Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.1 Approve 04-27-1992 Minutes REGULAR MEETING - April 17, 1992 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, April 27, 1992 , in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7: 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. CUSTOMER SERVICE AWARD FOR MONTH OF MAY (150-90) City Manager Ambrose presented the May Customer Service Award to Linda Thomas, Office Assistant in the Recreation Department. Mr. Ambrose advised that Linda was nominated by her peers for demonstrating exemplary customer service skills. Linda was presented with a restaurant gift certificate and a coffee mug displaying the City's customer service motto. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of April -13, 1992 (Cm. Burton abstained because he was not present at the April 13th meeting) ; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 39 - 92 APPROVING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY, DRAWING AND DELIVERING WARRANTS, ACCEPTING AND RECORDING A GRANT DEED, AND DECLARING THIS PORTION OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND DOUGHERTY ROAD A PART OF THE CITY STREET SYSTEM (670-20) (Vangelatos Property) and authorized the Mayor to execute the Agreement (600-30) ; CM - VOL 11 - 153 :eN Tular Meeting April 27, 1992 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: ITEM NO. _!4*AL Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 40 - 92 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT FOR SUPPLEMENTS NO. 002 & 003 FOR CYCLE 2 STATE-LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FUNDS SB 300 (600-50) Cm. Jeffery. questioned if the City Council and the various Commissions were included as employees under the Sexual Harassment policy. _ Assistant to the City Manager Texeira advised that they were. Cm. Moffatt requested an elaboration on the cost range estimate for the training. City Manager Ambrose stated it could range from $800 to $3,400 depending upon the extent of the training and number of employees trained. Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 41 - 92 ADOPTING A SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURE and authorized the City Manager to pursue training options and to include appropriate funding in the Fiscal Year 92-93 budget (710-80) ; Received a monthly status report on existing Non-Conforming Signs identified on the Non-Conforming Sign Summary List (400-30) Received the City Treasurer's Investment Report as of March 31, 1992 (320-30) ; Accepted work performed under Contract 91-03A, Shannon Park Well, by A.S.E. Drilling, Inc. (600-30) ; Received the Finance Report for the month of March, 1992 (330-50) ; Awarded the bid for 6 police vehicles (350-20) to Shamrock- Ford and authorized Staff to issue a purchase order for $100, 217 . 16. The Council also authorized the purchase of Ford Premium Extended Service Plan with Maintenance Warranties 3 Year/85, 000 Miles ($83 , 597. 16 + $16, 620 = $100, 217 . 16) ; With regard to the Dublin Boulevard Extension Assessment District 91-1 (360-40) , adopted RESOLUTION NO. 42 - 92 DETERMINING ASSESSMENTS REMAINING UNPAID CM - VOL 11 - 154 Regular Meeting April 27, 1992 and RESOLUTION NO. 43 - 92 APPROVING PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT and RESOLUTION NO. 44 - 92 AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF BONDS and - RESOLUTION NO. 45 - 92 ORDERING SALE OF BONDS Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 46 - 92 APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 5900 DOUGHERTY ROAD BJ DUBLIN COMMERCIAL (600-60 & 410-50) and RESOLUTION NO. 47 - 92 RELEASING DEVELOPER AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 4978 DOUGHERTY ROAD (BJ DUBLIN COMMERCIAL) Approved issuance of Contract 90-01 Change Orders 8, 13 , and 14 for San Ramon Road Phase IV, Redgwick Construction (600-30) ; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $219, 104 . 22 (300-40) . Cm. Jeffery requested that the Bylaws and Rules' of Procedure for the Senior Center Advisory Committee be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. She questioned if the Council wanted to wait and pass them after the Directly Elected Mayor issue is voted on in June. The Bylaws indicate individual Councilmember appointments and this would change if Measure G passes. City Manager Ambrose advised that certain portions still apply. In addition, there will be other documents that will need to be revised if the measure passes. It is a call by the Council if it wishes to adopt the Bylaws now. Cm. Jeffery pointed out that this is just one of the things that they will be giving up with a directly elected Mayor. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 48 - 92 ADOPTING THE BYLAWS AND RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE DUBLIN SENIOR CENTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE (110-20) CM - VOL 11 - 155 Regular Meeting April 27, 1992 Cm. Burton requested that the item dealing with applying for grant funds be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. He stated he has been working with a lot of people to see if there is a way we can incorporate this grant for use at the Heritage Center. Recreation Director Lowart responded that with some restrictions, it could be used for this purpose. The property would have to have some recreational value to the community. If the City were to acquire the properties and then turn them back over-to a non-profit group, only 10% of the grant money could be used. Cm. Burton questioned if ownership would remain with the City. Ms. Lowart responded yes, if there is going to be a subsequent operational agreement with a group that would have operational rights over the facility, or if we allow them to have control over operating the facilities. Cm. Burton asked if the City has to run the programs. Ms. Lowart advised yes. Cm. Burton stated he wanted to use the grant funds for the 2 buildings. Cm. Jeffery suggested holding off with further discussion of this item until the discussion related to the Heritage Center report later in the meeting. Cm. Burton stated he would rather use the funds for the 2 facilities than the projects Staff listed. Documentation was passed out incorporating his suggested changes to the Resolution. Cm. Burton made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Moffatt to adopt the revised Resolution. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the cemetery would be considered passive recreation. Ms. Lowart advised that Staff would need to submit it for the East Bay Regional Park District to rule. Cm. Jeffery stated there were advisory committees to advise the City Council on which projects to do first. The 2 projects identified were of high priority by the Park & Recreation Commission, plus residents who came to the Council with the requests. She stated she was against the motion at this time. Cm. Burton stated the grant application must be submitted by the first of May. This is an opportunity for us to restore these facilities with no costs to the citizens. He stated he was aware that we are short in the budget. Mayor Snyder questioned where the money would come from for the other 2 projects that have already been prioritized. :e :u :a : ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ a a ■ CM — VOL 11 — 156 Meeting April 27, 1992 Cm. Burton responded that the opportunity has been presented to us now and we should take advantage of it. The Sports Grounds has received a lot of money in the past and Mape Park is not as needy at this present time. Cm. Jeffery stated her point was that the Council has gone through a system and prioritized these. It will be a slap in the face to those people who worked through the prioritizing. Cm. Moffatt stated the goals list recently passed gave the historical - element a high priority. City Attorney Silver stated the City has to either own the facilities or have a long term lease. She suggested the Council defer a decision on this until it discussed the Heritage Center report. Cm. Burton felt the money could be used to acquire the properties. Ms. Silver stated this Resolution is not the action to acquire the property. Cm. Burton pointed out that the historical item is merely to receive the report. The Council will not settle on the amount of money to spend to renovate or acquire the properties. This is just making application for the funds. Ms. Lowart stated when we apply for the funds, we must have title or be in the process of acquiring it right away. It is possible to identify more than one project that the funds would be used for. We could identify multiple projects. One or more projects could be identified by June 15th. Mr. Ambrose stated this would allow the opportunity for public input, plus keep options open for the Heritage Center. Cm. Burton questioned if Staff could have everything ready to go by June 15th. Mr. Ambrose pointed out that the Council would also have the benefit of referring this back to the Park & Recreation Commission as well as the benefit of looking at all of the projects regarding total funds available in the budget. Cm. Burton agreed to change his motion and Cm. Moffatt agreed to change his second to the motion. Cm. Burton stated the intent is that this resolution will go forward with resolution by June 15th. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to add the 2 historical sites to the resolution in addition to the 2 projects already identified, and adopted ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ' CM - VOL 11 - 157 Regular Meeting April 27, 1992 RESOLUTION NO. 49 - 92 APPROVING APPLICATION TO THE LOCAL GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE EBRPD REGIONAL OPEN SPACE, WILDLIFE, SHORELINE, AND PARRS BOND ORDINANCE (PHASE II) FOR THE NAPE PARR AND DUBLIN SPORTS GROUNDS RENOVATIONS, ACQUISITION AND RESTORATION OF OLD ST. RAYMOND'S CHURCH AND ORIGINAL MURRAY SCHOOLHOUSE (920-60) REQUEST FROM ALAMEDA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY TO APPROVE FORMATION AND APPOINTEES TO A CONSOLIDATED LOCAL TASK FORCE (LTF) WASTE REDUCTION ADVISORY BOARD (810-20) Assistant City Manager Rankin presented the Staff Report and advised that State Law requires that a Countywide Local Task Force be appointed pursuant to the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 . The County Waste Management Authority has proposed a change in membership as well as the purpose of the Task Force. If approved by a majority of the cities with a majority of the population, the Task Force would also be available as an Advisory Board on waste reduction issues. Mr. Rankin indicated that the role of the Waste Reduction Board is unclear. Mayor Snyder stated this is a move on the part of those involved with Measure D that was voted on in November, 1990. Dublin fought in the courts and were successful last year in overturning it. He explained that there are some who want to maintain dominance in Alameda County and foist concepts and programs upon us that- we don't necessarily want to deal with. The purpose and tasks of the LTF' are very specific. He felt that it would be easy to find this as something that is supportable, however, because he had been involved with all the background, he personally could not support it. He felt that it would probably get the necessary votes to pass in the County though. Cm. Jeffery stated this task force seemed redundant and questioned what their purpose was. Cm. Burton felt they want to keep their fingers on the mon-ey. Cm. Moffatt stated he felt it was mandated by law and pointed out that it is advisory in nature. Additionally, a Dublin resident has been put on the Board. Cm. Jeffery stated she felt this expands what the law says we must do. Mr. Rankin referred to the January, 1991 Staff Report which indicated that the LTF has designated responsibilities under the State Law. The role of the LTF has been broadened, plus they have left it undefined. Mayor Snyder stated he was concerned with the redesignation from what the law requires. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ' CM - VOL 11 - 158 Regular Meeting April 27, 1992 Cm. Burton asked if we vote against it and it passes, can we be on it. The response was yes. Cm. Moffatt stated it didn't make sense to him. Mayor Snyder stated that each one must make a decision on what they feel is right. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by majority vote, the Council voted against the proposal of the Authority. Cm. Moffatt voted against this motion. REQUEST FROM CITY OF NEWARK REGARDING PARTICIPATION IN THE FORMATIOIIJ OF A SOUTHERN ALAMEDA COUNTY/TRI-VALLEY CITIES TASK FORCE (110-30) City Manager Ambrose advised that the City of Newark has expressed concern about the treatment and lack of representation that Southern Alameda County and the Tri-Valley Cities have experienced recently. The City of Dublin, along with the other Cities, has been asked to participate in a special Task Force which would be charged with determining ways to better influence Alameda County. Mr. Ambrose advised that if the Council is interested in pursuing this concept, the Council should appoint a Council representative to the Task Force. Pleasanton has appointed a delegate and Livermore will be considering this item tonight. Cm. Burton questioned if this group is connected to those who want to start another county. There is no question that we are getting the short end of the stick. Mayor Snyder advised that Shirley Sisk drafted the original letter. Danville and San Ramon have similar concerns. The bigger issue is the fact that the 6 cities feel that their issues are not being addressed and it is an attempt to bring awareness. Cm. Burton questioned how they anticipate dealing with it. Mayor Snyder felt the request is to get a group together to discuss the broader issues. He referred to the attachment to the Staff Report regarding the money put in by each city versus the money/services received. Cm. Jeffery stated this is one of the reasons we became a city; to have concerns addressed locally. It is time to ban together and try to do what we can to get them to listen to our concerns. Cm. Burton stated he didn't feel it will work, but we can get together. He felt the Mayor should be Dublin's representative. CM - VOL it - 159 Regular Meeting April 27„ 1992 On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council expressed an interest in pursuing this concept, and appointed the Mayor as the Council's representative on the Task Force. SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT INITIATION REQUEST RELATING TO AUTO DEALERSHIPS FROM BARBER SIGN COy, INC. (400-30) Associate Planner Cirelli presented the Staff Report and advised that the Applicant, Robert Rogers of Barber Sign Company, Inc. , representing Bruce Qvale, owner of Valley Dodge, Nissan