Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-28-1987REGULAR MEETING -,September 28, 1987 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, September 28, 1987 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library.. The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Mayor Linda Jeffery. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Moffatt, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Jeffery. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle- giance to the flag. Fence - Bordeaux Estates Arnold Durrer, 8035 Brittany Drive, addressed the Council and indicated that the fence that is being erected is not as was approved by the owners. They want and approved an open fence in order to enjoy the views for which some of the property owners paid extra. He asked that the Council help them to delay the fence that is now being built on Lots #63 through #75. Planning Director Tong reported that Staff had met with Mr. Durrer and Mr. Gozland and advised that they must submit information to revise the City approved fence plans. It appears that they have not yet received the developer's concurrence. Mr. Durrer indicated that a partial plan was submitted last Monday to Mr. Savario. They are in a bind in that if the fence goes up, they cannot tear it down because of PD restrictions. The fence is scheduled to be put up tomorrow and they would like the City's help in stalling in order to resolve this issue. Bruce Gozland reported that they are caught in a crossfire position because of poor performance by the former developer. The new developer is now trying to go full speed ahead. He requested that 16 side fences be erected prior to their back fences. Mr. Tong indicated that the developer and all of the property owners involved need to sign the petition asking for this change. They must give the City some modified fence plans to replace the already approved plans. The City cannot legally stop the fence, but Staff could suggest that the developer hold off temporarily. Mr. Durrer and Mr. Gozland indicated that they have all but 3 of the property owners' signatures. %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%.%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.% CM-6-294 Regular Meeting September 28, 1987 Mayor Jeffery suggested that Staff call tomorrow and ask that the side fences be installed first. Mr. Tong advised that Staff will contact the developer to see if they are voluntarily willing to delay the back fences in order that this can be resolved. Cm. Hegarty questioned extra costs. Mr. Durrer reported that they have agreed to pick up any additional costs involved. They would like an open wrought iron fence and the homeowners have agreed to come up with the extra $500 - $1,000 per household. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 14, 1987; Approved the Financial Report for Period Ending August 31, 1987; Denied a claim received on August 17, 1987, filed on behalf of David Paul Reuter and directed Staff to notify the claimant and the Insurance Provider; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 78 - 87 AMENDING EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 26-87 ESTABLISHING FEES RELATED TO ANIMAL CONTROL ACTIVITIES Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 79 - 87 ESTABLISHING A SALARY PLAN FOR PART-TIME PERSONNEL Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $492,974.02; Reviewed documents related to several lost or destroyed bonds (San Ramon Road Specific Plan Assessment District), and authorized Staff to replace the bonds; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 80 - 87 AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN (Part-Time Recreation Positions) %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*% % % % % % % % % CM-6-295 Regular Meeting September 28, 1987 Tom Shores, 8799 Southwick Drive, requested that the item related to the bids for cars be removed from the Consent calendar for discussion. Mr. Shores reported that he placed bids on all 3 cars, and he had heard a rumor that his bid was not being accepted. He repor'ted that there is really no wholesale price established on a 1974 Mercedes. His family, his son and his son's grandfather own a wholesaler dealership. Since his bid was $1,700 nigher than the next highest bid,' he felt this to be unfair treatment on the part of the City if it rejects his bid. Mr. Shores indicated he would not suggest ever selling a City-owned car at a public auction. The City could be held liable for the condition of the automobile. Mr. William Wright from the audience indicated he and a friend have a 1975 Mercedes that they are restoring. He had no idea that the car was for sale. Mr. Wright indicated he was prepared to bid $1,000 higher than the highest bid received. Mayor Jeffery reported that the bid being discussed was closed. Finance Director, Phillip Molina reported that the City advertised in 3 local newspapers. The City-reserved the right to reject any or all bids. A number of telephone calls were received today, with more than one caller indicating they would be willing to pay at least $4,000. City Manager Ambrose advised the Council that we could also rebid the Mercedes. Cm. Hegarty felt that the City is not in the auction business and not in the car sales business. We really don't know what the car is worth. He expressed concern that the City could lose its creditability. The bids were submitted in good faith. He felt he could support the option of putting it out to bid once more. Cm. Moffatt questioned if there was any way a value could be placed on the car. He felt we'should use the auction process. Mr. Ambrose advised that the City could establish a low acceptable minimum bid. There~have been several times when we have rebid projects for one reason or another. Cm. Snyder agreed that we should advertise for sealed bids once more. Cm. Hegarty made a motion to accept the bids for the Corvette and the Datsun request sealed bids once more on the Mercedes, with a minimum of $5,000. This motion died for lack of a second. