Center, effective January 1, 1988. Prior to opening the pool, which is tentatively scheduled for May 28, 1988, Staff advised that it is necessary for the Council to adopt a schedule of fees and charges for use of the pool. Staff presented a comparison chart indicated amounts charged by nezgn~or.~ng entities. ~ . ~r,d by ,unani~ous vot~ the On mo~ion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm ~{offatt, ~ ~, Council a~opted RESOLUTION NO. 56 - 88 ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE VALLEY COMMUNITY SWIM CENTER OTHER BUSINESS [~:4ayors'.. Conference City ~- ' ~ ~ ~anager Ambrose rem~n~ed the Council that Dublin will be hosting the Mayors' Conference on ¢~ednesday evening, April 13th at the Hayward Fishery. Cm. Vonheeder indicated. ' e , ' ~ · trna._ she woulo be unable to a'~tend. &lo&lo@ ~@ 7o&lo&/o&/o&/o&/o@ 7o&lo@ 7o&/o&/o@ ~/o&lo&lo&/o&/o&/o&/o&/o&/o&/o&/o&/o&/o&/o&/o&/o&/o&/o&/o&/o&/o&/o@ %@ Cr~-7-138 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988 Dougherty ~e~i. onal Fire Au. thority City ~lanager Ambrose stated that the select_ion committee would be interviewing labor relations consultants Tuesday morning at 8'15 a.m., in San Ra~non City Offices to perform services related to the Fire Authority. ADJOU~,~..ENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 1'26 a.m. CM-7-139 Regular Meeting April 11, 1988