and Volkswagen, is requesting the City Council to initiate an amendment to the Sign Ordinance to allow more signage for auto dealerships. Currently, the Sign Ordinance applies to all businesses in the City and does not include special provisions for auto dealerships. Ms. Cirelli advised that the Applicant proposes a maximum of 2 signs be allowed for each product line. For instance, Crown Chevrolet would be allowed to have 8 signs. The Applicant also requests that auto dealerships with non-conforming signs be allowed to retain and maintain these signs, but not be allowed to expand these signs until the business changes or the signs are replaced. Finally, the Applicant is requesting that auto dealerships be allowed to have directional signage with a maximum sign area of 16 square feet and that these signs should not be counted toward the maximum allowable sign area for a business. Ms. Cirelli indicated that Staff did not concur with the Applicant's recommendations. If the Council directs a study, it would be necessary to prioritize the request with the- others that are pending; namely, outdoor storage, banners, and commercial recreational uses in the C-N District. Cm. Burton asked if the Council proceeds with this study, would the present signs that are ordered to be changed be put into abeyance. Ms. Cirelli stated she didn't think they would be put into abeyance at this time. We did continue with the non-conforming sign ordinance study. Planning Director Tong stated the Applicant represents Valley Auto Dealers and they do not have any non-conforming signs. Crown has some which could be affected. Mr. Ambrose advised that if the City Council wishes to pursue this, they could direct Staff to not enforce the signs for auto dealerships. Cm. Jeffery questioned if Staff had found any problems in this regard and if there was any justification for this. We wanted to clean up the proliferation of signs for everyone. Mr. Ambrose reported that we are seeing a change in the way car manufacturers do business. We see one dealership bringing in more CM - VOL 11 - 160 Regular Meeting N E 0 April 27, 1992 than one product line. There may not be provisions in the Sign Ordinance to identify all their product lines, so there may be some merit in looking at this. Cm. Moffatt asked if franchised auto dealers were required to have certain types of signage. Ms. Cirelli advised that there are some-car manufacturers that have certain restrictions and some manufacturers have their own signage requirements. - Robert Rogers with Barber Sign Company commended Ms. Cirelli for putting together the Staff Report. He currently sits on the Development Review Committee in Sunol and hopes to get onto the Planning Commission. While he is not a professional planner, he felt that if Staff is allowed to work with them, they could hammer out something that would be workable for the City and the car dealers. Other cities have similar programs to what they are proposing in Dublin. He indicated he would be happy to work with Staff and they won't bill the City. This is a nice opportunity to put together a good project. They will be bringing in more revenue on a less complicated basis. Cm. Burton stated it is very difficult for the City Council to visualize what is appropriate and what is not. Mr. Rogers stated he felt the number of signs could be discretionary. Santa Rosa adopted a real nice package; however, all their auto dealers are in 1 location. Petaluma did the same thing and they made a mess of it. Mayor Snyder questioned if he had experience with dealers that have multiple franchises. Mr. Rogers felt that if they sign with a particular product line, another product line cannot go on the same pylon. Mayor Snyder reminded the Council that if this is approved, the Council must place it in relationship to the other studies. Cm. Moffatt stated he felt it could be handled along with the banners. Mr. Ambrose stated all of the previous requests were as a result of individual property owner requests. Limited Staff time is a problem. Cm. Moffatt asked if Staff takes it in the order of the request, how long it would take. Mr. Tong advised that it would probably be near the beginning of next year before Staff could work on it. Cm. Burton questioned if any signs other than Crown Chevrolet's would be affected. :e :u :a : ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ' CM - VOL 11 - 161 Meeting April 27, 1992 Mr. Tong stated they have not come in with a specific application. The Planning Commission recently acted on a new freestanding sign and variance for the Honda Dealership. Cm. Moffatt stated this is a big industry in the United States and auto dealerships are having problems. He would like to see this given a high priority. It is important to help the economy as much as possible. Cm. Jeffery felt the Council doesn't really have the right to decide _ which business is more important to the community. It should go in _ priority order. This is basically a judgment call. Cm. Burton asked Mr. Rogers if anything would be affected by the fact that there will not be an answer for quite some time. Mr. Rogers explained that this is not critical. It doesn't have to 'be a high priority study. They just hope for product identification for their new product line. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to initiate the study, with the request placed on the priority list in the order received with regard to other requests. Staff was directed to defer enforcement of any automobile signs until the study is done. PUBLIC HEARING - INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS ON DUBLIN BOULEVARD @ SILVERGATE DRIVE (590-40) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Public Works Director Thompson presented the Staff Report and advised that in a separate agenda item, Staff recommended awarding the bid for Phase I of the Dublin Boulevard/Silvergate Drive intersection project, which will reconfigure this intersection to a conventional "T" design. These improvements are intended to improve driver and pedestrian safety. TJKM did a traffic report on this location and covered such items as traffic volume, accident history, visibility, and other issues. Mr. Laszlo who lives in the house on the corner, 11471 Silvergate Drive, stated he felt this area is quite dangerous. For safety reasons, this is very important. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted CM - VOL 11 - 162 :egm ular Meeting April 70, 90 2 RESOLUTION NO. 50 - 92 APPROVING INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS ON DUBLIN BOULEVARD @ SILVERGATE DRIVE (To Become Effective with Construction of the Capital Improvement Project) PUBLIC HEARING REVISIONS TO ALARM SYSTEMS ORDINANCE (580-25) _ Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Police Chief Rose presented the Staff Report and advised that this Ordinance, which was introduced at the last Council meeting, would amend the City's existing Alarm Systems Ordinance related to false alarms. Staff proposes to educate alarm users and agents/businesses' to the problems associated with response to false alarms and to ensure that false alarms are dramatically reduced. The Ordinance amendment also has provisions for establishing fines to businesses and residents not correcting faulty alarms. Chief Rose reported there were 312 false alarms reported in the first 90 days of this year, and 6 businesses had 5 or more false alarms. Cm. Burton questioned if there was any common thread; i.e. , do they all have the same kind of alarms, etc. Chief Rose stated there doesn't appear to be any common thread. It appears that 2 of the businesses were just careless. Cm. Moffatt indicated that there are alarm monitoring companies and he asked if they ever suggest that they are having too many. false alarms. Chief Rose stated usually the owner is not even aware of the false alarm. It doesn't seem to be a concern of the alarm company to let a business know there are a high number of alarms. Cm. Moffatt indicated he had spoken with 2 alarm companies earlier in the day and found out that they bill people themselves if they are having too many false alarms. He asked if the Police Department gets involved with any dialogue and/or communication. Chief Rose advised that each time they respond to an alarm, they fill out a card and leave notification at the business. Part of what this Ordinance establishes is procedures for notifying and educating users. Cm. Moffatt suggested some sort of a City alarm permit to defray some of the costs. Chief Rose explained that this is not intended to generate revenue, but to educate people to some of the problems associated with false alarms. CM - VOL 11 - 163 Regular Meeting April 27, 1992 Cm. Moffatt pointed out that if someone lives on social security, the amount of the fines could be quite a financial hardship. Perhaps a sliding scale or an adjusted amount could be a discretion. Chief Rose advised that there are no provisions for a sliding scale, but it could be appealed to the City Manager. Ms. Silver explained that a permit is required from the State of California. Cm. Moffatt advised that this is for the alarm company, but he was thinking of the end user. A business owner stated to him that if the fines got out of hand, he would suspend the use of an alarm and go to a rent-a-cop system. Chief Rose stated he felt that once businesses understand the problems, they will be in agreement and try to correct the problems. Cm. Burton stated 312 false alarms is a lot and he was concerned that we may be coming down hammering people without knowing who we are really dealing with. Subordinates might not even tell the boss. He suggested that the City should add the requirement of getting a signed receipt. The officer should have someone sign for it. We are then at least aware of who we are talking to. We should be getting in touch with the responsible