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to accept a bid of $13,026 for a 1985 Corvette, accept a bid of $2,000 for a 1972 Datsun, and authorized Staff to request sealed bids once more on the 1974 Mercedes. %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %*%* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %*% CM-6-296 Regular Meeting September 28, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING ALAMEDA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that state law requires that the County prepare a Waste Management Plan. Within 90 days following the adoption of the Plan by the Solid Waste Management Authority, the Plan must be approved by a majority of the cities representing a majority of'the population. Features of the Final Draft Plan were presented and the Hazardous Waste Element was discussed. The Final Draft Plan includes an "interim" Hazardous Waste Element. The County is proceeding with the development of a final hazardous waste plan and Mayor Jeffery has been appointed by the Mayors' Conference to serve on an Advisory Committee preparing the Plan. The proposed Element included in the Solid Waste Plan encourages the pursuit of minimizing hazardous waste generation, treatment of hazardous waste, and minimal landfill disposal. _he Plan also calls for development of a household hazardous waste program. The proposed plan has undergone a great deal of review by the Solid Waste Management Authority of which Councilmember Snyder is a member. Due to the requirement for each community to adopt the Solid Waste Management Plan, the County of Alameda has indicated that Environmental Impacts will need to be assessed by each community considering the proposed plan. The Planning Department has reviewed the Negative Declaration which was adopted by the Alameda County Solid Waste Authority and have prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for consideration by the Dublin City Council. The JPA will be coming before the Council at a future meeting. Cm. Hegarty expressed concern related to the 50-year capacity requirement. He was bothered by the term "mitigated measure". Cm. Snyder indicated that this fee is not designed to be a penalty. The Authority should not accept any application without assurance of a 50-year capacity. We have a way to start initially with San Francisco mitigation fees. Cm. Hegarty questioned if in addition to the mitigation fee if there was an actual plan for the future. We should really emphasize that this is a very serious issue. Mayor Jeffery indicated that she 'would carry the thoughts and concerns of the Council to the committee. Cm. Moffatt ~questioned, with regard to the letter from Oakland, if review is being pushed off until December 15, 1987. %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%,%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%.%,%,%.%,%.%.%,%..%.% CM-6-297 Regular Meeting September 28, 1987 Mr. Bill Fraley, with the Alameda County Planning Department, stated he wasn't sure if there is a provision for extending for 90 days. He was Unable to get in touch with Mr. Gardner. He stated he wished to clarify that they are talking about a minimum of 50-year ongoing capacity. Initially, we're talking about a 100-year or more capacity. A separate Hazardous Materials Plan will be prepared by the Authority. Cm. Moffatt commented that he noticed the word "solid" was being dropped and the plan was called "Waste Management Plan". He questioned if water and sewage would be handled by another agency. Mr. Fraley indicated that he had heard no talk regarding this. Waste water sludge may have to be handled separately. Discussion ensued related to industrial sludge into the sewer system. Mr. Fraley advised that all sludge has to be analyzed before it is removed from a site. It is carefully regulated. · Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Hegarty stated that when this was studied in the past, there were initially a lot of questions and he wasn't satisfied that all the questions had been answered. Cm. Snyder stated that this a Negative Declaration about a plan rather than a site. If a new site is obtained, it would be necessary to go through an EIR process. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 81 - 87 APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR REVISIONS TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN INVOLVING AMENDMENTS TO THE POLICIES AND FACILITIES CHAPTERS OF THE PLAN, THE INCLUSION OF A NEW CHAPTER ON ECONOMICS, THE INCLUSION OF AN "INTERIM" HAZARDOUS WASTE ELEMENT, AND THE INCLUSION OF AN UPDATE OF BACKGROUND DATA WITHIN THE PLAN and RESOLUTION NO. 82 - 87 APPROVING THE FINAL'DRAFT OF THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DATED JULY 29, 1987 Cm. Hegarty voted against this motion. * *. * %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%.%*%*%*%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.