Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-25-1995 Adopted CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING - July 25, 1995 A regular meeting of the City Council of the Ci~ty of Dublin was held on Tuesday, July 25, 1995, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order 7:33 p.m., by Mayor Houston. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Barnes, Burton, Howard, Moffatt and Mayor Houston. ABSENT: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Houston led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. PLAQUE TO STEVE LOWEREE (610-50) Mayor Houston presented a plaque honoring Steve Loweree, Maintenance Superintendent with MCE Corporation for his service to the City of Dublin. Steve was recently promoted within MCE and will be working out of their office which is moving to Dublin very soon. Steve thanked the Mayor and City Council and previous City Councils for all the support they have given him and his company as a whole. He has learned a lot from Mr. Ambrose, Mr. Thompson and Ms. Lowart. He is saddened that he won't continue working directly with everyone, but is leaving us in good hands with Dean McDonald. He will be supervising MCE's maintenance contracts among other things. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Howard, Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes (4.1) of Study Session Meeting of July 8, and Regular Meeting of July 11, 1995; CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 394 Received (4.3 320-30) the City Treasurer's Investment Report as of June 30, 1995, showing the City's investment portfolio totaling $22,006,245.38 with funds invested at an average annual yield of 5.874%; and Adopted (4.4 820-90) RESOLUTION NO. 80 - 95 ADOPTING A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ESTABLISH A RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR DUBLIN BOULEVARD FROM THE EASTERN BART ACCESS DRIVE TO HACIENDA DRIVE Received a Status Report (4.5 200-20) related to reactivating City fountains; and Approved the Warrant Register (4.6 300-40) in the amount of $1,418,692.48. Cm. Barnes pulled Item 4.2 from the Consent Calendar and stated she would 1lire the City Council to formally thanir the Women's Club of Dub/in. They ore a great group that a/ways wants to supporl the Sen/or Center. On motion of Cm. Howard, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the City Council Accepted a gift (4.2 150-70) of a Cuisinart Classic Food Processor valued at $150 for use at the Dublin Senior Center from the Women's Club of Dublin and directed Staff to prepare a formal acknowledgment to the donor. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL A CREATIVE PLAYSCHOOL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA 95-017 7:37 p.m. 6.1 (450-50) Cm. Moffatt stated he would disqualify himself from this discussion and vote due to a conflict of interest in that his wife is in the childcare business. Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. The Planning Commission on June 19, 1995, unanimously denied a request for a CUP to operate a child care center in a single family home at 6837 Amador Valley Boulevard. The center would have a maximum attendance of 30 children, ages 2 through 5 years. The Applicants, Janet A. Zupetz and Dawn R. Bowen have appealed the decision to the City Council. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 395 Associate Planner Jeri Ram reviewed the Staff Report which covered project description, Land Use/General Plan, Environmental Review, State of California Policy, City Regulations, and Planning Commission Meeting. Under Staff's analysis, areas addressed were noise and parking, traffic and accidents,. Ms. Ram stated Staff evaluated the increase of traffic and parking that would occur at maximum capacity of the daycare center with a worst case scenario. The analysis found that there are adequate legal parking areas to allow for 6 cars to park for 6 minutes at the same time. This would allow for 6 parents to drop off their children at the same time without parking adjacent to any of the neighbors' properties. At maximum capacity, the facility would have a staff of 4 persons. All staff parking would be provided on site; 2 within the existing garage and 2 on the driveway. Additionally, concrete would be poured adjacent to the driveway and the path to the house. This would provide for 2 on-site parking spaces for parents visiting the Center, in addition to the staff parking spaces. Ms. Ram stated complaints had been received from citizens regarding traffic at Amador Valley Boulevard and Brighton Drive, especially during the morning preschool drop off hours. Presently, traffic is controlled by a stop sign on Brighton Drive at Amador Valley Boulevard. The City commissioned a study in 1994 to see if the intersection met all-way stop sign warrants. The study found that the traffic and accident rates at that intersection did not warrant an all-way stop sign. Traffic would have to more than double on Brighton Drive before the traffic warrant would be met. A copy of a letter received earlier today by the Planning Department from Beverly and Kenneth Wright, 7236 Newcastle Lane and Carole and Richard Patrick, 7258 Newcastle Lane was distributed to the City Council. ("Dear Planning Commission: We ore writing to voice our opposition to the above proposed Preschool facility. A facility of this size, af this site, would creole enormous traffic problems at the intersection of Brighton Dr. and Am(~dor Valley Blvd. /.his is a/ready an extremely busy intersection at key travel times during the day. The students en route to both Frederiksen Elementary and Dublin High Schools travel via these streets/intersection as well as those en route to Wells Intermediate. We hove students attending two of these schools (;nd fear for their safety. There are no stop signs or crosswalks this intersecffon which b dangerous in itself With a proposed preschool of up to 30, lhese additional cars would creole gridlock of an unimaginable magnitude. Also, the parked cars dropping off and/or picking up children will further add to a chaotic situation. We feel ff would be in the best interest of ourselves, our neighbors and/he neighborhood i/self to reject/his project unless it is severely scaled down in size or, more belier, relocated to an area/hat could handle such a ]arge projecf Thank you for your attention to this matter. Signed by Beverly & I(enneth Wright and Coral Patrick. A copy of a letter received earlier today by the Planning Department from the Blakes, 7192 Newcastle was distributed to the City Council. ["DEAR PL4NN/NG COMA, i/S/ON BOARD, WEARE YEHEMENI'Z Y OPPOSED l'O THE PROPOSED CHILD CARE FAC/1/TY AT THE CORNER OF BRIGHTON AND AA4ADOR VALLEY. WE FEEL THERE HAS TO BE S/ON/F/CANT CHANGES TO THE INTERSECT/ON BEFORE A FACILITY OF THE PROPOSED SIZE COULD OPERATE SAFELY. FOR NO LESS THAN 250 FAA/lILIES THAN DROP OFF K/DS AT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 396 FREDERICKSEN AND WELLS THE DA YCARE TRAFFIC WOULD SEVERL Y HAA4PER THESE/ViORNINO TRAFF/C PAI-[ERNS NOT TO AHENT/ON ADD TO THE ALREAD Y STRETCHED SAFETY PROBLEA4S A T THA T INTERSECTION. IN ADDITION THE STUDENTS AT DUBLIN H/OH SCHOOL WOULD HA VE THERE TRAFFIC AFFECTED. WE ALSO FEEL THAT THE IA4A4EDIATE IA4PACT ON NOISE AND TRAFF/C A4A Y LOWER THE VALUE OF THE HOA4ES /N THE AREA AFFECTINO THE REOIONAL TAX BASE. I FEEL/T/S THE BEST INTEREST OF THE C/TY OF DUBLIN IF THE PROPOSED DA Y CARE PLAN BE SCALED WA Y DOWN OR A4OVED TO A DIFFEREN. T LOCATION. