Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-23-1987REGULAR MEETING - November 23, 1987 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, November 23, 1987, in the meeting room of the Dublin LibrarY. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Linda Jeffery. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 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. * * * Senior Advisory Committee Gordon Anderson questioned the status of the appointments to the Senior Advisory Committee. Mayor Jeffery advised that the appointments will be made at the City Council meeting on December 14, 1987. * * * INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEE Police Chief John Severini introduced Deputy Jeff Bromstead, newly assigned to Dublin. Deputy Bromstead has 7 years experience with the Alameda County Sheriff's Department, and replaces A. J. Nelson, who was promoted. Deputy Bromstead is a lifelong resident of Alameda County, and was selected from a field of many applicants. The Council welcomed Deputy Bromstead. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: ' Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 9, 1987; Approved Financial Report for Period Ending October 31, 1987; u +. +. +u +. +. +. +,, +,, +. +u +u +., +u +. +. +,, +. +. +. +. +,, +u +. +u +u +. +u +. +u +u +. +. +u +,, +. +. +,, Regular Meeting November 23, 1987 , Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 95- 87 AUTHORIZING.THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) CREATING THE ALAMEDA COUNTY. WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT (JPA) WHICH CREATED THE ALAMEDA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 96 - 87 and ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL MAP -PULTE HOMES TRACT NO. 5777 RESOLUTION NO. 97 - 87 ACCEPTING DEPOSIT IN LIEU - PULTE HOMES TRACT NO. 5777 Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 87 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $328,702.28. PUBLIC HEARING - .LOPEZ VARIANCE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION - 7632 CANTERBURY COURT Planning Director Tong reported that at the time this item was to be considered by the Council, the Applicant was not present in the audience. By a Council consensus, this item was heard out of order. Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that on November 10, 1986, a realtor contacted the City to request a special inspection on an existing room addition which was constructed at 7632 Canterbury Court without building permits. Following inspections made by the City, it was determined that several significant Building Code and Zoning Ordinance violations existed. In addition to not obtaining a permit, BUilding Code violations related to foundation construction, rafter sPan, electrical wiring, allowable window area, fireplace hearth and framing. Two Zoning violations were 1) the room addition and attached patio cover are loCated within the required rearyard setback area and 2) an existing accessory structure on the site does not maintain the 6' minimum required setback between the accessory structure and other structures on the site. ,, +. +. +. +. +. +u +u +. +. +. +. +. +u +u +. +. +,, +. +. +. +. +. +u +. +. +. +. +,, +. +u +,, +u +. +,, +. +. +. CM-6-337 Regular Meeting November 23, 1987 On May 12, 1982, the Applicant obtained a building permit'for an accessory structure, with approved plans indicating the required 6' minimum setback between the accessory structure and the main structure. The accessory building received final building inspection on May 10, 1984, apparently with the 5' 1" setback, rather than the 6' setback required. On February 2, 1987, the Zoning Investigator notified the Applicant of the Building Code and Zoning Ordinance violations. Rather than remove the structures, the Applicant subsequently applied for a Varinace. On August 11, 1987, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing and 1) approved the Variance for reduced setback between the accessory structure and the main structure on the site, and 2) denied the Variance request to reduce the rearyard Setback from the required 10' minimum setback to an 8.5' setback. The Applicant subsequently appealed the Zoning Administrator's action to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, on October 5, 1987, held a public hearing and upheld the Zoning Administrator's action. In order for the Applicant to maintain the existing room addition, structural improvements must be made to bring the building into compliance with the Building Code, and a Variance must be granted' for the reduced setbacks. Prior to granting a Variance, Staff explained that 3 affirmative findings of fact must be made relating to 1) that a unique physical situation exists, 2) that the Variance would only grant parity with similar properties, and 3) that the Variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The Applicant feels that special circumstances exist, as