% CM-6-298 Regular Meeting September ' 28, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING OIL CHANGERS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that on August 17, 1987, the Planning Commission unanimously approved PA 87-100 Oil Changers Conditional Use Permit request to operate a drive-through car wash in addition to the drive-through oil'change lubrication and smog certification facility previously approved by the Commission on June 1, 1987. There was no public opposition to the drive- throUgh car wash proposal at the August 17, 1987 public hearing. On August 27, 1987, letters were received from Roger Woodward and from Vernon A. Swiers, appealing the Planning Commission's decision to approve the Oil Changers CUP. When asked to specify the grounds for the appeal, Mr. Swiers submitted a letter indicating that there are more than enough car wash facilities to meet the needs of the City of Dublin. Mr. Woodward stated that 1) there are at present 3 car washes in the immediate area; and 2) traffic circulation for the project as proposed would require the stacking of cars waiting for service on the adjacent street which would impede traffic and cause congestion. With regard to the number of car wash facilities in the area, Staff advised that whether or not the Applicant's proposed car wash and the other car washes can operate profitably is a private market matter. With regard to the stacking and traffic congestion, Staff advised that TJKM reviewed the site plan and indicated that on-site Circulation was adequate as proposed. An attendant will be on-site and will be responsible for making sure that vehicles will not stack out into the street or cause any traffic congestion. Staff felt that if the Council deemed it necessary, a specific condition could be applied requiring that all operations, including stacking, vehicular circulation, and parking take place entirely on site and no off-site stacking, off-site vehicular circulation, off-site parking, or off-site traffic congestion is allowed. Cm. Moffatt questioned how Staff determined stacking. Planning Director Tong exPlained that Staff reviewed a layout of the site. Seth Bland from Palo Alto was present representing Oil Changers. Mr. Bland indicated that they are not in the car wash business but rather in the oil change business. After a re-evatution of the site and the demographics of Dublin,.they decided to offer this service - a free car wash for their oil change customers. They expect to remove the car wash when the traffic is such that they need a fourth lube bay. Mr. Bland felt that neither appeal had much validity in that they are contradictory. One says there's not enough business in Dublin for all the car washes, and the other is concerned regarding the amount of traffic that will. stack up. %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.% CM-6-299 Regular Meeting· September 28, 1987 Cm. Snyder asked if the new facility in San Leandro is one of theirs. The architecture is very similar. Cm. Snyder felt it looked awfully junky, ..owever, because .they stack air filters to the ceiling against one of the windows. He expressed concern that Dublin will see a bunch of ratty looking inventory. Mr. Bland indicated that they would be happy to remove the window. Cm. Snyder responded that he is not asking them to remove the window, but rather just consider how it looks. Mr. Tong indicated that we would want to see something visually pleasing in the City. A possible option would be to have a window blanked out on the inside. This method is used on the~Regional Street side of Crown Books. Mr. Bland indicated that they would be amenable to using this option. Cm. Hegarty felt that this should be put on as a condition of approval. John Corley, P. O. Box 2, Pleasanton addressed the Council stating he was representing Roger WoodWard. Their concern is that Staff be even-handed in handling car washes. He felt the Council should recognize the fact that the car wash business is somewhat unique. It is difficult for a City Staff person to tell you what will haPpen in this type of an operation. Cars will stack and he felt that Staff took no account of this situation in their report. . Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Snyder questioned Mr. Woodward's concerns that this will create a competitive situation, if the car wash is free to customers who get an oil change. Mr. Bland indicated that full service customers, will receive a free car wash; others will have to pay $2.50. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 83 - 87 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR PA 87-100 OIL CHANGERS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE-THROUGH CAR WASH AT 7194 VILLAGE PARKWAY and with the changes discussed related to adding condition that everything must be done on.site (stacking) plus the storage behind windows must be ...asked, adopted ~ RESOLUTION NO. 84 - 87 UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION AND .APPROVING PA 87-100 OIL CHANGERS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO ESTABLISH A DRIVE-THROUGH CAR WASH FACILITY IN ADDITION TOTHE OIL CHANGE, LUBRICATION AND SMOG CERTIFICATION FACILITY PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR 7194 VILLAGE PARKWAY IN THE C-2-B-40 DISTRICT %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %.* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %*%* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* % CM-6-300 Regular Meeting September 28, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING - CORWOOD CAR WASH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE DEVELOPI~NT REVIEW & VARIANCE REQUEST APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DENYING PA 86-017 Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that the 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 the sideyard setback requirements and parking regulations. The existing facility at 6973 Village Parkway, consists primarily of a conveyor type car wash, an office area, and a gasoline pump island. The existing structure maintains a 30+ foot frontyard setback, a 17.5+ foot north sideyard setback to the gas pum~ island, and a 12 foot south si~eyard setback. The Applicant proposes to add a redwood arbor over the 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 building. In addition to the remodel and floor area addition t~ 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 10,056+ square feet on a 22,914 square foot parcel. There are two sideyard setback Variance requests (variance to reduce the south sideyard setback from 12 feet to 0 feet and to reduce the north sideyard setback from the required 20 feet to 10 feet 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). The Planning Commission reviewed and considered PA 86-017 at three public hearings. It was the Planning Commission consensus that the Applicant's plans would require substantial modification to comply with the Commission's directiOn. On November 3, 1986, the Planning Commission unanimously denied this request without prejudice. The denial without prejudice would allow the Applicant to submit a revised application within the year. The Applicant subsequently appealed the Planning Commission's decision with a request to delay the appeal hearing until this meeting. Three major keY issues which were discussed by the Planning Commission related to 1) Detail Shop Building Height; 2) width and number of drive aisles; 3) limit length of time for CUP approval to maximum of 5 years. Several secondary issues were also considered and discussed by the Planning Co~mission. Cm. Hegarty questioned if the Council denied this application and the applicant submitted a new plan, would he be charged additionally. Planning Director Tong responded that the policy of the City has been to charge for each proposal. However, if the item were continued in order to give the %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%,%*%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.% CM-6-301 Regular Meeting September 28, 1987 applicant an opportunity to work out some of the log-jam with Staff, there would be no additional charge, but rather they would continue to deduct from the required deposit. RECESS The Applicant requested a short recess to prepare their presentation. The Mayor announced a short recess. All Councilmembers were present when the meeting was reconvened. John P. Corley, representing Roger Woodward, Corwood Car Wash, addressed the Council. He did not feel that they were that far from reaching agreement with Staff. They are only off about 3 1/2' with regard to the height of the building. An additional aisle is desirable and this would allow cars to be on their property rather than on the street. Everything that Mr. Woodward will be doing, he .is doing now, but he will be doing it better. If the City Council says no, the facility will still be there. The requested changes will cost a substantial amount of money, and they did not feel it to be realistic to put a 5-year time limit on the approval.~ A new Council could say at the end of 5 years - no, we don't like car washes there, you must move to Dougherty Road. They have a difficult problem with limiting this approval to such a short time. Only the City Council can set the rules and Mr. Corley did not feel that this is an appropriate Staff decision. A lot of thought went into this plan and he requested that the City Council think in terms of all having the same goals. Howard Neeley, a design consultant from Pleasanton displayed slides, drawings and a model of the proposed project. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Snyder questioned if there were any comments from neighboring property owners with regard to the height. Staff responded that Mr. Wendling made comments, but he has since moved to San Ramon. Cm. Snyder also questioned why we are thinking in terms of a 5-year permit when their existing permit is open ended. City Attorney Nave advised the Council that the City's term will supersede the Applicant's previous use permit and the Council is free to set whatever term they choose. City Manager Ambrose clarified that the City wants the opportunity to look at the project at some time in the future since this is an intensified use. Cm. Hegarty felt that at the end of the 5 years, if all the conditions have been met, it could be given additional time. Cm. Moffatt felt there could be financing problems with only a 5-year permit. This may be unfair to the business owner. He would rather see a minimum of 20-30 years. %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* ~* %, %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %, %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* % CM-6-302 Regular Meeting September 28, 1987 Mayor Jeffery indicated she did not feel this was necessarily the case as she had spoken with a financial institution. Cm. Vonheeder felt that a business may have to pay premiums because this short time would make them a higher risk. Cm. Hegarty questioned how this condition could be worded so as to not take away the Conditional Use Permit. Cm. Vonheeder felt that any CUP can have additional conditions placed on it when it is up for renewal. Mr. Ambrose stated that there have been CUP's that have come up for renewal that were previously approved by Alameda County, and this gives the City a chance to review and Sometimes make corrections. Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff can review the financial issues if the Council desires. Mayor Jeffery felt that this is not the issue and further that it is unapproPriate for the City to get into whatever financial arrangements the applicant makes. Cm. Vonheeder indicated she did not feel that this is really intensification, but rather a modernization of the facility. They are not adding anything, · but rather just making the site look a lot better. What is proposed by the new design will be more attractive for the two neighboring houses than what they currently see. The sidewalk is very narrow, however, and this should be reviewed. She indicated she has a problem with the 5-year limit. Cm. Hegarty felt that his general comment is that the Applicant is trying to put 10 lbs. into a 5 lb. bag. He felt the model displayed was deceiving. With regard to the height limitations, there are rules already in place. He felt a compromise could be worked out. There is just so much that can be squeezed onto this site. It is extremely close to the sidewalk. He also had a problem with the 5-year limit. He suggested that the Applicant continue to work with Staff to resolve some of the issues. Discussion was held with regard to height in relation to the Downtown Plan. The height should be compatible with surrounding area. Cm. Snyder indicated that he was generally in favor of the project, but expressed concern with the lane next to the sidewalk. He questioned the effect of shadow lines on the adjacent buildings, and if there were studies done relative to this. Planning Director Tong indicated there were no studies except that a shadow analysis has been done. Mayor Jeffery felt the 3rd lane creates a danger. The City could be setting a precedent by allowing their attendant to work from a public right-of-way. Mr. Tong reported that the construction work that is currently occuring on the sidewalk around the planter is by the telephone company. The planter was constructed without an encroachment permit and is actually in part of the right-of-way. %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%.%*%,%.%,%,%,%,%.%,%,%,% CM-6-303 Regular Meeting September 28, 1987 Mayor Jeffery felt that the question is whether this particular application is proper in its current form. Cm. Hegarty felt the Council should give direction with regard to the time period and suggested 12 years. Cm. Moffatt felt we are penalizing a property owner for improving his property. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by majority vote, the Council agreed to give the Applicant a 12-year CUP approval. Mayor Jeffery and Cm. Moffatt voted against this motion. On motion of Cm, Snyder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote, the Council approved a 19.5' height, as proposed, for the detail shop, Mayor Jeffery voted against this motion. On motiOn of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by majority vote, the Council agreed to allow a 3rd lane, provided some type of mitigation between the sidewalk can be worked out. Mayor Jeffery voted against this motion. During discussion related to the 3rd lane, Cm. Vonheeder questioned if there was some type of an easement along the sidewalk area. Planner Maureen O'Halloran advised that there is an approximate 4' strip next to the sidewalk that is not a part of the car wash Property. Cm. Vonheeder questioned if the Applicant could buy the 4' of property from the City. Mr. Nave indicated that the City would have to follow statuatory procedure. Mr. Tong advised that this issue could be brought back to the Council in about one month. Mr. Nave advised the Council that it is not wise to allow an ongoing use to continue in the public right-of-way property. pUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THROUGH AND LOCAL TRUCK ROUTES Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that this ordinance, which was introduced at the September 14, 1987 CoUncil meeting enables the City to establish certain City streets as through and local truck routes. Streets so designated will become part of the City's Traffic Code and "Truck Route" signs may then be.posted. No comments were made by members of the public. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*% CM-6-304 Regular Meeting September 28, 1987 on motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 43 - 87 ESTABLISHING THROUGH AND LOCAL TRUCK ROUTES PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that this ordinance, which was introduced at the September 14, 1987 Council meeting, provides a procedure for establishing right-of-way lines for the purpose of future street widening, extension, or creation, space for utilities, fire and police emergency access, etc. Establishment of any other right-of-way lines must be initiated by the procedure outlined in the ordinance. This provides that the right-of-way lines may be initiated by petition of property owner, resolution of City Council, or resolution of Planning Commission. No comments were made by members of the public. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 44 - 87 ESTABLISHING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES * * * * PUBLIC HEARING LOADING ZONE & NO PARKING ZONE - SCARLETT COURT Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that this item was previously heard at Council meetings held on August 24th and September 14th. On September 14th, John and Shirley Corallo of the Valley Boat House requested that the loading zone be located on th~ southeasterly side of the Curtiss Dodge driveway and that the curb between. the Valley Boat House driveway and the Curtiss Dodge driveway be designated as a one-hour parking zone in order to allow customers of both businesses to park along the curb. Staff spoke with Steve Haworth of Curtiss Dodge, who confirms that this solution is satisfactory. Approximately 20 feet of curb southeasterly of each driveway will, however, be designated no parking to allow for adequate sight distance for exiting vehicles. %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*% CM-6-305 Regular Meeting September 28, 1987 City Manager Ambrose reported that the Staff recommendation is different than what was previously submitted. Ty Tikawa from TJKM explained that he had made a site inspection today and discovered that a fire hydrant will prohibit the adoption of the previous recommendation. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the ingress and egress locations at Curtiss Dodge could be moved. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to continue this item until the property owners can be contacted. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 7-82 CREATING AND ESTABLISHING THE POSITION OF CITY MANAGER Mayor Jeffery opened'the public hearing. This ordinance, which was introduced at the September 14, 1987 Council meeting, would authorize the City Manager to appoint and remove Officers and Department Heads with the exception of the City Attorney, without the approval of the City Council. This modification will assist the Manager in securing the services of the most qualified people for Department Head positions, as well as meet the criteria necessary to be recognized as a Council/Manager form of government. No comments were made by members of the public. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Moffatt questioned if there would be a substantial change if a new City Managerwere appointed. City Attorney Nave advised that the Council could limit the ordinance in terms of years. Cm. Hegarty pointed out that the ordinance could be brought up for amendment at any time. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote, the Council,waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 45 - 87 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 7-82 CREATING AND ESTABLISHING THE POSITION OF CITY MANAGER Cm. Hegarty voted against this motion * * * %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%.%.%.% CM-6-306. Regular Meeting September 28, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING PERSONNEL ORDINANCE AND PERSONNEL SYSTEM RULES Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. In 1984, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 7-84, which established a personnel system. This ordinance was based on model legislation developed by the League of California Cities. The ordinance was modified from the model legislation to be consistent with Ordinance No. 7-82 "Creating and Establishing the Position of City Manager". The proposed Personnel Ordinance will be consistent with the City Manager proposed ordinance which rescinds Ordinance No. 7-82. The League of California Cities has also published a 1987 edition of its suggested ordinance. The proposed ordinance is based substantially on the language contained in the recommended document and further input from the Assistant City Attorney. A detailed list of the differences contained in the proposed ordinance was presented and discuSsed. Staff also prepared a draft set of revised Personnel Rules, and presented a list of the changes. The ordinance was introduced at the City CoUncil meeting of September 14, 1987. Section 4 (e) exempts Management employees from the Personnel Rules. Individuals serving in these positions are "at-will" employees who serve at the pleasure of the City Manager. As such, they are exempt from the personnel rules and may be dismissed with or without cause. However, those incumbents presently in these Management positions as of September 1, 1987, will continue to be Covered by the same rules in effect at the time they were appointed. Once the incumbent leaves the position, the position will be considered an "at-will" position. A resolution was prepared which' formally denotes each position. The use of a resolution avoids the requirement to obtain an amendment to an ordinance if the organization changes and a new management position is created. The resolution can be processed in a more timely manner and allow the. recruit- ment process to begin. The resOlution also identifies leave benefits for the designated employees. All other positions eligible for leave benefits are subject to Personnel Rules governing members of the competitive service. No comments were made by members of the public. 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. 46 - 87 REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 7-84 AND ESTABLISHING A PERSONNEL SYSTEM %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* % CM-6-307 Regular Meeting September 28, 1987 and RESOLUTION NO. 85 - 87 and PERSONNEL SYSTEM RULES RESOLUTION NO. 86 - 87 ESTABLISHING MANAGEMENT POSITIONS EXEMPT FROM COMPETITIVE SERVICE AND PRESCRIBING LEAVE BENEFITS FOR THE POSITIONS Cm. Hegarty voted against this motion. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE REQUIRING PERMITS FOR THE USE OF SOUND AMPLIFICATION EQUIPMENT Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that this draft ordinance is part of the comprehensive municipal code revision process and requires a permit with respect to the operation of any mobile public address sound system equipment in the outdoor areas of the City. The permit process is delineated, as well as the appeal procedure, should an application for permit be denied. Cm. Moffatt questioned'if this included ice cream trucks. City Manager Ambrose indicated yes, it would be required for an ice cream truck to have a permit. Staff advised that there is no penalty identified in this ordinance and any violation would be a misdemeanor. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the City would use a decibel level. Mr. Ambrose reminded Cm. Moffatt that the City's noise ordinance deals with the reasonable man approach rather than decibel levels. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Hegarty made a motion which was seconded by Cm. Vonheeder to introduce the ordinance. Mayor Jeffery questioned with regard to parades, if individual floats using sound equipment would be required to get a permit. Cm. Snyder questioned the need for permits to cover events held at the Sports Grounds. Mr. Ambrose responded that under this ordinance, both types of events would require permits. %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.%.% CM-6-308 Regular Meeting September 28, 1987 Cm. Hegarty felt there should be some exceptions made. City Attorney Nave explained that this is a great example of a law on the books that is never used. We currently have something very similar to this. Cm. Snyder felt that there are some occasions when a permit should be required. Cm. Hegarty and Cm. Vonheeder withdrew their motion and second, respectively to introduce the ordinance. By a Council consensus, Staff was directed to draft an ordinance which would relate to requiring permits for the use of sound amplification equipment only on public thoroughfares. PUBLIC HEARING RAINBOW INVESTMENT COMPANY - REZONE REQUEST - 7601 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that on September 14, 1987, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving PA 87-076 Rainbow Investment Company Rezoning application and introduced an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance. The application involves the rezoning of a 1.3+ acre partially developed property at 7601 Amador Valley Boulevard from a C-O~ Administrative Office District to a PD, Planned Development District. No public comments were made on this issue. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 47 - 87 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE REZONING OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF STARWARD DRIVE AND AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD ANDTHE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DONAHUE DRIVE AND AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY RAIL ALTERNATIVES STUDY-DRAFT FINAL REPORT The Draft Final Report, which was prepared by DKS Associates and several other consultants working for LAVTA and BART has been released for public comment. The study is to evaluate various light rail transit and BART alternatives to provide transit service to the Tri-Valley Area from the Bay Fair BART Station. The study is a requirement of Alameda County Measure B. %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%.%*%*%*%*%*%.%*%*%*%*%*%.%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%.% CM-6-309 Regular Meeting September 28, 1987 The study concludes that any of 3 alternatives (high speed conventional LRT, high performance LRT and BART) appear feasible, and the differences among them are not great. The study indicates that the BART alternative is recommended over both of the light rail alternatives. A major drawback, however, of the BART alternative is its costs, estimated at approximately $25 million (about 12%) more than the high speed conventional LRT ($226 million vs. $201 Million). Measure B allocates only $170 million to assist in rail %ransit service to the Tri-Valley Area. Staff advised that 2 meetings have been scheduled to receive public comments, one on OCtober 1, 1987, 7 p.m., at the Pleasanton City Council Chambers, and one on October 20, 1987, 4 p.m., at the Dublin Library. The Final Report is scheduled for distribution between October 21-30, 1987. Staff prepared a detailed report of comments to be sent to both BART and LAVTA. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed that Staff forward comments to both BART and LAVTA. OTHER BUSINESS Federal Correctional Institute City Manager Ambrose repOrted that the City had received an environmental assessment for the Federal Correctional Institute. Staff will be reviewing it in the next couple of weeks. Staff will prepare a summary. They have requested comments back the first or second week in November. Sports Grounds Parking Cm. Vonheeder requested that Staff take a look at the parking space markings at the Sports Grounds, particularly near the new Sierra Court extension. AIDS Task Force Cm. Moffatt reported that the Valley Community Health Center has just initiated an AIDS task force. Summer Jobs for Youth Cm. Moffatt advised that ACTEB/ACAP has put out a book summarizing the program related to summer jobs for youth. He requested that Staff give the book to the Recreation Director. %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*% CM-6-310 Regular Meeting September 28, 1987 ACTEB Cm. Moffatt reported that ACTEB is changing their intake eligibility requirements. People coming into the program who don't meet all the criteria, could potentially have to put out about $100. Soroptimi~t..EVent/S tepp i.n g~..~ ...out Mayor Jeffery questioned if the Council had any thoughts regarding what could be donated for the auction of the upcoming event being sponsored by the Soroptimist organization. Mayor Jeffery suggested something along the line of putting someone's name who submitted a high bid on some type of a plaque near the new tennis courts. Cm. Hegarty felt a dinner would be more appropriate and volunteered to host such a dinner. Planning Commission & Park & Recreation Commission Appointments Cm. Snyder announced that he had appointed George Zika, former Park & Recreation Commissioner, to fill the vacancy created on the Planning Commission when Brian Raley moved out of Dublin. Cm. Snyder announced that he has appointed Dan Downey to fill George Zika's seat on the Park & Recreation Commission. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:13 p.m. ATTEST: City C 1 e%r~- %*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*% % % % % % % % % Regular Meeting CM- 6- 311 September 28, 1987