Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.1 Approve 01-21-1992 Minutes J ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - January 21, 1992 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, January 21, 1992 , in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 12 : 30 p.m. , by Mayor Snyder. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. ABSENT: None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (610-20) Mayor Snyder led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Howard, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council accepted improvements under Contract 91-09 (600-30) Sidewalk Grinding Program and authorized $6, 590. 20 retention payment to Phil Thomasson Construction for a total contract amount of $14,701. City of San Ramon Redevelopment Agency (460-30) City Manager Ambrose advised that the City had received correspondence from the City of San Ramon Redevelopment Agency regarding their Alcosta Mall/Kodak Building/Village Parkway Realignment project. The Council needs to discuss this in order to determine if Dublin is interested in participating by providing input. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to add this item to the end of the agenda. DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 91-1 (360-40) Public Works Director Thompson presented the Staff Report and advised that at this time, it is necessary for the City Council to review the Engineer's Report related to the formation of an assessment district which would partially finance construction of the Dublin Boulevard extension between Dougherty Road and the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way. Mr. Thompson explained that the City has a short time line to meet the BART funding deadline. The Council should also set a public hearing date for February 24, 1992 . Bids will have been opened by this date. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 17 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 21, 1992 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: ITEM NO. Mr. Thompson advised that the assessment district will allow properties that will benefit from the improvements to be assessed a portion of the costs based on the benefit to those parcels. Miscellaneous costs such as legal, engineering and bond discounts will be included in the assessments. The costs that are not directly benefiting properties in the District will be contributed by the City through a loan from BART, with the expectation that these costs will be recovered through offsite fees and/or future assessment districts which include properties that benefit from the improvements. Mr. Thompson explained that the Assessment District spread, based on the Engineer's Report, is proposed to be: 1) B.J.Dublin Commercial (Moore's Tract 5900) $2 , 103,261 2) Vangelatos, et al. (Chevron parcels) 270, 149 3) Nohr (Curtiss Dodge) 175, 816 4) Dublin Commercial II (Old U-Haul parcel on Chabot Road) 370,774 5) City of Dublin Contribution 3 . 129 , 485 $6, 049, 485 Mr. Thompson advised that the actual costs will not be determined until all property condemnations have been settled and the construction contract has been completed. Should any of the property owners wish to dedicate all or a portion of their property, their assessment would decrease accordingly. Mr. Thompson reported that Mr. Nohr has opted to keep the southern portion of his property, and since that portion of his property will benefit from having its *frontage on a new arterial street, this parcel has been included in the proposed benefit district. In addition, Chevron has decided to hold off development of its corner site. Mr. Thompson explained the proposed method of assessment spread and gave a description of the documents included in the Engineer's Report. Mr. Thompson advised that John Moore had submitted a letter with a couple of questions. With regard to incidental right-of-way costs, since he will be agreeing to a figure, he requests that he not be charged for Mike Nave's time. Also, one of the figures should be corrected to 91, 000 square feet. Cm. Burton stated he felt that over 3/4 million dollars in incidental expenses is a pretty good chunk. He questioned why it takes this much out of the project as it seems excessive. Mr. Thompson advised that it may not be anywhere near that high. This is a standard deposit. Cm. Burton clarified his understanding that Chevron was going to dedicate property and now that they are not going through with it, we are putting them in the assessment district, which means they will have to pay their share. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 18 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 21, 1992 Cm. Moffatt stated the Engineer's Report states that bonds representing unpaid assessments will have a rate not to exceed 12%. He questioned if this is the rate that it will go in at. Robert Brunsell advised that 12% is the legal limit established by State Law, so this figure is what they use in the Resolutions. The actual amount will be what is in effect at that time. He stated he was hesitant to state what it might be, but they are hopeful that we will see some improvement in that rate. If they were to be sold today, they would probably be something under 9%. He also explained that the term "incidental" is probably not the best usage of this term. Mr. Brunsell discussed the bond discount and advised that this is a form of prepaid interest. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the numbers on the assessment rolls correspond with the lot numbers. Mr. Thompson advised that they should. Cm. Moffatt indicated that since parcels 12 and 13 will be acquired by a public agency and if they are sold off, he questioned if the privilege of not paying assessments will this go on with the property. Mr. Thompson advised that the City can set the price at the value of whatever we feel this property is worth because it has additional improvements on it. They would be in the assessment district, but they will not be assessed as they are City owned properties. Cm. Moffatt stated he also had concerns regarding incidentals. Mr. Thompson pointed out that a complete listing was contained in Exhibit B. Cm. Jeffery pointed out on the list of property owners, the number 12 street name should be Brittany rather than Brillany. Cm. Moffatt stated he thought the City was going to take a piece of property on the southeast corner of Scarlett Court and Dublin Boulevard. Mr. Thompson responded that this is correct; it will take the 5 parking spaces off Miracle Auto Painting, but this isn't in the district's boundaries. Cm. Burton questioned the little notch taken out going around the corner. Mr. Thompson advised that this is a little piece of property the County acquired for a signal timer. This is owned by the City and is like a City street. Cm. Burton questioned if Mr. Moore was satisfied that his requirements were met. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 19 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 21, 1992 Mr. Thompson stated yes, everything had been addressed. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Instructed the City Clerk to file the Engineer's Report in the City's District Proceedings file. Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 5 - 92 ACCEPTING REPORT AND SETTING HEARING OF PROTESTS Instructed the City Clerk to file the Notice of Improvements in the City's District Proceedings file. OTHER BUSINESS City of San Ramon Redevelopment Agency (460-30) City Manager Ambrose advised that the City of San Ramon has requested that the City of Dublin determine if it would be interested in designating one Councilmember from Dublin to participate in the process of the Alcosta/Kodak project. San Ramon is being sued by property owners in the area and has not been able to sell bonds for the Village Parkway improvements. They have hired a conflict resolution consultant to work out some kind of consensus to meet everyone's needs. One January 28th and 29th, they are planning one on one interviews to see how our City views the redevelopment in this area. Then, a dinner meeting will include all the parties involved to discuss the issue further. If the Council is interested, Mr. Ambrose requested that they designate someone to participate. Mayor Snyder stated he did not realize that this would turn into a formal situation. He got a call from Pat Boom last week asking if he could attend these meetings. He asked her if it would be okay for Cm. Jeffery to represent him and they said this was okay. Cm. Burton stated it seems that this relates a lot to the Lucky Center situation. He questioned how much the City Council would be involved in the decision process. He questioned if it will involve Council type decisions or will they make decisions and we will be just informed. Mr. Ambrose advised that it would probably be the latter, but they want to get as much input as possible. If their decision ends up with a lawsuit, they want to avoid this. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL it - 20 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 21, 1992 Mayor Snyder clarified that the City is responding to an inquiry from the San Redevelopment Agency rather than the City Council. They don't want us to file a lawsuit after they have realigned Village Parkway. Cm. Jeffery advised that she had not yet responded, but she was interested. Cm. Burton felt we should be informed and kept informed, but not too involved. By a Council consensus, it was agreed that Cm. Jeffery will represent the City Council. Citizen/Organization of the Year (610-50) Cm. Moffatt advised that Recreation Director Lowart recently brought up to him the subject of the Citizen and Organization of the Year awards. He questioned if they should proceed or drop this project. Cm. Jeffery stated she thought that these presentations were to be made during the St. Patrick's festivities. She felt it would be beneficial to continue. Cm. Moffatt stated they would send out forms like they had done in previous years. Cm. Howard stated that last year, someone in Pleasanton helped choose the winners. She advised that they will look for an unbiased group to help with the selections. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 1: 00 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 21 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 21, 1992 REGULAR MEETING - January 27, 1992 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, January 27, 1992, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7 : 31 p.m. , by Mayor Snyder. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. ABSENT: None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (610-20) Life Scout Patrol Leader Matthew Freeman, from Troop 905 led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Matthew said that he was working on his Eagle rank and would be doing a project with the schools. He has been with the Boy Scouts since he was eight years old and enjoys going on campouts, playing games, and so forth. CUSTOMER SERVICE AWARD FOR FEBRUARY (150-90) City Manager Ambrose presented the February Customer Service Award to Penny Grealis of Police Services. Mr. Ambrose advised that Ms. Grealis was nominated by her peers for demonstrating exemplary customer service skills. Ms. Grealis was presented with a restaurant gift certificate and a T- shirt displaying the City's customer service motto. Mayor Snyder congratulated Ms. Grealis on her award and noted that she has been involved in various activities since the early days of the City, including initiation of a program for needy children. Garbage Regulations (810-20) Ms. Olvera Merle, 8572 Beverly Lane, said that she had recently read about the proposed mandatory garbage service and that the argument in favor of mandatory service assumed most people who chose not to have garbage service were disposing of garbage illegally. She said that people who dispose of garbage illegally should be dealt with separately. She additionally commented that charging a recycling fee to those who recycle anyway was not justified. She stated that giving the City Manager a 10% salary raise was not in the best interests of :e :u :a : ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 22 Meeting January 27, 1992 1 1 the City. She also asked whose interest was served by two Councilmembers' attendance at the League conference in Washington, D.C. She said she felt elderly people were assessed unnecessary fees. She encouraged people to vote and said that the public record indicated that only one Councilmember had stood up for the issues. CONSENT CALENDAR Cm. Burton indicated that he did not wish to remove Item 4. 2 Report on Nonconforming Signs from the Consent Calendar, but that he would like Staff to prepare a list of the names of the nonconforming signs for the Council's information. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 13 , 1992 ; Accepted the monthly status report regarding existing Nonconforming Signs (400-30) ; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 6-92 GIVING NOTICE OF INTENT TO PROVIDE FOR FUNDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE I-580/EDEN CANYON INTERCHANGE (1060-90) Reviewed a report regarding the performance of Tri-Valley Community Television and authorized payment for the second half of FY 1991-92 (1050-50) ; Accepted improvements constructed under Contract 91-07 Annual Sidewalk Safety Repair and Handicap Ramp Construction and authorized retention payment to B & B Concrete in the amount of $20, 648 .57 (600-30) ; Authorized approval of Change Order No. 6 ($19, 454) , accepted improvements constructed under Contract 90-05 Dublin High School Stadium Renovation, and authorized final progress and retention payment to Collishaw Construction in the amount of $54,454 (600-30) ; Authorized Staff to solicit bids for Contract 92-02 Annual Street Overlay, Dougherty Road Bike Path Phase III, and Street Subdrains (600-30) ; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $1, 708, 586. 05 (300-40) . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 23 Regular Meeting January 27, 1992 TRI-VALLEY JOINT COUNCIL MEETING (140-80) City Manager Richard Ambrose stated that a memorandum was received from Livermore's City Manager, Lee Horner, requesting that the City of Dublin indicate any items that the City would like included on the agenda for the upcoming Tri-Valley Joint Council meeting to be held on February 27th. Cm. Jeffery asked why another meeting at night was needed when the Tri-Valley Council has been meeting every Monday morning at 7 : 30 a.m. Cm. Moffatt said he felt there were some people who couldn't attend at 7: 30 a.m. but could come to a night meeting, and this would be the time to update and speak on other issues. Mayor Snyder noted that the items for the February 27th agenda were due by February 7th. PUBLIC HEARING - REPEAL OF LIMITED PARKING AND LOADING ZONES ON SCARLETT COURT (570-20) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Public Works Director Lee Thompson indicated that this was the second reading of an item introduced at the January 13th meeting. In 1987, the City Council had established a one-hour parking zone at the request of the Valley Boat House and a loading zone at the request of Curtiss Dodge on Scarlett Court. Construction of the Dublin Boulevard Extension will displace the Boat House, and Curtiss Dodge has already moved out. Miracle Auto Painting will be losing five on-site spaces as a result of the Dublin Boulevard Extension and has indicated that removal of the one-hour and loading zones would be helpful in providing additional on-street parking. Cm. Burton asked whether any comments or calls had been received since the January 13th meeting. Mr. Thompson responded that none were received. There was no public comment on this issue. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 1-92 REPEALING SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OF ORDINANCE 48-87 LIMITED PARKING AND LOADING ZONES ON. SCARLETT COURT CM - VOL 11 - 24 Regular Meeting N January 27, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING MANDATORY RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE SERVICE (810-20) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Assistant City Manager Paul Rankin said that the proposed ordinance had been introduced at the January 13, 1992, meeting. The concept of mandatory garbage service was discussed previously in the context of how the City will meet the significant waste management requirements in State Law. Following the City Council meeting of January 13th, Staff worked with the garbage company to obtain the addresses of the residential customers which do not currently have service. A notice providing a detailed overview of the proposed change was mailed to 418 residences on January 17th, and that 47 were returned marked "vacant. " Mr. Rankin said that no written and three telephone inquiries were received regarding the notice. One person did not state what he did with his garbage but felt that he didn't generate enough waste to need service. The second person was an employee of the garbage company and had inquired if he could subscribe at the baseline level. The third person resides in Dublin but operates rentals in other areas and takes his garbage to the transfer station in San Leandro. Mr. Rankin said that if the proposed ordinance was not adopted, it might be necessary to amend the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) . Mr. Rankin detailed the reasons why the change to mandatory service was being proposed. The reasons include the State requirement for greater control on waste generated within the City and that 50% of the waste be diverted from the landfill. A curbside recycling program is included with the base level of garbage collection and disposal service. A letter from Mr. Harry Scott, District Manager for Alameda County Vector Control, was read. The letter indicated that Vector Control's experience was that houses without waste collection are the biggest problem in relation to flies and vermin. It is difficult to monitor whether the refuse is being removed weekly. The refuse can also cause problems during transportation. Mandatory garbage collection would constitute a higher standard of health safety and welfare. Mr. Rankin continued that a super recycler rate which provides for weekly collection of a 20-gallon container is available at $6. 