the room addition has existed for 25 years, and he thought building permits for the structure had been obtained. The Applicant previously questioned the similarity between his Variance request and the Variance request of Mr. McCartney at 7650 Canterbury Court. This application involved a rearyard setback Variance for a room addition. The application was denied by the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, and City Council. Mr. McCartney challenged'and won a trial court decision. The City has appealed and the appeal is pending. Bob White, Building Inspector, explained the building violations, which related to the foundation, rafters that exceeded the allowable span, fireplace hearth, percentage of windows too high, and not double pane, lack of sheetrock, exposed wiring. It was estimated that it would cost between $6,000 and $8,000 to bring the room up to code. Henry Lopez reported that he has been going through a very long appeal process and has received very good treatment throughout the lengthy process. He .did feel, however, that the Planning Commission had failed to fulfill their resPonsibilities. He is asking for a variance of only 18". This room addition was built 25 years ago. The room is very well built and he indicated that he takes exception to the City Building Inspector's comments. He did not feel that the serious building violations are actually very serious. The foundation has been there for 25 years and he would like a soils engineer to tell him that it is not safe. He felt that Dublin accepted this situation when it became a City. He questioned what type of an ~+~+~+~+~+~+~+u+"+"+~+"+"+~+~+~+~+~+~+~"+"+"+"+"+~+"+"+~+"+"+~+~+"+~+"+~+" CM-6-338 Regular Meeting November 23, 1987 understanding Dublin had when it became incorporated. He felt the Planning Commission was more interested in agreeing with Staff rather than looking at the entire problem. There are numerous residences that are not up to code. He indicated he was willing to bring in written documents from 3 of his neighbors indicating that they have no problems with this addition. Since the County gave tacit permission for this room, the City should continue this permission. He would be willing to bring the room up to code and referred to the McCartney room addition case. He stated he would be willing to tear down the room addition if the Planning Director will allow him to wait for the Court's decision regarding the McCartney case. He felt the City should take a look at granting amnesty to all existing illegal additions. Mr. Lopez passed out a plan showing the building addition. Cm. Snyder questioned Bob White with regard to the differences in the codes now as opposed to 25 years ago. Mr. White stated that the code has become more stringent regarding the plywood wall, but most of the other requirements were the same then as now. The original soils report required a minimum depth of 42". Beam span sizes are the same, and the wiring requirements are the same. Cm. Snyder questioned if a financing institution would even finance a sales transaction, knowing that all these violations exist. It does not meet code and without building permits, he did not feel that anyone would offer financing. Mr. Lopez had indicated to a realtor that the room is illegal. Mr. Bob Wright, Mr. Lopez's next door neighbor, addressed the Council. Mr. Wright indicated that he has lived next door for 21 years. The aesthetic value of the house has been increased. From outside appearances, it looks very nice. City Attorney Nave indicated that on the accessory structure, this was commenced while under the County. When they granted the permit, they did not pick up the setbacks. However, a Variance has been granted for the accessory structure. He advised Mr. Lopez to accept the Variance for the accessory structure. Staff and the Planning Commission have said that it is okay, it can remain. City Attorney Nave addressed the McCartney situation and advised Mr. Lopez that this is a different case with a different set of facts and the outcome of the case would have no bearing on his case. When Dublin became a City, we accepted all structures in the City. We have not gone out and looked for violations. Had it not been because of the realtor, we probably would never have known about this violation. Because of laws which changed about a year ago, related to real estate disclosure, the City has the responsibility to enforce the codes. Mr. Nave indicated that the Council has sympathy regarding this situation, but are in a position where they must enforce the laws. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Moffatt felt there is gross error in lack of adherence to some of the building laws and his main concern related to the building code violations. . +. +. +. +. +. +. +,, +. +. +. +. +. +. +. +. +. +. +,,+" +. +. +,, +. +. +,, +,, +. +. +. +,, +. +. +,, +. +. +. +,, CM-6-339 Regular Meeting . November 23, 1987 Cm. Hegarty stated that the Council cannot simply let the code violations go. He stated that he is not a soils engineer, but it seems that if it has stood for 25 years, it has passed the test. He did feel that the required setback distances are important. Cm. Snyder did not feel that the property could be sold as long as it is in the shape it is in. The foundation must be the first thing to be dealt with. It won't do any good to deal with all the other violations if the foundation can't meet code. Cm. Vonheeder stated that if it is brought up to code and the City grants the Variance, then it could be sold. Cm. Moffatt suggested that the Council grant the Variance on the condition that it is brought up to code within 6 to 8 months. Mayor Jeffery questioned the City's liability under this type of an arrangement. City Attorney Nave indicated that the City's liability exposure is very bad. Eight months is a little too long from a legal standpoint. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 87 UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION 1) APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR REDUCED SETBACK BETWEEN THE EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND THE EXISTING MAIN STRUCTURE AT 7632 CANTERBURY COURT, AND 2) DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR' REDUCED REARYARD SETBACK FOR THE EXISTING ROOM ADDITION AND PATIO COVER CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT BUILDING PERMITS AT 7632 CANTERBURY COURT, PA 87-056 LOPEZ VARIANCE RECESS A short recess was called. reconvened. Ail Councilmembers were present when the meeting PUBLIC HEARING - CORWOOD CAR WASH APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL - CUP, SDR & VARIANCE Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that this Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review to remodel and expand the use of the existing car wash facility and approval of a Variance request to vary from uhe sideyard setback requirements and parking regulations. The Applicant proposed to add a redwood arbor over the existing pump island and to enclose the existing car wash and expand the building area to include a storage area, work area, retail sales and service area resulting in a 6,600 + square foot ~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+"+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+"+~+~+~+-~+~+"+~+"+~+~ CM-6-340 Regular Meeting November 23, 1987 building. In addition to the remodel and floor area addition to the existing structure, the Applicant proposes to expand the present car wash with a two- story, 2,688 square foot detail shop consisting of four service bays, office area, waiting room and storage area on the first floor and a 768 square foot office and storage area on the second floor. The total proposed floor area is 9,288 square feet on a 22,914 square foot parcel. Expansion of the existing use necessitates the new Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review application. There are two sideyard setback Variance reqUests (variance to reduce the south sideyard setback from 12' to 0' and to reduce the north Sideyard setback from the required 20' to 10' for the proposed cantilevered arbor) and three parking related Variance requests (variance to permit parking within the front and street sideyard setback, a variance to allow a form of tandem parking, and a variance to allow substandard parking stall size). This item was continued from the October 26, 1987, City Council meeting at the request of Mr. Woodward. Staff advised that on Friday, November 20, 1987, the City received a letter from Mr. Woodward requesting that this item be continued to January 11, 1988, due to an out-of-town emergency. Mayor Jeffery questioned if anyone in the audience wished to speak. Dale Skinner addressed the Council and indicated that he lives right behind the Corwood Car Wash. He reported that the area looks like a dump and needs to be cleaned up. He felt that if this application is approved, some type of a soundwall should be required which would limit the visibility into neighboring yards. Mr. Skinner further suggested that the Council make this the final continuance. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the ditch that runs behind the property is a Zone 7 channel. City Manager Ambrose indicated that it is a private ditch and all the adjacent businesses are responsible for the upkeep and maintenance. The City can continue to put them on notice to keep it clean, however. Mayor Jeffery declared that this item is continued to the January 11, 1988, Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE CITY OF DUBLIN TRAFFIC CODE Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that this ordinance, which was introduced at the November 9th Council meeting, is part of the City's Municipal Code update. It contains a listing of all the traffic regulations currently in effect. The regulations . +. +.+. +. +. +. +. +. +. +. +,, +. +.