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN THIS A4A TTER. VERY TRULY. THE BLAKES" [s/c]} Ms. Ram displayed slides of the project site. Cm. Burton questioned the widths of the side yards in this area and asked about setbacks. Ms. Ram stated she had not measured this. Cm. Burton asked if CC&Rs were involved. Ms. Ram stated the City does not administer any. If there is a homeowner's association they would have to approve this use. Mayor Houston felt any CC&Rs for this area Would not typically be what we see in newer developments. Ralph Hughes, Attorney representing the Applicant stated he also lives in this area. With regard to CC&Rs, there are some in effect. They are fairly old. There is also another daycare about 3 doors down on Amador Valley Boulevard. If CC&Rs were prepared today, they would probably be quite different. Staff members have already examined this project very carefully and find that there are no significant impacts on the community. This is a well traveled area of roadway. During peak times, it is also well traveled by vehicles, pedestrians, etc. This is not a quiet subdivision. The Staff Report clearly indicates that there is already a fair amount of noise in this area. A CUP is intended to deal with the interest of the public at large rather than just a few. People opposed have various reasons for their opposition. Their opposition does not represent the public as a whole. The home was purchased solely for this purpose. No one will reside in the home; it will be used solely as a daycare. They have complied with all licensing laws. There is a lot of government involvement at various levels. Noise is not and should not be an issue. There are a lot of things that annoy people. Having a daycare center is a necessary and important use. The City Council must consider if the CUP falls within the mandates of law and whether this use serves the use of the general public. City Staff has very carefully examined all the issues and they are neutral. The result is there is no significant negative impact and this must be balanced with the positive impact that the City would benefit by having quality childcare. He felt the only real issue is whether or not there will be unreasonable congestion and traffic. This project will be of great benefit CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 397 for the City. He requested that the City Council follow Staff's recommendation and approve the project. Mayor Houston read comments submitted by Georgia DeStefano, 6825 Amador Valley Boulevard. "1 per$ona//y fee/the above mention subject before you shou/d NO? be grated. I do not fee/ this location is safe and condusive to the well being of the community. I did not wish to live next to a school and when purchasing my home I had the choice and did not seek residence across the street from a school. Please do not approve of this request #?A-~5-0171 do not believe a vacant home in the evening and weekends to create a security and vandalize. "[sic] Mayor Houston read comments submitted by Art Bielski, 6813 Amador Valley Boulevard. "CAN I ALSO STA/~TA BUS/NESS/N M Y GA/~A GE??" Mayor Houston advised Mr. Bielski that as long as it were an allowable home occupation and if he went through the proper process and got a business license, he could indeed start a business from his home. Allan Owens 6802 Amador Valley Boulevard stated he spoke recently when we were trying to increase the speed limits on Amador Valley Boulevard. The degree of concern about traffic issues is great. He gathered a lot of signatures expressing a number of concerns about traffic on Amador Valley Boulevard. A lot of people have problems backing out of their driveways. He discussed the daycare that is present there now. It's licensed for about 10 or 12 kids and they have about 7 kids. He watches traffic coming and going from this facility, it is not disruptive, but it's on the verge. If you multiply this by 3 and move it down to a crowded corner, you will have gridlock. Anyone who doesn't believe this should go there when school is in session. It is a danger to kids and a traffic hazard. With regard to the comment of daycare being in the public interest versus the neighborhood being a selfish group, there are a number of people opposed to this daycare center. This is a bogus argument and doesn't wash. In a lot of communities, he has noted daycare centers in commercial areas. You see these creative solutions because other communities hold the line. Dublin should also. The argument that they already have traffic problems and are a noisy neighborhood, so just go ahead is ridiculous. The statement that the home was bought solely for daycare purposes, the Real Estate agent expressed surprise that he didn't know this was the reason for the purchase. A question that was asked before the Planning Commission was why didn't they get a contingency based on getting their approvals. Staff said neither approve or disapprove, they didn't recommend approving the project as the Attorney said. The Planning Commission seemed convinced that this was the right idea, but in the wrong place. He hoped the City Council would stand behind the Planning Commission on this. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 398 Lois O' Reilly, 6969 Amador Valley Boulevard stated she had owned her home for 14 years and sold real estate in the valley for 15 years. What she has seen Js if you own a home on a busy street, it is difficult to sell. In cities where you have a combination of residences and businesses on the same street, it is even worse. She felt this would negatively impact traffic in the area and also create more noise. There is another daycare center at the end of the street. Their signage is obnoxious. She did not purchase her home to be in a business district. She is opposed to any kind of business that has visibility on a street whatsoever. Cindy Raymond, 6860 Amador Valley Boulevard lives across the street from the proposed daycare. No one can convince her that there won't be a sign. She and her neighbors make frequent u-turns there. The right turn on to Brighton Drive from Amador Valley Boulevard will be completely useless. She hoped the curb on Amador Valley Boulevard would be painted red so all the traffic would be on Brighton Drive. When kids are going to Frederiksen and Wells, as well as to the high school, she could imagine that cars will be parking across the street. Parking is the number one problem with this. You can't get rid of all the cars at once. James Key, 6848 Brighton Drive stated he lives next door to Dr. Krekorian who lives at 6842 Brighton Drive. Since his house is the one directly next to this property he asked him to deliver a letter. He works in his home pad-time. He read Dr. Krekorian's letter. "~e: Pro/ecl 95-017 A Creo#ve Ploy$choo/ /ocoled of g$3? Amodor Volley Blvd. Dear C#y Council Members, My nome is Don I~rekorion and I live at ~842 Brighton Dr., next door fo ~837Amodor Valley B/vd. Due fo a comm#menl fo my employer, I om out of lawn and con not personally be here of the mee#ng tonighL I hove asked my neighbor, Mr. Jim I(ey fo read/his lefler fo you, so you know my position regarding this issue. I hove lived, w#h my/wa children, Mot/hew, age 8 and Emily age ~, in Dub/in since OcL 1~3 and om proud 1o coil Dublin my home. When my family and I were looking fo buy o home in/he ?ri- Volley oreo, we looked in oll of/he surrounding cities, Pleosonlon, l ivermore, Son £omon, and Danville. In many of these areas we found nice neighborhoods, cleon porks, and good schools. After looking of many homes, we decided fo buy /his house tho! we currently live in. Our decision on the Brighton Dr. Ioco#on was mode because of o couple of factors: 1. A quiet res/riehl/al neighborhood. 2. The house is centrally located between Fredriksen Elementary, Wells Middle School and Dub/in High. At the Planning Commission Hearing, June I g I PP$, regarding this issue, I os we//os many of my neighbors, addressed o number of issues os fo the apparition on the granting of the permiL / would like fo make sure /hal you hove reviewed my position and issues, and I hove ofloched o copy of thai/efler fo this one. I understand tho! there is o need for child core in the Slate of California, Alameda Coun/y and/he Ci/y of Dub/in, and I don'! claim fo hove/he answers that would solve/his very impodon! issue, but I do know lhol /he City governmen/ must toke every step fo ossure /hot ifs res/denis concerns ore oddressed. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE $99 At the Planning Commission hearing, I addressed four reasons os to my opposition: I. Traffic. 2. Safely. 3. Noise. 4. Properly Values. Tonight, I would like to state a fifth reason: The purchase of a residence for the purpose of opening a business. The house will not be occupied by its owners for the purpose # was intended for, o home, but will be used as a p/ace of business. The owners of the house do not even live in the city of Dub/in, lhey live in Pleasanton. I hove a big concern regarding that. I am not opposed to ch/id care in o house, if the owners live there and are using this as a way of providing income to their family, but I believe that businesses should be located in the properly zoned areas of the city. Mrs. Zupelz slated at the Planning Commission hearing, .they hod tacked for a house in different c/ties before deciding on the Amador Valley B/vd. properly and this brought up several questions: Why Dub/in? What is the City of Pleasanton's pos/lion on this issue? Whal is lhe City of Livermore 's posNion on this issue? What is lhe City of San £amon and Danville's podtion on this issue? Would the residents on Silvergale support this.e Would the residents of Briar Hill support this? Would each of the Council members support this if it was next door to their home? In closing, I would like to request the City Counci/ review this issue very close/y, review the minutes of/he Planning Camm/salon Hearing and support lhe residents of the city. I have also attached a copy of a petition signed by 31 residents who live near 6837Amador Valley and are opposed to the granting of the permit. Thank you for letting Mr. Key read this to you on my behalf. Don Krekorion 6842 Brighton Dr. [Attachments were: Letter to Planning Commission dated June ! 9, 1995; Diagram of his floor p/an; Lei/er/o Planning Director dated June 19, 1995; Copy arpel/t/on opposing the CUP s/gned by 31 people; Letter/o Dub/in City Council from "The Neighbors of 6837 Amador Valley B/vd. signed by 32 peop/e.] Mr. Key reminded the City Council that the Planning Commission decision was unanimous. This is a safety concern for the neighborhood. Mayor Houston read comments submitted by Angelina Fountain, 6980 Doreen Coud. "Traffic; Exposure to noise [both for the children, & the neighborhood]; corner Iai unsafe because of the possibility of acc/dent; / i/ye w/th a home in the furthest point army yard;/he noise/eve/is tremendous; / bought my home /o live in, no/for a profitable business venture area; we don't need more noise; vandalism on bus/ness during the off hours; Mayor Houston read comments submitted by Dawn Gallup 8375 Davona Drive. "/don'//h/nk tho/this location is o very good spot for o center. As you know there ore many family childcore home nearby, P/us on/he other end of the s/reel beh/nd AM-PM is o/ready o ch//dcore center. / fee/tho/this is o ch//dcore over toad. Thank you." Floyd Chavez, 7444 Stagecoach Road stated he was one of the 62 petitioners. He has lived here since 1970 when this was a small community. He understands the Zupetz are residents of Contra Costa County. The lawyer commented that it doesn't bother him because he lives in Pleasanton. Dublin people have been called a lot of names over the years, if they want a business, let them locate in a commercial area. We will end up with a used parking CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 400 lot. He does not appreciate the thought of having a business like this in a residential area. He is a businessman and pays his taxes. He drives home on Amador Valley Boulevard every day. There is a lot of traffic. He is opposed, along with 62 others, having this childcare come into Dublin. Mayor Houston read comments submitted by Betsy Key, 6848 Brighton Drive. '~s the Planning Commissioner staled, #'s o good idea Dui de#n#e/y /he wrong iaea#on. Safely is lhe main issue. The house is located al a very busy interseclion & my concern is for the safely of the children." Leonard DeStefano, 6825 Amador~ Valley Boulevard stated he is opposed to this proposal. Questions were asked of him related to CC&Rs, and he asked the Council to elaborate. Mayor Houston explained that CC&Rs means rules called covenants conditions and restrictions. A project operates under these rules. Usually