65 per month for those who generate a small volume of waste. The proposal also includes a provision that the City could collect delinquent accounts on the property tax bill, eliminating the garbage company's expense for delinquencies. The garbage company indicated that their actual expense for delinquent accounts during the past year was $5, 500. Currently, delinquent accounts are written off by the company as an expense and are then charged to customers through the rate structure. Mr. Rankin reiterated that Vector Control reports that approximately 50% of its hours of service are related to waste complaints, and that the current procedure for enforcing waste complaints is complex. Mr. Rankin then discussed the enforcement ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 25 Regular Meeting January 27, 1992 procedure and outlined the minimum time involved before the levy on the property tax bill would occur. Typically, if service were started in March of a given year, the first opportunity for the Council to consider a levy would be in July. The Council would hear protests and would proceed accordingly. The Council would decide the levy. Cm. Burton thanked Staff for responding to his concerns and stated that the point was proven that the City had the authority to adopt the ordinance but that he felt Staff had not shown the need for it. He asked if there were any situations that could not be addressed either by the Property Maintenance Ordinance or by Vector Control. Mr. Rankin said that the Property Maintenance Ordinance only applied to material visible from the public street and that most garbage is in a back yard area. He said that Vector Control could not assure weekly disposal and that the nearest dumping facility cost was 80% higher than the cost of garbage service. Cm. Burton asked whether any effort had been made to identify the 418 people not subscribing to service and what their reasons were. Mr. Rankin stated that no effort had been made. Cm. Burton said that those people were likely at the low end of the economic scale and can't afford the cost. $6. 65 per month calculates to $79 . 80 per year. He also stated that the process for determining non-participation was not defined and asked Mr. Rankin to describe it. Mr. Rankin said that the proposed ordinance indicated that the City Manager or his designee may grant an exemption and that the application form, rules, and other details would not be developed until the ordinance was in place. The minimum requirement was that the owner demonstrate no waste was being accumulated on the property. An exemption could also be revoked. Cm. Burton said that there was no clear cut way to register for an exemption. Mr. Ambrose said that there were no criteria other than the need to demonstrate that no waste was being generated on the property. Cm. Burton said that solid waste was described as "everything" and could not be produced and saved, which was not conducive to composting, and the definition was so general that nothing could be kept in the yard. Mr. Rankin said that the definition of solid waste was already in the Municipal Code, and that landscapers were exempt. Cm. Burton said that that was his point - people were being told to do something but solid waste was not defined in the ordinance. Mr. Ambrose said that the proposed ordinance would amend the Municipal Code, which already includes the definition. If adopted, the proposed ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 26 Regular Meeting January 27, 1992 ordinance would appear in the Municipal Code once it had been codified. Cm. Burton asked if there was any reason for the 100% collection guarantee. Mr. Rankin responded that the garbage company was already entitled to recover all costs. If the City Council did not wish to use the lien process, the company would pay the cost of collection and pass it on to the other customers. Cm. Burton stated that a lot of City Staff time would be involved in collecting delinquent accounts and that it was not the City's business to do the collecting. He added that he could not justify a tax on property and that this ordinance would constitute a major change. Cm. Moffatt said that the exemption process should make sure that there is no waste and asked if there was any wiggle room for the needy or those on a fixed income. Mr. Rankin said that the current definition for the exemption was primarily for vacant units. He suggested that the super recycler rate be used in order to avoid the time involved in determining the income requirement to pay a lower fee. Cm. Moffatt asked how much Staff time would be involved in the hearings. Mr. Rankin indicated that one annual hearing would probably be held for all of those who were delinquent, similar to the Fire Department weed abatement hearing. The entire list of property owners would be notified and given an opportunity to protest. Not a lot of Staff time would be required. Ms. Tanya Clark, 7832 Gardella Drive, said she felt that alternate bids for garbage collection service should be obtained and that there were five companies in the East Bay that could be contacted. She said that the rate of $6. 65 for one small can was still $1. 15 per month more than service in Hayward. Other cities are getting a better deal. She indicated that people in Eugene, Oregon, had a choice of 24 garbage service providers at about half the cost of service in this area. She said it doesn't make sense to require people on fixed incomes to have service and that some people have a garden, do composting, and use their garbage disposal to dispose of waste. She does her own recycling and doesn't see paying a company to pick up her recyclables when she can use the money herself. She stated that she has lived in Dublin since 1964 and that it hurts to think the City can put an assessment on taxes for a delinquent garbage bill. She also questioned whether the City would invade the privacy of the 435 [sic] persons who do not have service, as the status of her account was obtained by the City and noted in a letter that was sent to eight individuals. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 27 Regular Meeting January 27, 1992 .. Ms. Ella Clark, 7832 Gardella Drive, said that she had previously paid her bill but she refused to recycle through the garbage company, and the company stopped service. She will not pay her bill now. Mr. Rankin stated that he wanted to make clear the present issue was not recycling. Mr. Benhamou, 7529 Tamarack Drive, said that he can haul garbage better than the garbage company. He takes his garbage to the Pleasanton transfer station and does his own recycling. He indicated that he had paid $3 . 00 to dump a load of trash and that he and his wife don't generate much garbage. He said that these laws create a lot of friction and that he would refuse to pay for service. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Burton stated that this item was forcing the issue on short notice and that it didn't appear the City had a need for it at this time. He said that people will call the charge a tax even though it is not. He said adoption ought to be delayed until the City can justify it and that it looks bad for the City to be a collection agency. He said that he accepted that the Municipal Code defined solid waste and the appeal process, but it was not the time to require service. Cm. Jeffery stated that one business had already complained that people were using its dumpsters to dispose of their own trash, and that this also occurred in condominium projects. She indicated she had had personal experience with a neighbor who filled the space between his house and garage with garbage. Part of the cost of garbage service was to pay for ecological processes associated with the landfills. She stated that what was fair for one was fair for all and moved for adoption of the proposed ordinance. Cm. Howard seconded the motion. Cm. Burton proposed a substitute motion that the City Council defer action until the concerns were clarified and until the people not using service now were identified, and their reasons and alternatives were determined. Cm. Moffatt seconded the substitute motion. He stated that he had concerns with the exemption phase and would like to see fully explained who gets or doesn't get an exemption. He noted examples of those on a fixed income or those that practice composting. He said he would like to see the process spelled out. Cm. Burton indicated that he would include Cm. Moffatt's direction with his motion. Cm. Jeffery stated that she opposed the substitute motion and said that the presumption should not be made that people not paying for service are seniors or those on a fixed income. She felt there are a lot of responsible seniors who do pay for service. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 28 Regular Meeting January 27, 1992 Cm. Burton indicated that it is not known specifically who is not paying for service. On the question of the substitute motion, Cm. Burton and Cm. Moffatt voted in favor and Cm. Howard, Cm. Jeffery, and Mayor Snyder opposed; therefore, the substitute motion failed. Cm. Howard said that she would like to see the ordinance adopted with the idea that the exemption process would be worked on and that people in need would be able to get an exemption. Mayor Snyder asked whether this would be considered a modification to the ordinance that would require another reading. Mr. Ambrose said that it is possible to adopt the ordinance and direct Staff to bring the administrative procedures on the exemption back to the Council for approval. City Attorney Elizabeth Silver said that the concern about people on fixed incomes doesn't fit with the intent of the ordinance. Cm. Howard requested that it be spelled out who can apply for an exemption and how they are to demonstrate their qualifications. Ms. Silver stated that if that is the only modification, the ordinance could be acted upon. If the concern regarding fixed incomes is to be included, the ordinance would need to be redrafted. The administrative procedures could be approved by resolution at a later date. It would be possible to modify the ordinance to indicate that the administrative procedures be approved by the Council and still adopt it at this meeting. Cm. Howard said she would agree to that. Mayor Snyder seconded the substitute motion. Cm. Moffatt indicated that he had a problem with adopting the ordinance in a hurry and that it should be deliberated on. The procedures should be well understood before the ordinance is passed. Cm. Burton said that he agreed. Cm. Moffatt stated that he did not feel that the stimulus of having a hearing was the important thing and that an ordinance is needed that everyone can understand. Cm. Burton said that he was concerned over the impression that the City was going to a lot of trouble to handle the collections. Mayor Snyder indicated regarding the collection of fees that it was already identified that the garbage company has $5,500 in bills that were not paid. The cost of those delinquencies is being borne by the other customers. The ordinance provides a means to reduce the cost. He added that the cost of Staff time dealing with garbage complaints CM - VOL 11 - 29 Regular Meeting 0 0 January 27, 1992 should also be considered and that hours were spent recently on just one issue involving a neighbor complaint. He said the property owner of the rental involved had collected his tenant's garbage. He continued that he supported the ordinance on that basis - that if tenants did not pay their bills, the property owners would have to take care of the problem. Mr. Burton stated that he agreed with a lot of what was said. On the substitute motion of Cm. Howard, seconded by Mayor Snyder, and by majority vote, the Council adopted ORDINANCE NO. 2-92 AMENDING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR MANDATORY GARBAGE COLLECTION AND PROVIDING A PROCEDURE FOR COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT GARBAGE SERVICE BILLS CHAPTER 5.32 - DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE with the modification that the City Council approve the administrative procedures relative to exemptions. Cm. Burton and Cm. Moffatt voted no on this item. PUBLIC HEARING - DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - MASSAGE (450-20) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Planning Director Larry Tong stated that on January 13th, the City Council had held a public hearing regarding this issue. At that meeting, the City Council adopted the Negative Declaration for the Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Massage, waived the first reading, and introduced the draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment. This draft amendment (1) includes a definition of "massage establishment" that is consistent with the massage establishment definition in the City's Massage Ordinance, and (2) identifies massage establishment as a Conditional Use requiring Planning Commission approval in the C-N Neighborhood Business District, C-1 Retail Business District, and the C-2 General Commercial District. No public comment was received on this issue. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 3-92 AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ .CM - VOL 11 - 30 Regular Meeting January 27, 1992 DIRECTLY ELECTED MAYOR PLACEMENT OF ISSUE ON JUNE, 1992, BALLOT (630-30) Ms. Silver stated that at the October 28, 1991, meeting, Councilmember Burton had requested a report on the possibility of placing the issue of a directly elected Mayor on the June, 1992 , ballot. The Council considered the issue at the December 9, 1991, meeting and directed Staff to prepare the necessary resolutions. Placing the question of the direct election of the Mayor before the voters requires (1) that the Council call a special municipal election for the purpose of deciding whether the electors should elect a Mayor and four Councilmembers and whether the term should be two years or four years; (2) that the Council request consolidation of the special municipal election with the statewide election; (3) that the Council request the Board of Supervisors to permit the Registrar of Voters to provide election services; (4) that the City enter into an agreement with the County for performance of and payment for election services; (5) that the Council establish certain deadlines for submittal of ballot arguments and analysis of the measure; and (6) that the Council direct the City Clerk to take certain ministerial actions regarding posting, printing, transmission of documents, and related actions. Ms. Silver continued that the draft Ordinance which is Attachment 1 of the Resolution Submitting the Initiative Ordinance to the Voters would be enacted only if a majority of electors vote in favor of the direct election of the Mayor. She added that election of the Mayor could not take place until the next regular election; so the actual election of Mayor could not be on the same ballot as the issue of direct election of the Mayor. Cm. Moffatt asked whether the Mayor's salary would be determined by the Council, not the electorate. Ms. Silver responded that it would. Mr. Moffatt stated that the language referred to a Mayor and four City Councilmembers and asked whether the Mayor would be elected at large if the City has elections by district in the future. Ms. Silver said that the issue could be dealt with at the time that districting takes place. Cm. Moffatt asked whether limiting the number of terms of office should be discussed and whether the issue had to go to the voters or could be in the resolution. Mayor Snyder stated that this was an inappropriate question for this issue and that the term should be for all Councilmembers. Ms. Silver suggested that she provide a report at the next meeting on the appropriate procedure and whether a General Law city was able to limit the number of terms. She indicated that there are specific provisions in the Government Code that cannot be changed. :e:u :a : ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 31 Meeting January 27, 1992 Cm. Moffatt said there was some concern about the $3 , 000 cost of the special election and asked if $2 , 000 of the funds could come from the $25, 000 budgeted for the 10th Anniversary celebration. Mayor Snyder stated that the $25, 000 budget was a maximum amount and that all the funds would probably not be used and would go back into the General Fund anyway. Cm. Burton asked about the Staff recommendation. Two resolutions were recommended to be adopted but not the ordinance. Ms. Silver stated that the ordinance was to be enacted by the people in the election. Following the election, the Council would declare the results. Cm. Burton said that Section 5A of the resolution indicated a filing deadline of March 9th at 4 : 00 p.m. for direct arguments for or against the proposed ballot measures and March 19th at 4 : 00 p.m. as the last date for filing rebuttal arguments but did not specify where these were to be filed. Ms. Silver responded that certain provisions were left open for the Council to determine and that "submitted to the City Clerk" could be added to the resolution. Cm. Howard asked for a clarification regarding appointments to be made by the Mayor - whether this was a requirement or optional - and whether approval of the Council was required. Ms. Silver stated that all appointments would be made by the Mayor with City Council approval. If the Council did not approve an appointment, another person would need to be chosen. Mayor Snyder indicated that the Council would maintain veto power. Cm. Jeffery said the point was that the Councilmembers currently all had appointments, and this would not be the case with the directly elected Mayor. She asked, if this issue is on the June ballot, how election of the Councilmembers would be balanced so that not all seats came up for election at the same time since the election would be for Mayor and four Councilmembers. Ms. Silver said that the Council could designate the person with the fewest votes as a two-year term. Cm. Howard asked, if the issue of the directly elected Mayor were on the November ballot, when the next election for Mayor could be held. Ms. Silver indicated the next opportunity would be November of 1994. Cm. Howard said this would eliminate the complication of balancing terms and would save the $3 , 000 election cost. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 32 Regular Meeting January 27, 1992 Mayor Snyder said he did not agree because Cm. Howard's proposal assumes that one of the three up for election in 1994 would be the directly-elected Mayor. The purest way is to let the electorate decide. Cm. Howard said that could happen in any election. Cm. Jeffery said there would be additional cost caused by one short term and that the directly elected Mayor issue should wait for the November ballot. There would be two years to decide who is going to run. The Mayor would be selected for a two-year term anyway, and nothing would be lost by waiting. Mayor Snyder stated that Cm. Moffatt had made a valid point that the term could be for four years. A short-term Mayor would have a problem establishing a base and continuity and would be in a more favorable position. Cm. Burton said he agreed and that it was important for City recognition. A directly elected Mayor has more authority in dealing with other cities. Cm. Jeffery asked for a clarification. Cm. Burton said he had been told a directly elected Mayor had more authority in the process of assigning jobs. Cm. Jeffery commented that Mayor Snyder had more authority than most other Mayors. Cm. Howard stated that she was not saying the residents shouldn't vote but was discussing timing. Mr. Guy Houston, 7661 San Sabana Road, stated that he applauded the proposal and asked if the $3 , 000 had been budgeted or would come from reserves rather than be taken from another project. He asked if cost was an overriding issue, could citizens help to defray it. Mayor Snyder indicated that the City was in a position to accept gifts. Mr. Houston said that he could probably donate the entire $3 , 000. Mayor Snyder stated that it would have to be a general gift. Mr. Houston said that this issue was just as important as the garbage issue. He applauded limiting the number of terms and said he had been thinking about this issue for quite a while. Dr. Zev Kahn, 11708 Harlan Road, spoke to the importance of a directly elected Mayor and said he had a difference with the cost factor. He stated that he hoped some group could come up with the additional funding and asked if a statewide issue on the ballot would lower the cost to the City. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 33 Regular Meeting January 27, 1992 Ms. Silver said that the cost depends on the number of local issues and the number of yes or no questions. She said she didn't believe the cost would be affected by a statewide issue. Dr. Kahn asked about County issues. Mayor Snyder said he thought the cost could be somewhat less. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 7-92 SUBMITTING AN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE TO THE VOTERS OF DUBLIN REGARDING THE DIRECT ELECTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE MAYOR'S TERM OF OFFICE; CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION AND CONSOLIDATING THE SPECIAL ELECTION WITH A REGULAR STATEWIDE ELECTION ON JUNE 2, 1992; AND RELATING TO BALLOT ARGUMENTS, IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS, AND RELATED MATTERS with the addition that the ballot arguments were to be delivered to the City Clerk's office by the appointed deadlines. and RESOLUTION NO. 8-92 REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY TO PERMIT THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR THE DUBLIN SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD JUNE 2, 1992 and authorized transfer of $3, 000 from the Contingent Reserve to the Elections Activity Budget. Cm. Howard and Cm. Jeffery voted no on this issue. APPOINTMENTS TO THE LIBRARY PLANNING TASK FORCE (940-20) Recreation Director Diane Lowart said that at the November 25, 1991, meeting, the City Council had approved formation of a Library Planning Task Force. The Task Force would be a joint planning effort between the City of Dublin and the Alameda County Library and would be responsible for taking a comprehensive look at the long term library building needs in light of the City's projected population growth. The proposed Task Force would include representatives from the City Council, Friends of the Dublin Library, Dublin Library Corporation, Dublin Unified School District, Citizens at large, and the business community. The City Council representative to the Task Force is Dave Burton. The Library Staff recommended that Mary Gibbert represent the Friends of the Library and that Dan Downey represent the Dublin Library Corporation. The Dublin Unified School District has recommended the appointment of Linda Ferris. Four applications were received for the three remaining positions, and Ms. Lowart indicated that Staff recommended adding one additional :e :u :a : ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 34 Meeting January 27, 1992 position to the Task Force and appointing all four applicants (Patricia Esse, Betty Ann Harris, Steven Jung, and Patrick Schmidt. Cm. Burton commented that Ms. Lowart had done an excellent job and that outstanding people were selected. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to add the additional position and appointed the persons recommended. DUBLIN MEADOWS TRACT 5883 STATUS REPORT (440-40) Building Official Vic Taugher indicated that the City Council had heard complaints from the Heritage Commons Homeowners' Association on December 9th regarding conditions at the Dublin Meadows Project. On December 30, 1991, Far West Savings recorded a loan to provide additional funds to complete the project. On January 6th, Far West Savings indicated verbally that the loan had been recorded and sufficient funds were available to complete the project. Construction has recommenced. The broken windows and doors have been replaced, and carpets are being installed in the four buildings closest to Heritage Commons. The areas around these buildings have been cleared and rough graded in preparation for landscaping. The lumber on the site is being regraded. The usable lumber is being stacked and the unusable lumber loaded into dumpsters. The roof trusses have been inspected by an engineer and are either being repaired or discarded into the dumpsters. Framing has begun on the four buildings in the central area between the two bridges. In view of the activity, the buildings can no longer be considered abandoned and therefore may not be abated as dangerous buildings. It is permissible to have lumber and construction debris on a construction site; therefore, the site can no longer be considered hazardous under the Housing Code. There are no violations, and there is no reason to conduct the abatement hearing which was scheduled for this meeting. However, the Building Official should continue to monitor the progress of construction, and if construction ceases, the Building Official should take any action necessary to prevent a repeat of the conditions that resulted in the hearing of December 9th. Mr. Taugher displayed current photos of the project. Cm. Burton asked whether JL would make the 90-day commitment. Mr. Taugher said that the 11 buildings that were nearly complete could be finished within 90 days. The other four buildings between the bridges and the creek area could not be completed in 90 days, at least partly because of a Fish & Game restriction on working in the creek prior to April 15th. Mr. Taugher added that these other four buildings could probably be completed in 90 to 120 days. Cm. Burton said that was good news. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 35 Regular Meeting January 27, 1992 Mayor Snyder commented that the 90-day time period had been stated by the developer and was not a control date from the City's standpoint. JL. can work within the time frame of their permits. Mr. Taugher said that if the work was abandoned, the City would need to make sure it was cleaned up. Mayor Snyder asked if there was a need for official action on this issue or if the direction could be given by consensus. Mr. Ambrose said that consensus was sufficient. Cm. Moffatt asked what would need to occur for the Building Inspection Department to take any further abatement action. Mr. Taugher said that his department would know if construction stopped and that the proper ordinance for abatement would need to be found. Cm. Burton asked if the area that was a problem for Heritage Commons residents would be one of the first fixed. Mr. Taugher said that the buildings would be done in a short time. The road must be completed in order to occupy the buildings. The sidewalk has been formed, and the approach to the bridge has been backfilled. This phase of construction is moving along fairly well. Mr. John McBride, Construction Superintendent for the Dublin Meadows project, said that he would have three buildings ready for final inspection in a few days, weather permitting. Cm. Burton asked if the road would be finish grade at this time. Mr. McBride said that it would. By consensus, the Council directed the Building Official to monitor the progress of construction. REPORT ON POTENTIAL ISSUES OF CONCERN WITH THE PROPOSED EAST COUNTY AREA PLAN (420-50) Senior Planner Dennis Carrington stated that on December 23, 1991, the City Council authorized the Mayor to send a letter expressing concerns regarding the report and requesting a process where meaningful dialog and discussion can occur. At that meeting, Staff was directed to prepare a report on potential issues of concern with the East County Area Plan and a draft letter to the President of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. Alameda County is proposing to completely revise the East County Area Plan. The County is additionally proposing a new Regional Element for County-wide land use planning and to revise the Open Space Element. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 36 Regular Meeting January 27, 1992 The Regional Element would coordinate County land use and transportation policies in unincorporated cities, and policies of subregional and regional agencies. Mr. Carrington said that a letter had been received from Alameda County Planning Director Adolph Martinelli which proposed revised procedures and meetings with the aim of having an Environmental Impact Report ready for public comment by mid-year. Mr. Carrington indicated that the time frame was not ironclad. The Alameda County Planning Staff proposed policy options for discussion by the Alameda County Planning Commission at its December 2 , 1991, study session. These policy options would guide the preparation of the revised East County General Plan. At that study session, the Planning Commission received and discussed the report. At the end of the meeting, County Staff requested that the Report be presented to the City Council for discussion. County Staff is requesting feedback on the approach to each East County Policy Option. 1. Subregional Planning. Mr. Carrington said that the County had proposed a "bottom up" form of planning that would actually be "top down" from the City's point of view and was therefore unacceptable. In addition, the County proposed to establish criteria for land use planning, but the report was not clear as to how the criteria would be established. 2 . Growth Management. The report proposes a 20-year holding capacity but is not clear as to how it is established. The City's General Plan is not based on holding capacity. 3 . Urban Service Line. This issue is also based on holding capacity. The line is to be established by the County and should be based on the City's General Plan. 4 . Jobs/Housing Balance. The report states that the appropriate body for review is subregional, which is not recommended by City Staff as imbalances could occur. Staff recommends basing the balance on individual cities. 5. Fiscal Impacts. The report recommends a credit system in which the responsible agency uses the credit. Revenue-generating cities would support the others. Staff does not recommend this method as it places the City in a position of being penalized. There is an issue of who is providing what. The City could be taxed by the County. 6. Agriculture. Only minor Staff comments were made regarding this section. 7 . City/County Development. Mr. Carrington said that this section contained serious issues. The County proposes to provide urban levels of service, which is in conflict with what the cities provide and in conflict with LAFCO goals. The County is working against itself. Staff feels that promotion of urban development in rural areas is not acceptable. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 37 Regular Meeting January 27, 1992 8. New Communities. The report states that new communities must conform to East County policies regardless of whether they are cities or within the unincorporated area. The report also indicates that the City plans more jobs than housing. As proposed, this section would promote urban sprawl. In conclusion, Mr. Carrington stated that the report is flawed and promotes a top-down form of government. Cm. Jeffery asked whether the County recommendations were within the law or if the County was looking to change the law, particularly in relation to the LAFCO issue. Ms. Silver said that there is nothing in the Cortese-Knox Act (which governs annexations and detachments) . The policy of State Law is that development should occur within cities, but it does not preclude development in the County. There is no direct conflict. Cm. Jeffery asked, regarding the Fiscal Impacts section, if the County would take the opposite view if the cities could tax them. She said the letter should be as strongly-worded as possible. This is not regional planning. Mr. Carrington said that the County staff is proposing another process to come up with an equitable regional policy. Mayor Snyder asked if Mr. Martinelli's letter would change Staff's recommended letter. Mr. Carrington responded that it would not. Cm. Burton said that he would like Mr. Carrington's opinion as to the agenda being proposed by regional groups such as ABAG and Bay Vision 2020. He said he had not seen this type of high-level pressure since the City was incorporated and that he felt the proposed letter would not do any good. Mr. Carrington said Alameda County was proposing to revise its General Plan and trying to establish regulations where it would usurp local land use controls, supposedly with the consent of the cities. He added that he didn't see how the County would accomplish that. Mr. Burton said he appreciated Mr. Carrington's opinion and asked if the City Manager would comment. Mr. Ambrose said that there was a different motivation from different groups. Some proposals are coming about because of the fear that the State would oppose something. Many proposals show no need to do anything from the State level. The County is saying they are the regulatory authority in the County. The motivator is fear of the unknown. CM - VOL 11 - 38 Regular Meeting E January 27, 1992 On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the Mayor to send the letter to the President of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors expressing concerns with the proposed East County Policy Options Report. DUBLIN FINE ARTS FOUNDATION REQUEST FOR USE OF CIVIC CENTER LOBBY FOR TEMPORARY EXHIBITIONS (900-50) Mayor Snyder indicated that he would abstain from this item and the following two items as he is a DFA Board member. Mr. Rankin stated that the Dublin Fine Arts Foundation (DFA) had requested approval of a display in the Civic Center lobby which would involve collections of historical or educational significance from local residents. These collections would be placed in the display cases which were used for the previous display involving limited edition books. The collections would be displayed from February to May and would be approved by a jury from DFA's Community Advisory Council. The DFA also requested approval of a summer exhibition relating to transportation. Mr. Rankin said that the Foundation intended to obtain loaned work from artists and galleries for a period of two months, tentatively between June and August. The DFA does not currently have detailed descriptions of the work available. Mr. Rankin said that if the existing display cases were to be used, the flexibility for use of the Civic Center lobby would be limited. There are current reservations for use of the lobby that may result in a conflict. Staff intends to contact the groups to determine whether the exhibition can be accommodated with their layout. DFA is to be advised of all dates for which the exhibition would conflict with current reservations, and groups making reservations for the future would be advised that the lobby is being used for displays. Since the actual content of the exhibitions has not been defined, the potential financial exposure in the event of a loss cannot be identified. A detailed inventory form was developed for the last exhibition to provide a record of its contents, and this form is proposed to be used again. Mr. Rankin said that Staff recommended that the City Council authorize Staff to approve the display of any exhibit for which the actual total value of the articles does not exceed $5, 000 (equivalent of the City's current property insurance deductible) . Any displays exceeding this amount would require City Council approval. Cm. Burton asked whether there was any established time frame or policy for scheduling displays in the lobby. Mr. Rankin said there was not a policy for displays at this time. The only individual to ask for space was DFA, other than the display cases and the exhibits for western Dublin. CM - VOL 11 - 39 Regular Meeting E E m a 0 0 0 a 0 0 n n a 0 a m 0 n January 27, 1992 Cm. Burton said that some type of policy should be looked at. He had no problem with this request but some type of schedule with a three to six month lead time should be considered in order to allow access to the lobby for others. Cm. Jeffery asked if Cm. Burton was talking about the display that was there now or the DFA displays. Cm. Burton said he was talking about others. Cm. Moffatt said he wanted to point out that he agreed with Cm. Burton on the order and process. He commended the DFA and said the whole organization was doing a fantastic job. He suggested that items related to the General Plan Cultural and Historical Elements would be appropriate for a display and that he would bring it up at the Goals and Objectives meeting. Cm. Burton said he didn't feel comfortable with the second (transportation) display unless a commitment was received. Ms. Lynne Baer, DFA Executive Director, said that the idea behind the transportation exhibit was to go to artists and attempt to obtain artwork representing transportation themes. She wanted to make sure the months of June through August were available, , as it is time- consuming to obtain the artwork. Funding is available for the project. Cm. Burton asked if she had any idea of an appropriate schedule or lead time to avoid a conflict with other uses. Ms. Baer said that two months was a good length of time for the display and that the lead time needed was about six months to gather the information. The Dublin Collects exhibit would be individual collections that would be displayed for a shorter period of time. The lobby could be free for other uses in between. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote (Mayor Snyder abstaining) , the Council approved the facility use and authorized Staff to approve exhibits with a total value of $5, 000 or less and which do not conflict with lobby use that is already reserved. Staff was also directed to develop a scheduling procedure for the lobby and to investigate displays associated with the Cultural and Historical Elements of the General Plan. DUBLIN FINE ARTS FOUNDATION REQUEST FOR SHORT-TERM SCULPTURE EXHIBITION AND FOR CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE SELECTION JURY (900-50) Mayor .Snyder abstained from discussion on this item. Mr. Rankin said that DFA is proposing the use of the Civic Center grounds for a temporary exhibition of sculpture by Bay Area artists. The exhibition is intended to be a short-term loan of five to ten ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 40 Regular Meeting January 27, 1992 sculptures by various artists. It is anticipated that the pieces selected would be a smaller scale and would remain for a shorter time than the previous outdoor projects. The focus of the exhibition would be on emerging artists, and DFA would circulate requests through various publications, schools, and galleries in the area. DFA has proposed that the selection of the artwork to be included would be by a jury that would be comprised of the DFA Executive Director, the Public Art Coordinator for the City of Oakland, a Dublin City Councilmember, a member of DFA's Community Advisory Council, and a member of the DFA Board of Directors. The jury consideration would include the quality of the work, durability in the proposed location, proposed installation, and safety. The artist would be responsible for transportation, installation, and insurance. Mr. Rankin said that Staff recommended having installation methods and location reviewed by Public Works Staff in order to protect existing improvements such as landscaping. DFA is presently considering use of the grass area adjacent to the plaza and Civic Center offices. Slides were shown to indicate the proposed locations. Staff recommended having the artist execute a waiver from any claim during the exhibition. Ms. Baer said that she planned to request slides of the various artists' work and then to have the jury visit the studio to see the pieces. Some time would be involved in the selection. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote (Mayor Snyder abstaining) , the Council approved the DFA request, approved the Staff-recommended conditions and selected Cm. Jeffery to participate on the jury. DUBLIN FINE ARTS FOUNDATION (DFA) LOANED ARTS PROGRAM SCULPTURE AGREEMENT NO. 3 (600-30) Mayor Snyder abstained from discussion on this item. Mr. Rankin said that similar to the display of the two large sculptures already approved by the City Council, the DFA requested approval to display two sculptures which would be loaned by artist Viola Frey. Ms. Frey has similar work in the permanent collections of many museums. The figures are large-scale ceramic figures. The proposed location for the display is the central courtyard. Slides of the figures and the proposed locations were displayed at the meeting. Staff proposed that DFA be responsible for construction of a concrete pad to mount the sculpture on since a steel plate must be bolted to the concrete. The pad would be removed at the end of the loan. Mr. Rankin said that the loan agreement provides that the City is responsible for liability insurance in the event of a loss associated with the display. Each of the proposed works is valued at $35, 000. :e :u :a : ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 41 Meeting January 27, 1992 The City's property insurance deductible is $5, 000, and the aggregate coverage amount for fine art is $100, 000. Currently, the total value for all fine art displayed at the Civic Center is $120, 000; therefore, in the event of the loss of all the artwork, a portion of the loss would be potentially uninsured. The artist is informed of the City's coverage in the agreement. Cm. Burton said that it didn't make sense to tear up the concrete slabs after the sculptures were removed and to then replace the slabs for the next pieces of sculpture. Ms. Baer indicated that the concrete slabs were custom-made for the specific pieces of sculpture and that they had to be leveled in each location. Cm. Burton asked if the slabs could be left in place after the sculptures were removed. Cm. Moffatt asked if the cost of the slabs and their removal was borne by DFA. Ms. Baer responded that it was. Cm. Burton asked if damage from vandalism was covered by the City's insurance. Ms. Baer said that it was and added that the two pieces of sculpture in front of the Civic Center had been in place for a year and had not incurred any damage. Cm. Burton asked whether the sculptures were vandal-proof from the standpoint of easily removing graffiti. Ms. Baer said that they could be cleaned and that they would not be damaged by normal use. She indicated that the artists had told her the two pieces of sculpture in front of the building could also stay for the time being. She also noted that the installation of the tiles on the fountain walls would take place this week and that the dedication was scheduled for Friday night. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by majority vote (Mayor Snyder abstaining) , the Council authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement and directed Staff to work with DFA to complete the installation. The Council approved the display of two pieces of sculpture. NEIGHBORHOOD SELF-HELP EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM (520-30) Rose Macias, Community Safety Assistant, presented a report regarding an earthquake preparedness program. A draft workbook on earthquake preparedness, as well as neighborhood survey and informational forms, were presented and described. Workshops in home fire safety, use of fire extinguishers, first aid, light search and rescue, and ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ e ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 42 Regular Meeting January 27, 1992 neighborhood damage assessment are proposed to be available to Dublin residents. Ms. Macias commented that it was helpful to the community if the neighborhoods were prepared. She said that the Task Guide explains what the neighborhoods must do for themselves until emergency response gets there. People should develop skills and work together. The Fire Department is able to do first aid training and show people how to turn off the gas. Ms. Macias requested that the City Council approve a proclamation declaring April as Earthquake Preparedness Month. Cm. Burton asked if the use of Citizens Band (CB) communication had been discussed. Ms. Macias said that she had contacted some people in the community and does want to implement the use of CB's. She said that most CB users have had some training already. Cm. Burton indicated that some people might be reluctant to fill out the personal information requested on the form. Ms. Macias said that the forms would be maintained by the neighborhood group and were optional. Having the form on file would be beneficial; for example, if children may be home alone and need assistance. Cm. Burton complimented Ms. Macias on the forms. Ms. Macias responded that all the forms were draft and could be changed if desired. Mayor Snyder asked if there was a provision to update the information on the forms as it became outdated. Ms. Macias indicated that it was recommended to update the forms every six months. She said that all residents in the City would receive the workbook and that neighborhood meetings or meetings with homeowners' associations would be held to organize the programs. Cm. Jeffery said the program sounded very active. Ms. Macias said she was hoping to kick off the program in April in conjunction with Earthquake Preparedness Month. She said that everyone looks at disaster preparedness as overwhelming and that the book would show how to prepare one step at a time. She said she would utilize the Neighborhood Watch groups and make presentations in the schools, and that she hoped people would contact her. Cm. Jeffery asked if a letter would be sent with the workbook. Ms. Macias said that the first page of the book explains the program. Mr. Rankin indicated that press releases would also be issued and would reinforce that the City wants to hear from people. :e :u :a : ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 43 Meeting January 27, 1992 1 J Cm. Moffatt said that he endorsed the book and the program. Cm. Burton asked if any preparation had been done relative to responding to a disaster on the other side of the hill. Cm. Moffatt said that Camp Parks had the capability of responding. Mr. Ambrose said he would like to commend Ms. Macias for the work done to date and that she had made an excellent presentation at his church. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the proclamation declaring April as Earthquake Preparedness Month and approved the Neighborhood Disaster Preparedness Program, including the workbook and training workshops. STATUS REPORT ON DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW TASK FORCE WORK PROGRAM (470-50) Mr. Rankin said that approximately a year ago, the City Council had approved the formation of a Special Task Force with the objective of reviewing the Downtown Specific Plan to determine whether it was appropriate to pursue strategies that had not yet been implemented. The Task Force was also to consider any other issues of interest to the business community. The Task Force proposed to operate with subcommittees who would study issues in the areas of Special Programs, Traffic/Land Use/Circulation, and Urban Design Improvements. The subcommittees have met to develop a scope of work which focuses on specific goals for each subcommittee. The Task Force also utilized input from a survey conducted by the Special Programs Subcommittee to identify perceived needs in the business community. Mr. Rankin summarized the scope of work of each subcommittee as follows: Special Programs: Plans to research information on development of an association to promote businesses and the procedures involved in implementing such an association. Plans to convene a forum inviting all businesses to discuss ideas on joint promotion and to share information obtained by the subcommittee. Final phase will involve developing a recommended implementation strategy for business promotion. Circulation/Transportation/Land Use: Plans to review planned transportation improvements and outline the importance of the projects from the perspective of the business community. Findings will be used to highlight the importance of the proposed improvements. Plans to communicate with automobile dealers as identified in the Downtown Specific Plan to assess any change in plans for future operations or the use of property. The final area to consider is the long term development needs and consideration of potential for redevelopment or other improvements. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 44 Regular Meetinq January 27, 1992 Urban Design: Plans to focus on a review of two programs included in the Specific Plan related to signage - a project entry or standard pylon for use at retail centers and a signing and graphics improvement program - and to make recommendations on the feasibility of implementing the programs. Mr. Rankin said that the Council had approved the Task Force request to increase the number of participants from the business community but had not explicitly discussed criteria for participation on the Task Force. The Task Force would like the Council to confirm that participation is open to businesses in all areas of the community. Mr. Rankin also indicated that the Task Force members had requested that the City Council refer to the organization as the Dublin Business Task Force rather than the Downtown Specific Plan Task Force since the group is charged with considering all issues of interest to the business community and that reference to the Specific Plan in the name may imply that businesses outside the Specific Plan area are excluded. Cm. Burton said he was pleased with the enthusiasm from the business community and that he hoped for expansion. He said that people outside the Downtown Specific Plan area would make good members and that he had a good feeling about the subcommittee work. Cm. Jeffery said that in relation to the Special Programs work, the Department of Commerce has model plans. She said someone is needed who can be responsible for the plans. Cm. Burton said that the Task Force had talked about hiring a special consultant and that they would come back to the City Council with recommendations. Mr. Rankin said the intent was to get input from people who had approached a similar project in different ways - that possibly a consultant could be used. He said the committee needs a better sense of the Association and what the community wants. Cm. Burton said that Mr. Rankin had done an excellent job of tying the project together. Cm. Moffatt said he had a concern that the committee was in competition with the Chamber of Commerce. Cm. Burton responded that the Chamber has a broad membership and that not all members were from Dublin. He said the Association was likely to be just people in Dublin and that the downtown Dublin area would be promoted. He said that Nancy Feeley, Executive Director of the Chamber, had no problem with the Association's existence. Mayor Snyder said that the Chamber represented only a quarter of the businesses in Dublin and that more businesses needed to get involved. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 45 Regular Meeting January 27, 1992 . .A On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the Task Force to proceed with the scope of work, confirmed that participation is not restricted to businesses in the Specific Plan area, and authorized the Task Force to use the name Dublin Business Task Force. SANTA RITA PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS (600-40) Mr. Ambrose said that City and County Staff had been working on the renegotiation of the Tax Exchange Agreement for the County-owned Santa Rita property for several months. When the City and County Staffs reach conceptual agreement, it is the City Attorney's opinion that the City Council could not approve a revised agreement until the Environmental Impact Report was certified for the eastern Dublin General and Specific Plan Amendments. Mr. Ambrose requested that the City Council appoint two members to assist the City Manager in renegotiating the agreement with Alameda County. Cm. Burton said he agreed this was a difficult time and offered his services. Cm. Jeffery said she felt it was appropriate that the Mayor be involved. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council selected Cm. Burton and Mayor Snyder to work with the City Manager in renegotiating the agreement. REPORT ON 10TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION (950-40) Ms. Lowart presented an oral report on the upcoming Tenth Anniversary Celebration and distributed a schedule of events. A kick-off reception will be held on Friday evening, January 31st, which will include several presentations and the dedication of the Dublin Fine Arts Foundation tile wall near the fountain. On Saturday evening, February 1st, a dinner dance will be held in the lobby and Regional Meeting Room. Ms. Lowart said that most of the limited seating for the dinner dance had been reserved but it was still possible to make reservations. The absolute deadline for reservations is Thursday, January 30th. Mayor Snyder commented that Staff had done an excellent job of putting the programs together. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 46 Regular Meeting January 27, 1992 OTHER BUSINESS Update on Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority (TWA) (1030-70) Mr. Thompson said that a community workshop was scheduled for the evening of February 11th in the Regional Meeting Room regarding the Environmental Impact Report for the expansion of sewer service in the Valley. A representative from the TWA will be attending the Council meeting on February 24th. A public hearing regarding the EIR will be held on February 19th; however, comments will be received for a 30-day period following the hearing. Mr. Thompson indicated that either the February 24th or March 9th Council meetings were within that time frame. Cm. Moffatt indicated that he would like information on the time of the workshop. Mr. Thompson commented that the preferred routing for the sewer was to the Central Sanitary District and that each agency in the Valley would split the capacity as needed. English-Language Amendment (660-50) Cm. Burton said that he was interested in the Council's reaction to a proposed amendment that would make English the official language. Cm. Jeffery said the issue was controversial. She said she agreed but that there were a lot of different languages used in the Bay Area. Mayor Snyder indicated that the nine Bay Area congressional representatives did not support the measure but that they are missing the point. One of the requirements for citizenship is being able to speak English. Cm. Burton asked if Staff could prepare a resolution supporting the amendment similar to the example he had brought. Mayor Snyder said that if some people were uncomfortable with the proposed action, it could be difficult. Cm. Moffatt said that people in a territory such as Puerto Rico wouldn't speak English anyway. Mayor Snyder noted that this proposal was not much different from the ATC language that is really English and is used worldwide. Cm. Burton said it was important for people to know about the issue. Cm. Jeffery said she had a concern regarding areas where directions are posted in different languages: for example, airports or buses. She said if the issue is stressed too highly, those agencies may no longer utilize the other languages. :e :u :a : ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ M - VOL 11 - 47 Meeting January 27, 1992 Cm. Burton said the issue could be placed on the Consent Calendar, and that the resolution was already written. Russian Visitors (515-60) Mayor Snyder said that the Russian visitors were pleased with the potluck dinner that was held at the Shannon Center. The group has been on a tour of the Lucky's facility in San Leandro and went to Mervyns in Dublin. Mayor Snyder indicated that the funding had been raised to bring 20 additional people over from Russia and they may be arriving in a week or so. CLOSED SESSION At 11: 00 p.m. , the Council recessed to a closed executive session to discuss: 1) Pending Litigation, City of Dublin vs. Schaffer (640-30) , in accordance with Government Code Section 54956. 9 (a) . ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11: 14 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CM - VOL 11 - 48 Regular Meeting N E 0 January 27, 1992