+. +. +. +. +,, +. +. +. +. +,, +. +. +. +,, +. +. +. +. +,, +. +. +. +. +. CM-6-341 Regular Meeting NOvember 23, 1987 listed are part of the Alameda County Ordinance as adopted by the City or as have been adopted as City of Dublin Ordinances. In addition, the ordinance includes the traffic signal locations and through streets that have been constructed but not included in the existing Alameda County Code. Staff explained that the ordinance adopting the traffic code must be adopted before the ordinance relating to traffic control and traffic restrictions, so that the City will not have a period of time in which traffic regulations are not in effect. No comments were made by members of the public on this item. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading, and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 54 - 87 ADOPTING THE CITY OF DUBLIN TRAFFIC CODE PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE RELATING TO TRAFFIC CONTROL & TRAFFIC REGULATIONS Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that this ordinance, which was introduced at the November 9th Council mee~ing, is part of the City's Municipal Code update. Most provisions are basically the same as those of the Alameda County Code which was adopted by reference when the City incorporated in 1982. Staff explained that a couple of items were modified from the original draft ordinance at the November 9th meeting. The first involved Section 23 "No Parking" and clarified the subsection allowing the City Manager to designate up to 15' on either side of a driveway as a no parking area. This action would be taken when a sight distance problem occurred as a result of parked cars and only if the adjacent property owners were consulted by Staff and voiced no objection. Any controversial issues would be brought before the City Council. The second item involved Section 15 "Funeral Processions". A reference to "parades" was deleted from the language in this section. It was later determined that the language referring to "parades" was intended to refer to an actual parade and not a funeral procession, so the title of the section was modified to include parades as well as funeral processions. No comments were made by members of the public on this item. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. ~+~+~+"+~+~+~+~~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+"+~~+~~+"+~+~+~+~+~~+~~+~+~+~~+"+~+~+"+~+~+~+~~+"+~ CM-6-342 Regular Meeting November 23, 1987 On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 55- 87 RELATED TO TRAFFIC CONTROL & TRAFFIC REGULATIONS PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE WHICH ADOPTS THE 1985 EDITIONS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, UNIFORM HOUSING CODE AND 1987 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that this ordinance repeals Ordinance No. 02-84, which was the original ordinance adopting the 1982 Uniform Codes. Subsequent amendments made by Ordinances No. 12-85, 32-85, 36-87, 39-87 and 7-87 are being repealed. These amendments relating to electrical outlet spacing in office buildings, access for handicapped, fire safe roofing and spark arrestors are being incorporated into this ordinance for readoption along with the adoption of the 1985 Uniform Building Code, 1985 Uniform Plumbing, 1985 Uniform Mechanical Code, 1985 Uniform Housing Code and 1987 National Electrical Code by reference. Chief Building Official Vic Taugher felt that the only Controversial issue appears to be whether we will require sprinklers in certain types of buildings. Mr. Taugher explained the various differences between the current code and the proposed ordinance. Cm. Moffatt questioned if some of the items are already in existence, will theY fall under some type of a grandfather clause. He cited an example of tv satellite dishes. Mr. Taugher indicated that the City would be providing the requirements for new permits after the effective date of the Ordinance. Cm. Snyder questioned if the 1 1/2 mile radius would apply to all buildings and if hOuses were outside the area, would they require sprinklers? Mr. Taugher responded yes, but the residential requirements are much less stringent. Cm. Hegarty clarified that this change in sprinkler requirements is mainly for the safety of the people. Mr. Taugher agreed with this and stated that the controversy is mainly with the builders and developers. Mr. Taugher stated that there is also an economic issue, in that the more buildings that are sprinklered, the less manpower that is required by the Fire Department. ,, +- +,, +- +- +-+,, +- +- +- +- +,, +,, +- +- +,, +- +. +-+. +. +,, +. +. +. +. +. +. +. +. +. +, +. +. +,, +. +. +,, CM-6-343 Regular Meeting November 23, 1987 Fire Chief Harold Ritter explained that there is a general misconception regarding water damage. Sprinkler systems lessen the possibility of damage. Chief Ritter addressed the subject of the area separation wall concept and explained that lots of penetrations exist in