all areas have them but they vary quite a bit. Mr. DeStefano expressed concern about the PJeasanton address given by the applicant. He tried to locate Old School Road on the map and found out it is actually in Contra Costa County rather than Pleasanton. He understood that a CUP was to be applied for during the purchase of a residence. He thought they had to state to the lending agency what they plan for the property. He questioned if it was stated to the lending agency that they planned to use it for a business when they took out their loan. Many of the people who live in the area have lived there for many years. There are many retirees. He works nights and is home during the day when this congestion will occur. He pointed out that in addition, new East Dublin traffic will be added when that area develops. Many of the people will probably let their engines idle during the time they are dropping off or picking up their children and this will not be good for the environment. This would be 30 cars twice a day to add to the poor air quality. We do have a noise ordinance in Dublin and it indicates that noise should subside within 15 feet or not be heard within 15 feet. Mr. Krekorian's yard is within 9 feet from this property. With regard to creative solutions, there are a couple of vacant schools in Dublin that could be rented or leased and used for this specific purpose. In acquiring the signatures, they are not just from the immediate area but from a cross section of Dublin. There were only 2 people that were hesitant and did not sign the petition. This means that approximately 97% of the population are against this proposal. If the City Council wants more signatures, he questioned how many they should get. Dawn Bowen stated she lives at 6700 Dougherty Road and she travels Amador Valley Boulevard at all hours of the day and night. She has never seen the traffic jams the people are discussing. She jogs there regularly. She doesn't want to create a school like environment for her children, but would rather have a home environment. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 401 Mayor Houston clarified comments about the address being in Contra Costa County versus Pleasanton and stated he was aware of situations with the post office where the address sometimes gets listed in a postal area when it is physically located in another area; sometimes addresses do not jive. With regard to lender information, this is not in the purview of the City. They could have paid cash for the.property for all we know. In any event, the City does not involve itself with this. Janet Lockhart, 8136 Creekside Drive stated as a business woman in the community, she stood up for daycare. She knows what it is like to need daycare and to have employees who need daycare. This is a critical need in our community for people to have their children close at hand. Contrary to seeing this as a deficit for the community, she saw it as a positive. We can attract things because of this. She lived for about 10 years in a home that backed up to a daycare on Dublin Boulevard. She could hear the kids on occasion, but she greatly preferred this to freeway noises. Janet Zupetz, Applicant 5525 Old School Road, Pleasanton, stated when she addressed the Planning Commission she went through her childcare philosophy. If something is not good for children, you do not do it. Parking was addressed. A parent handbook is provided. All these things can be addressed in the handbook. A friend of hers who has a daycare center in Hayward actually blocked out a schedule for parents to drop off their children. Things like this can be addressed. She would be happy to address any concerns of the neighbors. She believes totally in a non-violent childhood program. She doesn't want the neighbors saying they're the bad guys. The sign on My Space ta Grow is a big sign and perhaps the person who addressed this sign didn't look around Amador Valley Boulevard. There are a lot of cars and boats. Mr. Krekorian is a male and does business out of his home. She is a woman and questioned if she has a right to have a business from her home. With regard to the concern about parents leaving their engines idling, this can be put in the handbook and addressed. Cm. Barnes asked if she had applied to the State yet. Ms. Zupetz stated no she has not. The licensing could be for less than 30. Cm. Howard asked if there is a problem starting earlier so the drop off time could be earlier. Ms. Zupetz stated she opens at 6:30 a.m. What's best for children is to have a 10 hour day in childcare. She hates to extend the hours. Sandra Chavez, 7444 Stagecoach Road commented that this is a zoned residential area and not a commercial area. This is not a home, when someone doesn't ive there and is running a business there. Therefore it will be a commercial business building. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 402 D. Gallup, 8375 Davona Drive stated they just moved into the community. She is a childcare provider and understands how she will have her handbook. From being in the business for 15 years, it doesn't go that easily. Childcare is desperately needed. Family home is needed for infants and a center is usually to give a school environment. Parents don't always go by the handbooks. This will be a problem. This is a difficult location traffic wise. She is licensed for 6 and she has a parking problem. There is usually a 5 to 10 minute span when parents arrive. Family day care homes can only go up to 12. A center belongs in a business setting. 8:48 p.m. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. Cm. Burton asked City Attorney Silver if there were anY special rules since this is an appeal. City Attorney Silver stated no. Cm. Burton felt there was no doubt that there is a public need. People need a place for their children. The neighborhood is involved because people bought their homes there. From a legal standpoint, it has been determined that a CUP is allowed in this neighborhood. Staff was neutral in their appraisal. When you get into inconvenience, noise, etc., this is very subjective. Traffic safety is very important and becomes a judgmental issue. His perception is that people dropping their kids off who are late to work would be in a hurry and double park if they had to. Signage is not a problem as far as he was concerned. If a business is legal, they are entitled to a sign. They bought a home to go into business. It was inconceivable to him that they would purchase a home without being sure they could use it for this purpose. If the appeal is not granted, they could rent the house, or sell it, or live in it. The home is still there. They did not prepare properly for the application in this neighborhood. Cm. Barnes clarified that the Zoning Ordinance recognizes that daycare centers in residential are a permitted use. The State Legislature has adopted laws to encourage childcare facilities in home settings. She has to see to childcare for a grandchild. She would like them to stay open to extended hours. She did not feel they would be licensed for 30 children because of size. She encouraged the rule to go to 9 am before the children can go outside. Children laughing and playing should not be classified as noise. She noted that the appearance of the home at this time is less than desirable. This brought up property values. This house needs a great deal of work. We should absolutely not allow any parking in the front on Amador Valley Boulevard. Children do not belong in commercial businesses where there is not the family atmosphere. With so many parents working in this community, children coming to and from school can go to this facility as a safe house. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 403 Cm. Howard referenced that there are no empty school facilities in the area. She is hesitant to put children in an office space area, particularly after the bombing in Oklahoma City. There is a daycare center on her street. The kids know exactly where to go. They feel comfortable that they can go there. The kids will not be out by themselves. She did have a problem with traffic and would prefer that it be open at 6:30 am. She would not want to see 30 children there, but could see no more than 20. She also was going to bring up the State the California policy that Cm. Barnes referenced. She would like to see any sign that's put up be considerate of the neighbors. Mayor Houston questioned why they need a sign. He did not feel this was necessary. Ms. Zupetz stated once they get established, word of mouth is all they need. This is their best sales tool. Mayor Houston agreed with Cm. Barnes' idea about no Parking on Amador Valley Boulevard. This would be a good alternative. Staggering the starting times would help somewhat also. Even though the public hearing had been closed, Mayor Houston stated he would allow further audience comments. Georgia DeStefano stated she thought we started a program of safe house for kids with a sign in the window a long time ago. She has assisted many kids. There's a real hazard going on all along Amador Valley Boulevard. Cm. Howard felt this program had fallen through. Ms. Zupetz stated she would like to set up her center with what they call a block home. If there are any children walking she will have an open door policy. They can come in if they have a bathroom need, to call parents, if they are afraid, etc. They could also start their center at 6:30 a.m. if this would be preferable. Cm. Burton questioned the 8' fence and if this would be in the alternate approval. Mr. Tong stated an 8' fence could be a condition of approval. Cm. Burton asked if this could be a cinderblock fence. Ms. Zupetz stated they anticipated putting in a lot of shrubs. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 404 Mayor Houston felt a fence is more of a visual thing and not really for noise. Cm. Burton stated he would make a motion with some conditions. The Conditions of Approval which he wanted included: 1 ) The daycare shall open at 6:30 a.m., with staggered times for parents to drop off children; 2) it shall be limited to no more than 20 children; 3) a small sign would be allowed to begin with, and then the sign must be removed; 4) fence must be 8' in back; 5) no parking on Amador Valley Boulevard; 6) children can't go outside to play until 9:00 a.m.) Mayor Houston stated he wasn't crazy about allowing any sign at all. Cm. Barnes did not feel daycare in homes need a sign either. Cm. Burton agreed to remove this as condition #3. No sign would be allowed. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Moffatt abstained), and with conditions of approval to include: 1) The daycare shall open at 6:30 a.m., with staggered times for parents to drop off children; 2) it shall be limited to no more than 20 children; 3) fence must be 8' in back; 4) no parking on Amador Valley Boulevard; 5) children can't go outside to play until 9:00 a.m., the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 81 - 95 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 95-017 A CREATIVE PLAYSCHOOL DAYCARE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT and RESOLUTION NO. 82 - 95 APPROVING PA 95-017 A CREATIVE PLAYSCHOOL DAYCARE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A DAY CARE FACILITY (COMMUNITY FACILITY) IN AN R-l-B-E, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMBINING DISTRICT AT 6837 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD PUBLIC HEARING LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 83-2 (TRACT 4719) 9:08 p.m. 6.2 (360-20) Cm. Burton announced that due to a conflict of interest, he would not participate in any discussion and/or vote related to this issue. Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 405 Public Works Director Thompson advised that this assessment district maintains landscaping along Stagecoach Road and on the interior slopes of Agate Way and Coral Way. Adoption of the resolution will approve the Engineer's Report and set the assessment for Fiscal Year 1995-96. The public hearing is for the purpose of hearing protests to the proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 1995-96. The proposed assessment ($228.75 per single family home and .$38.68 per Amador Lakes unitl is the same as was assessed last year. Mr. Thompson discussed the protests that had been received. Fifteen voted to allow assessment to increase with CPI; 9 voted to increase based on actual cost. Mr, Thompson stated a neighborhood meeting was held last week and 3 property owners attended. No public testimony was given related to this issue. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Burton abstained), the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 83 - 95 APPROVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT, AND ORDERING LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR CITY OF DUBLIN LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 83-2 (STAGECOACH ROAD - TRACT 4719) PUBLIC HEARING LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86-1 IVILLAGES @ WILLOW CREEK) 9:11 p.m. 6.3 (360-20) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Public Works Director Thompson explained that this assessment district for Tract 5511 provides for maintenance of certain landscaping improvements associated with the Villages @ Willow Creek development. The public hearing is for the purpose of hearing protests to the proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 1995-96. The amount assessed to property owners ($84.72 per single family home and $42.36 per multi-family dwelling) is the same amount as last years assessment. Mr. ThOmpson stated 3 written protests were received. Cm. Moffatt asked the reason for the protests since the rates are staying the same. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 406 Mr. Thompson stated one person just protested, one lady talked about weeds on Dougherty Road which is not part of the district, and the third was opposed to being taxed. They thought after Proposition 13, some of these taxes would go away. No public testimony was given related to this issue. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 84 - 95 APPROVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT, AND ORDERING LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR CITY OF DUBLIN LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 86-1 (VILLAGES @ WILLOW CREEK - TRACT 5511 ) PUBLIC HEARING- PA 93-012 CITY OF DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - OUTDOOR SALES AND ACTIVITIES 9:13 p.m. 6.4 (450-20) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Huston presented the Staff Report and advised that the City initiated a study to amend the Zoning Ordinance provisions relating to outdoor sales and activities. The revisions include streamlining the current process for existing businesses to conduct outdoor sales, and allowing mobile vendors and outdoor sales by non-Dublin businesses under certain conditions. On July 3, 1995, the Planning Commission voted to adopt the Standard Requirements and Typical Conditions relating to the proposed outdoor sales and activities, and recommended that the City Council approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Ms. Huston discussed: 1) Outdoor Sales Events/Sidewalk Sales- Established Dublin Businesses; 2) Outdoor Sales Events/Sidewalk Sales - Not Related to Established Dublin Businesses; 3) Mobile Vendors; 4) Other Changes to Ordinance - Arts & Crafts Fairs, Carnivals, and Farmer's Markets (Special Events); and 5) Citywide Events. In conclusion, Ms. Huston stated the changes to the Dublin Zoning Ordinance would provide the opportunity to allow mobile vendors in the City where appropriate. It would also provide CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 407 a more efficient review for temporary outdoor activities, with greater simplicity and flexibility for Dublin businesses. Cm. Barnes asked about a CUP approved by the Zoning Administrator. Would this be appealable? Ms. Huston responded yes. Cm. Barnes asked what would happen to businesses who currently have their merchandise outside all the time like Home Express and Michael's. Ms. Huston stated if they go through the proper permit process, they would be allowed to have it out 6 times per year. Cm. Burton stated he was informed on the mobile vendors there would be a 30 day waiting period. Ms. Huston stated if the ordinance is adopted on August 8, it would become effective in 30 days. Mr. Ambrose clarified that this is initially. Subsequent to the ordinance becoming effective this would not be the case. Ms. Huston stated there would be a 5 day waiting appeal period. Cm. Howard stated she had a problem with enforcing problems with people coming in town on the weekends. She would like to see it required that they must post their permit. The Police should be able to enforce it if they don't have a permit. Mayor Houston felt this could be set up similar to fireworks sales, whereby anybody going by could see it. If theY have to get the property owner's permission to begin with, even though we have a lot of absentee owners, this shouldn't be a problem. Cm. Howard stated she would like to see sOmething written in that requires this. Cm. Burton asked if this could be administered like the property maintenance ordinance on a complaint basis. Cm. Howard stated a complaint basis would be okay, but the police should be able to get involved. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 408 Mr. Ambrose stated a part-time person was approved under the graffiti project as part of the budget. The only way to deal with this is to keep on top of it. We don't want to get into paying police overtime to enforce this. It would cost the City a lot more. We can accommodate it more effectively by using the graffiti abatement person with an eye out for this. Cm. Burton pointed out that we also have a complaint process. We may not catch them right then, but it does bring it to the attention of the City and the property owner and/or the business that's located there. The City Council agreed that the permit must be posted. Mr. Ambrose stated Staff could have a packet available to help them become legal. This would be a positive thing. Abdullah Popal, 7735 Squirrel Creek Court stated he would like to see the City adopt the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and first 'priority be given to residents of Dublin and he would also like to see more than 4 times a year allowed. He indicated he would like to have a business selling espresso and also a hot dog cart. Ms. Huston stated these would be allowed on an ongoing basis. John Mason representing the Dublin Chamber of Commerce stated he participated in the meeting in late March, early April. The Chamber of Commerce endorses this and feels very strongly about these changes, particularly after hearing about enforcement on the weekends. He also sat on the graffiti task force group. This is a win/win situation for everybody. Jaynie Bunnell stated her support for this amendment. She has an espresso bar in Blackhawk and in Stockton and looks forward to opening one in Dublin. Cm. Moffatt asked if we would get involved with public health inspections. Ms. Huston stated it would be necessary for them to get these from the County. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 409 RESOLUTION NO. 85 - 95 and ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 93-012 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATED TO OUTDOOR SALES AND ACTIVITIES RESOLUTION NO. 86 - 95 ADOPTING PA 93-012 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATED TO OUTDOOR SALES AND ACTIVITIES and waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance amending certain provisions of the Zoning Ordinance relating to outdoor sales. Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff could bring back the resolution dealing with the enforcement issue and valid permit to be displayed. AWARD OF BID, CONTRACT 95-01, DUBLIN BOULEVARD WIDENING 9:34 p.m. 7.1 (600-30) Public Works Director Thompson advised that this project will widen and restripe Dublin Boulevard from 4 to 6 lanes between Donlon Way and Village Parkway. It will also add left and right turn lanes at specific intersections. The project is financed primarily through an ISTEA grant and developer contributions, including BART mitigation contributions. Mr. Thompson stated Redgwick Construction submitted the only bid for this project. In checking with other prime contractors on the planholders list, Staff was advised that contractors are very busy now because the wet winter held up projects, and many public and private construction projects are currently out to bid or in progress, resulting in other potential bidders not being able to submit bids. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise information has been submitted by Redgwick Construction and is in accordance with adopted goals. Mr. Thompson advised that Staff has notified all of the businesses in the project area that work will begin this summer and should be completed in late fall. Project specifications require that access to businesses be kept open at all times. If necessary, work will be performed outside of normal business hours in order to complete the project on schedule and lessen the impact on the downtown area. Cm. Burton asked about the ditch that was being dug in front of Crown Chevrolet. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 410 Mr. Thompson stated they are putting in conduit for their new lights. The City stopped him because the ditch wandered into the new right-of-way. He stopped and put it behind the lights. Cm. Barnes asked about the Engineer's Estimates. She was amazed when we say $100,000 and the bid comes in at $250,000. Mr. Thompson discussed how the process generally works. Mr. Ambrose clarified where the money was coming from. The money can only be spent on 2 projects. In utilizing the BART mitigation fees, the City will have more flexibility in the use of its gas tax reserves in the future. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 95 AWARDING CONTRACT 95-01 DUBLIN BOULEVARD WIDENING TO REDGWICK CONSTRUCTION ($2,069,739.25) and approved an additional $173,226 appropriation to the Capital Project Fund. ClTYWIDE STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 83-1: PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT 9:40 p.m. 8.1 (360-50) Public Works Director Thompson presented the Staff Report and advised that this item approves the preliminary engineer's report for the Citywide Street Lighting Assessment District and sets the date of August 8, 1995, for a public hearing, at which time the City Council will consider and finally act upon the assessment for 1995-96. Mr. Thompson reviewed the 5 options identified in the Staff Report for City Council consideration related to the preferred method of funding the Street Light Acquisitions. 1. The Assessment District contributes $103,196 from Assessment District Reserves and the General Fund permanently contributes the difference (presently estimated at $327,804) to make up the amount necessary to complete the acquisition. This would result in a reduction in assessments to all property owners in the District in FY 1996-97 in the full amount of the savings realized by the District. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 411 2. The Assessment District repays the General Fund without interest for the cost of the Street Light Acquisition through future assessments. Assuming a savings of $78,000/year to the District through ownership of the lights, the loan would be paid off in approximately 5 1/2 years, at which time the assessments to property owners could be lowered to the full amount. 3. The Assessment District repays the cost of the purchase with interest at the City's full rate of investment. This alternative would be similar to the District borrowing money from a source other than the City. In this alternative, there would be no net impact to the General Fund. This would extend the time required to pay off the General Fund and reduce assessments to property owners. 4. The Assessment District contributes $103,196 in Reserves plus any savings realized during FY 1995-96 as a result of an early acquisition of the Street Lights before the end of FY 1995-96. The difference necessary to acquire the Street Lights could be funded, then either with options 1,2 or 3. 5. The Assessment District contributes $103,196 from Assessment District Reserves plus any savings realized during FY 1995-96. The Council could then set a fixed contribution from the General Fund which would be repaid by the Assessment District, reducing the amount of time necessary to repay the General Fund and enact lower assessments. Once the final acquisition costs are known and the City has several months of actual energy savings experience, the City Council could then finalize the preliminary direction at a subsequent meeting during FY 1995-96. Mr. Thompson stated Staff recommended that for FY 1995-96, the Assessment for Street Lighting be frozen at its current level. Staff also recommended that the City Council provide some direction regarding the preferred funding option for the acquisition of PG&E Street Lights. Cm. Burton requested more information on option #3. Mr. Thompson stated the general fund would pay the same amount but over the years, we would pay back the general fund With interest. Cm. Burton stated we would be borroWing from ourselves. Mr. Rankin stated this would still be a less costly alternative than going out with a bond issue. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 412 Mayor Houston stated he liked option #1. This would be a direct reduction in what everybody pays. He would rather see the money back in the pockets of the citizens. We have the money and we can accommodate this to reduce the cost of the assessment. Cm. Moffatt asked if the General Fund would have to put money in every year. Mr. Thompson stated it would be a one time shot just to pay it off. We aren't sure exactly how much it will be because we haven't purchased the lights yet. Mr. Ambrose stated we believe we will acquire the lights this year, so the revenues could be more than expenditures. Option #4 deals with this. We would have a cash balance of about $88,000 for future pole replacements. Mayor Houston changed his opinion that option #4 would be best. This would make the best sense. Cm. Barnes asked why we are buying the poles. Mr. Thompson stated PG&E charges us quite a bit for them owning the poles. We have taken a look at what other cities have done. There is a substantial savings if we own the poles. Mayor HoustOn stated they collect rent on the poles. They get a good return on their money, Mr. Ambrose stated the first issue is we will need about $400,000 to buy these poles. We will need to supplement with another revenue source. Should we loan the Street Light Assessment District the money or pay it as a one time amount out of the General Fund. Mayor Houston felt that since this is citywide, option #4 would work best. Even though it's a lot of money, it's a one-time only deal and everybody saves. Mr. Ambrose stated we will have about $4.5 million after the amount to pay off the Civic Center debt in 1999. The primary reason for doing this is to save the ratepayers money. Mayor Houston pointed out that the City Council will be able to proudly say they are reducing taxes in Dublin. Mr. Ambrose stated Staff would need direction for FY 1996-97 with regard to street light acquisition. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 413 Cm. Burton commented that he also liked option #4. Cm. Burton made a motion, which was seconded by Mayor Houston to approve option #4, the use of General Fund money. Cm.'s Moffatt and Howard voted against the motion. Cm. Barnes expressed confusion over the motion and did not cast a vote. The motion therefore failed. Mr. Ambrose stated it boiled down to do we want to see property owners immediately benefit or wait. The ratepayers would not be required to repay the General Fund under the current motion. Mayor Houston stated they are paying it off and not charging the citizens. Cm. Moffatt felt it would be more prudent to wait and see how much money is involved before the decision is made. It won't happen until 1996 anyway, and at that time the City Council can make the decision. His biggest concern is we don't know at this time what the numbers are. On motion of Mayor Houston, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 95 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 27-95 DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ANNUAL REPORT FOR STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 83-1 and RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 95 APPROVING PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT FOR CITY OF DUBLIN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 83-1 and RESOLUTION NO. 90 - 95 APPOINTING TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING PROTESTS IN RELATION TO PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR CITY OF DUBLIN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 83-1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 414 On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by majority vote, the Council selected Option #4 in tandem with # 1. Cm. Moffatt voted against the motion because we don't know the amount and a reassessment will have to be made in the future. OTHER BUSINESS 10:13 p.m. RecYclin.q (810-60) Mr. Ambrose stated a memo was given to the City Council related to recycling brochures. Comments should come back by July 31 st related to layout and/or content. Affordable Housinq (430-80) Cm. Barnes stated she attended a field trip related to tri-valley affordable housing and a copy of materials will be given to the City Council. Brochure leaflets have been developed and copies provided to the City Council. A Creative Playschool Childcare Petition (450-50) Cm. Barnes requested a copy of the childcare petition that was referenced by a speaker. City Entrance Si,qns (400-30) Cm. Barnes stated she would like to see the City pursue the City entrance signs. Cm. Burton said he had 3 layouts for new signs. The Rotary Club is going to help out with this project. The Chamber of Commerce is also involved. Costs range from $2,000 to $25,000, depending on what you make it out of. It will be on private property. Aestetically Unpleasing Location (530-20) Cm. Burton stated he thought the property in front of the Workbench belongs to the City on this side of the bike path. He would like to see this landscaped. All the rest of San Ramon Road is very nicely landscaped except for this one area. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 415 Mr. Thompson stated several of the properties were bought, but the Workbench wasn't one of them. The Workbench property comes out almost to the bike path. Mr. Ambrose clarified that it is all maintained by the individual property owners. This would be the only piece of property that the City would maintain. Staff could clarify who owns it. Cm. Burton requested that Staff review who owns the property and get it taken care of. looks terrible and should be cleaned up. State Leqislation (660-40) It Cm. Moffatt stated with regard to the ridgeland over in Pleasanton Sweeney is once again putting in a new bill that will encompass any deal within the State of California. Three agencies can get together and control a piece of property. He plans to vote against this tomorrow at an East Bay Division meeting in Monterey. The Council concurred that this should be opposed. Zone 7 (1000-70) Cm. Moffatt stated evidently Zone 7 is stockpiling concrete on their land behind Stagecoach Road and a couple of residents are upset about this. It will be there for the next 2 years before they can use it to fix the channel. Also it looks like they are dredging the canal and putting a lot of debris on the pile. Mr. Thompson stated as far as he knew we don't have any control over what they do. They will be using it for riprap and he also heard it will be up to 2 years. Mayor Houston asked Mr. Thompson if he could make an inquiry about this to see if there is anything we can do. Hot Tub/Spa Re.qulations (440-20) Cm. Barnes welcomed some new people to Dublin and applauded them for staying until the end of the City Council meeting. Jim Gallup, 8375 Davona Drive stated they stayed because they had an issue they wanted to bring before the City Council and they were waiting for an opportunity to do this. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 25, 1995 PAGE 416 Mayor Houston advised that the time for oral communications related to items not on the agenda is near the beginning of the meeting, but stated the City Council would be happy to go ahead and hear their concerns. Mr. Gallup stated they got into a little bit of hot tub havoc. They bought a hot tub across the street, from Dublin Pool & Spa and were told you just put it on your deck and plug it in. The inspector Robert White saw them unloading it in front of his house. He informed them that they have to bury the piers 48" and have to bury the wires. The Planning Department had a 2 page sheet that's easy to read and the hot tub companies should tell people about these requirements. He complained to the owner and he said this is just common sense and he hung up on him. He suggested that the City provide some of the handouts to the places that sell spas. It would be a simple thing to do. Mr. Gallup gave Staff their telephone number. Mr. Ambrose thanked Mr. Gallup for his suggestion and stated Staff will look into this. ADJOURNMENT 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adiourned at 10:28 p.m. Mayor CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING July 2~., 199S PAGE 417