buildings, particularly the older ones. With regard to the 1 1/2 mile service delivery issue, Chief Ritter stated that after about 5 minutes, a fire has increased tremendously. Sprinkler systems are actually to keep the fire under control until the Fire Department can get there. What is being proposed is a reasonable ordinance. Ron Nahas, Builder of the Willow Creek Project, introduced Dennis Suarez and Roger Greer, President of Post Properties, who is in the process of acquiring Village V. Dennis Suarez indicated that they are trying to get their project approved and major changes related to 3 areas: 1) fire sprinklers; 2) plastic vent pipe; 3) fire separations. They need the flexibility for Staff to make decisions at a Staff level. Mr. Suarez stated that there is no question about the fact that the issue is one of safety. There is also no question that the economic issue is very large. It is costing them approximately $1,000 per unit in each apartment. A special code is being developed related to fire sprinklers in other than retail/commerCial buildings. He felt that the City Council should wait until the new code is available, sometime in January, and at that time, make a decision. Quite sometime ago, the Council acted on an interpretation related to the use of plastic pipe, and he requested that this become the rule. With regard to area separation walls, residential tenants do not make holes in 2 hour walls. Mr. Suarez indicated that this is the 4th state he has dealt with and he was very pleased with the way they can deal with Mr. Taugher. He indicated that regarding plumbing issues code interpretation, they would like to see language put into the Ordinance which would allow the use of plastic pipe in 2nd story and above. With regard to sprinklers, Mr. Suarez felt this is a national issue. Multi- family projects were left out when the National Fire Protection Association developed standards for commercial and for single family homes. The NFLPA 13 System has been developed to address this and a draft should be available in January, 1988. Mr. Taugher explained that the current NFPA 13 does apply to residential, with so many gallons per square foot required. He felt that a delay in adoption of this Ordinance should be looked at in context. The process for adoption will take about a year. When it becomes available, we can take a look at it, but he did not feel that the City should hold off on adoption of this Ordinance. Cm. Hegarty referenced the fact that in the past, the Council allowed Mr. Nahas' development to use cast iron pipe on the bottom floor and plastic pipe on the top 2 floors and also allowed the elimination of certain fire sprinklers. Cm. Snyder questioned the definition of local alarms. u+u+.+u+u+u+u+u+,,+.+u+#+u+u+,,+.+.+u+u+,,+n+u+u+.+u+u+u+.+u+.+,,+u +u+u+u+u+.+u CM-6-344 Regular Meeting November 23, 1987 Chief Ritter advised that a local alarm rings on site. Hopefully, it would wake the people up and get them out of the building. Cm. Moffatt questioned what constitutes a firewall. Mr. Taugher explained that there are many ways of building a firewall and explained the various processes. Ron Nahas felt that what the Council is being asked to address is something that is not part of the code. We should look at the safety issues rather than the design. The Council should review statistics. The current code which the Council is being asked to adopt does not address the safety issues. Mr. Greer requested that the Council allow flexibility in working with the Fire Department. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Snyder felt that both Chief Ritter and Ron Nahas have brought up important points and further investigation should be done. Cm. Hegarty indicated that he concurred; however, the Council has not heard from residents. They are the silent majority. The Council's job is to protect the people and he did not feel this is a matter of compromise. Mayor Jeffery stated that since the industry itself is looking into this issue, perhaps Dublin should look into more detail and incorporate into the code. Cm. Snyder made a motion which was seconded by Cm. Hegarty, to further investigate, with the suggested changes discussed and look at the issue of allowing plastic pipe above the first floor. Mr. Taugher suggested that the Council adopt the package with exceptions to delete those sections related to sprinklers and deal with those as a separate issue. City Manager Ambrose advised that this adoption could be narrowed down to just residential occupancies. Cm. Snyder and Cm. Hegarty rescinded their motion and second. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance which adopts the 1985 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, 1985 Uniform Plumbing Code, 1985 Uniform Mechanical Code, 1985 Uniform Housing Code and 1987 National Electrical Code. Reference to R-1 occupancies shall be pulled out and use of PVC pipe above 1st floor should be added. ~~+~~+~+"+~+~+~+~+~~+~+~+~~+~+~+~+~+~~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+u+#+~+~+~+~+~+~~+~+~~+~+~+~ CM-6-345 Regular Meeting November 23, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE RELATING TO BINGO GAMES Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff adviSed that the City Attorney's Office prepared a draft ordinance relating to bingo games as part of the comprehensive Municipal Code revision process. Any person desiring to operate a bingo game within the corporate limits of the City would make application for license with the City Manager. All eligible organizations shall submit with their application a certificate of exemption under the provisions of Section 23701d of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or a letter of good standing from the Exemption Division of the State Franchise Tax Board. Any realized profits must be kept in a special fund or account and shall not be co-mingled with any other fund or account. The applicant, as a condition of license issuance, consents to the examination and audit of its records, at reasonable times, by authorized City representatives. The draft ordinance also enumerates specific conditions with reSpect to the operation of the bingo games so that any one game is consistent with all others. Police Chief John Severini advised that there are currently only 2 organizations to which this ordinance would apply. They are St. Raymonds and the Dublin High Booster Club. These are the only 2 groups which currently have permits to operate bingo games. Chief Severini advised the Council of changes to Section 17, paragraph (b). Reference to 10% of the proceeds after deduction for prizes should be changed to 20%, and reference to $500 per month should be changed to $1,000 per month. Cm. Vonheeder questioned the difference between proceeds and profits. Chief Severini explained that proceeds are any dollars taken in and profits are after expenses. City Attorney Nave advised that they are non-profit groups. Cm. Snyder stated that profits have to be used for charitable purposes. City Attorney Nave advised that his office could research this and report back by the next City Council meeting. They will need to look at the legislative intent. Mayor Jeffery felt it important that the verbage be correct. Cm. Moffatt questioned the definition of charitable. City Attorney Nave advised that this is defined under the revenue and taxation code. . +.+. +u +,, +. +. +u +,, +. +u +,, +,, +.+u +. +. +. +u +.+. +. +. +. +. +. +. +, +u +. +,, +u +. +u +. +. +. +u CM-6-346 Regular Meeting November 23, 1987 Mayor Jeffery advised that she was under the impression that bingo cards had to be marked "For Donation" rather than "For Sale". Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance relating to bingo games, with clarifications upcoming. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING MINIMUM STANDARDS AND PROVIDING REGULATIONS FOR GRADING, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDFILLS AND EXCAVATION AND FOR CONTROL OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 19-82 Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that this ordinance is part of the City's Municipal Code update and serves the same purpose ~as the Alameda County Grading Ordinance (Title 7, Chapter 9), which the City adopted by reference. \ This ordinance establishes minimum design and construction standards, provides regulations for grading, excavating, and erosion control, and outlines a procedure for obtaining permits. Specific requirements for preparation and submittal of plans and for interim and final geotechnical reports are delineated. This ordinance will allow the Public Works Director to waive full-time geotechnical inspection when the grading is of a minor nature and intermittent inspections and testing can assure proper compaction and soil placement. This ordinance has been reviewed and revised .in conjunction with the adoption of the 1985 Uniform Building Code. Conflicting and overlapping wording between the two ordinances regarding grading have been resolved. Also, a section has been added which establishes an insurance coverage requirement consistent with the current requirement for subdivision tract developers. Cm. Hegarty stated that with regard to the suggestion that Staff be given flexibility, he had concerns regarding all the grading that goes on on weekends. Discussion was held regarding minor grading situations. Norb Hudak questioned if this pertains to the Amador Valley Boulevard collapse. City Engineer Lee Thompson advised that the Contractor went in on a Saturday on a repair and did not properly compact. Mayor Jeffery explained that this would not be considered a minor grading situation. Cm. Hegarty stated that he simply wanted to make the point that something went wrong because no one was watching. ~+~+~+"+~+~+~~+~+~+~+~+~~+~+~~+~+~+~~+~+~+~~+~~+~~+~~+"+~~+~~+"+"+"+~~+"+"+"+~~+"+"+"+" CM-6-347 Regular Meeting November 23, 1987 Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Hegarty stated that if something goes wrong, then whoever gives flexibility will catch heck. He indicated that he is not comfortable with this ordinance. City Engineer Thompson stated that if it is not given, then they have to certify that they had full time inspection. Cm. Vonheeder felt that this ordinance clarifies the contradictions in the 2 codes. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance establishing minimum standards and providing regulations for grading, construction, and maintenance of landfills and excavation and for control of erosion and sediment and repealing Ordinance No. 19-82. DUBLIN HIGH SCHOOL GROUNDS IMPROVEMENT TASK FORCE On February 9, 1987, the Dublin City Council approved the formation of the Dublin High SchoOl Grounds Improvement Task Force. The purpose of the Task Force is to investigate the need for additional indoor and outdoor facilities for community use and identify those areas of Dublin High School that can be upgraded to fulfill this need. Staff was directed to advertise the openings on this Task Force. ~To date, Staff has received a total of 18 applications. Staff felt that the scope of study should be broadened to include all of the school facilities in Dublin now that the school unification issue has been decided. On March 23, 1987, the Council determined that the Task Force members would be appointed by the entire Council rather than individual appointments. For those categories where there are not sufficient applicants, Staff will continue to seek interested persons. Recreation Director Diane Lowart passed out sheets to the Council and aSked that they make their selections. She explained that there are 2 openings for non-sports oriented groups, 2 openings for sports oriented groups and 5 openings for members at large. Each Councilmember indicated their choices, which were listed on a large displayed tally sheet. A majority of the Council selected Dublin Little League as one of the sports oriented groups. Cm. Snyder reported that he selected South Valley Youth Football because they don't have much representation. On the other hand, Little League has a lot of community involvement and input through various sources. Both Cm. Vonheeder and Cm. Hegarty indicated a willingness to change their selection and thereby included South Valley Youth Football as one of the sports oriented groups on this Task Force. .+.+,,+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+u+,,+u+u+u+u+u+u+u+,,+u+,,+u+u+u+u+u+- +.+.+u+,,+,,+u+u+,,+u+- CM-6-348 Regular Meeting November 23, 1987 On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to add a 6th position to the at large group. The appointments made were: Non-Sports Oriented Groups = Dublin High Band Boosters, c/o Michael Dawe Children's Theatre Workshop, c/o Andy Jorgensen Sports Oriented Groups = South Valley Youth Football, c/o Keith Belcher Dublin United Soccer League, c/o Jim Stephens Members At Large = John Doolittle, 8155 Peppertree Road = Diane Hodson, 7253 Tina Place = Zev Kahn, 11708 Harlan Road = Nancy Nilssen, 11670 Fenwick Place = Bruce Patchin, 7433 Newcastle Lane = Cindy Raymond, 6860 Amador Valley Boulevard , Liz Schmitt suggested letting the Dublin High Student Council nominate for the student openings. DOLAN PARK - PHASE II Staff advised that Cardoza-DiLallo-Harrington has prepared architectural improvements for Phase II of Dolan Park. These improvements include 1) Sports Court (basketball & volleyball); 2) Fitness Course; 3) Group Picnic Area; 4) Day Camp Shelter; 5) Tot Play Area; and 6) Completion of Walkways, Irrigation, Lighting and Landscaping. The Park & Recreation Commission reviewed and approved these improvements at their November 11, 1987 meeting. The Park & Recreation Commission held a discussion regarding the omission of a multi-use backboard which was originally shown in the master plan adopted by the Council in April, 1986. The Architect indicated that it would be possible to include the backboard adjacent to the sports court, but that it may create an area where people can congregate without being seen from the street, thus creating a surveillance problem for the police. The Commission was not in favor of adding the backboard and deferred the final decision to the City Council. Frank Dunbar from Cardoza-DiLallo-Harrington made a presentation and stated that the difference between the two cost estimates were due to input by the Park & Recreation Commission. Zev Kahn presented a letter to the Council regarding the neighborhood meetings whereby agreement was reached to include a backboard structure. expressed concern that this feature has been deleted from the plan. He Cm. Snyder commented that there was no guarantee. City Manager Ambrose advised that the backboard structure was included in the master plan. "+"+~~+"+~~+~~+"+"+"+"+"+~~+"+"+~~+"+~~+~~+~~+~~+"+"+"+~~+"+"+"+"+"+"+"+~~+"+"+~~+"+"+" CM-6-349 Regular Meeting November 23, 1987 Recreation Director Lowart advised that the configuration of the park was changed. Park & Recreation Commissioner Schmitt advised the Council that the Park & Recreation Commission felt that the safety of the residents was more important than the kick board. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the design of Phase II improvements and authorized the Architect to proceed with preparation of construction documents. STAGECOACH PARK DEDICATION Staff advised that the 3/4 acre Stagecoach Mini-Park is scheduled for completion in January, 1988. Staff felt that a park dedication ceremony should be held, as this will be the first of three City-owned parked to be completed in 1988. The Park & Recreation Commission considered ideas for the dedication and a subcommittee was appointed to work with Staff on preparations for the dedication ceremony. The dates of January 30 or February 6 were suggested, with the time being 10:00 am to 12:00 noon. A western theme was suggested, with utilization of a stagecoach. Five ideas associated with a western theme were to 1) invite people to come dressed in period clothing and have a costume contest; 2) attempt to secure the Wells Fargo Stagecoach; 3) have entertainment by a banjo band; 4) have a cake in the shape of a stagecoach or with a stagecoach design and hot cider or chocolate; 5) have helium balloons imprinted with a stagecoach and the dedicatiOn date. The dedication ceremony would consist of ribbon cutting and speeches by local dignitaries, as well as entertainment and refreshments. Park & Recreation Commissioner Schmitt advised the Council that they would like to have a really big celebration for Kolb Park. By Council consensus, January 30, 1988, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon was selected for the Stagecoach Park dedication. OTHER BUSINESS December Council Meeting Because the 2nd December Council meeting falls on December 28th, City Manager Ambrose suggested that the Council consider rescheduling this meeting to December 21st. Because the Planning Commission will be meeting at the Library, it was suggested that the meeting'be held at Shannon Community Center. This meeting will be necessary to deal with bids for the Civic Center project. The agenda should be fairly light. ,, +. +,, +,, +- +- +,, +- +- +- +- +- +- +- +,, +# +- +,, +- +- +,, +- +- +- +- +- +- +- +,, +- +- +- +- +,, +- +,, +,, +- CM-6-350 Regular Meeting November 23, 1987 Council consensus was that this meeting be held as suggested. Dublin Information, Inc. City Manager Ambrose announced that immediately following this meeting, it would be necessary for the Council to meet as the Board of Directors of Dublin Information, Inc. A minor housekeeping item needs to be taken care of with regard to the landswap with Dublin San Ramon Services District. MTC ,,,,, Cm. Snyder indicated that he had received a Staff Memo from MTC and the issue is of great concern. It relates to potential legislative actions. MTC would like to form a consortium to deal with land use issues. Organizations like this want to dictate land use matters. Mayor Jeffery stated that these types of groups do a lot of lobbying. By a Council consensus, Staff was directed to send letters to Senator Lockyer and Assemblyman Baker expressing concern regarding potential pre-emption of local government prerogative. Alameda County Housing Authorit~ Cm. Hegarty reported that the Alameda County Housing Authority had recently held a meeting and due to incorrect information he received, he arrived one day late for the meeting. The Housing Authority wants to eliminate the contract with the grounds keeper at Arroyo Vista and put on their own employee. City Manager ~Ambrose indicated that it would be appropriate for the Dublin Housing Authority to review the contract. Community Television Cm. Hegarty reported that he had recently attended a Community Television meeting and the group reviewed the letter recently received from Dublin related to the extra $200 that was requested. He reiterated at the meeting that Dublin was upset over the principle of the matter. He advised the Community Television Board that they must do a review before the second $10,000 will be issued. II II II II # II II # II II fl II ff II II II CM-6-351 Regular Meeting November 23, 1987 City Manager Ambrose reported that the City has received a request for the $45,000 plus the $1,000 for the maintenance contract. Tri-Valley Joint.C0~ncil Meeting Mayor Jeffery reminded the Council that' it once again Dublin's turn to host the Tri-Valley Joint Council meeting. The date of January 28, 1988, was selected and Staff was requested to contact the new Fishery Restaurant to see if they have space available on that night. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. City' C~rk ~~+~+~+~+~+~+~~+~+~+~~+~+~+~~+~~+~+~+~~+u+~+~+u+~~+~+~+"+~~+"+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ CM-6-352 Regular Meeting November 23, 1987