people. We should also make it a point to let them know that after the fifth false alarm, they can appeal to the City Manager. The Council discussed the 90 day timing and what would and wouldn't be considered cumulative. Cm. Jeffery stated as a business person, she would be very embarrassed to have that many false alarms. Janet Lockhart, Community Affairs Director, spoke on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber had an ad hoc committee meeting and they were very enlightened to find out that there were this many false alarms. They would be interested in helping to resolve problems, and they support any and all efforts to reduce false alarms in the community. They were concerned about the non-response list as this might create a situation that would be unhealthy for all concerned. She questioned if a business could be penalized if a customer walks out a non-exit and it sets off an alarm. Are there steps that can be taken to head off false alarms? Another concern was the amount of fines. They have asked for an appointment to meet with Chief Rose in order to communicate with Chamber members. Mayor Snyder stated relative to a door that people are not supposed to exit, there should be some kind of procedure to call and notify that this is not a valid alarm. He also questioned the liability issue at the last meeting and referred to the minutes. CM - VOL 11 - 164 Regular Meeting 0 E E April 27, 1992 Chief Rose pointed out that the Ordinance states if an alarm is beyond their control, it won't be considered a false alarm. The idea is not to penalize, but to cut down on false alarms. Pete Hegarty, 11484 Silvergate Drive, stated the Ordinance bothered him in that after 10 years, we suddenly have some abuses. He questioned what would happen if someone goes on vacation and their alarm goes off 10 times. He didn't feel this ordinance was necessary. There should be a better way of correcting the problem. Mr. Ambrose advised that the City's current Alarm Systems Ordinance says if you have more than 1 false alarm in a 6 month period, you could be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor. The District Attorney's Office has indicated that they will not enforce this as a misdemeanor. Mr. Hegarty stated he was not in favor of adopting more laws and disagreed with the City Attorney regarding the liability issue. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Burton questioned how Staff arrived at the $200 figure. Chief Rose stated they used the direct and indirect costs. Cm. Jeffery stated that in 1991 there were 1, 037 false alarms. All we are trying to do is develop a way to educate people that have alarms on how to correct this. This is actually more lenient than the current Ordinance. Cm. Burton asked if there was an answer to the question of someone whose alarm goes off while they are on vacation•. Chief Rose stated they still provide vacation house checks. If a person had an abundancy of alarms in 1 week, it probably would not be a fine situation. Chief Rose stated a second notification is made by letter or by telephone. Cm. Burton stated he would rather have someone actually receive it. He suggested and the Council concurred that Section 10, Paragraph A.2 . , be amended to add " . . . mail with return receipt requested . . . " On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, with the addition discussed above, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 7 - 92 AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO ALARM SYSTEMS CM _ VOL 11 - 165 Regular Meeting N E 0 April 27, 1992 CONTRACT REVIEW FOR STREET SWEEPING AND AWARD OF NEW AGREEMENT TO A-1 SWEEPING (820-30 & 600-30) Public Works Director Thompson advised that for the past 6 years, the City has contracted with A-1 Enterprises for street sweeping and litter pickup service in 2 successive 3-year agreements. Mr. Thompson advised that Staff had recently completed an analysis of contract versus in-house sweeping. The capital outlay for a street sweeper is approximately $150,000 and if the City decided to purchase a sweeper, two vehicles would be needed, or other arrangements would _ have to be made for backup services. Also, the cost of only one operator position is nearly as much as the annual cost of the contract service. Staff, therefore, recommended that the City continue to contract for sweeping and litter pickup services. Mr. Thompson advised that 4 proposals were received as a result of the City advertising for RFP's. While A-1 did not submit the lowest price bid, they have been the City's contractor for the past 5 years and have performed well with very few complaints. A-11s proposed response time for emergency callouts is 15 to 20 minutes during working hours and 1 hour at night or on weekends with a 1-hour minimum. A-11s cost proposal is 40 cents per curb mile higher than their current rate of $15. 00, which is an increase of approximately 2 .7%. No cost increases are proposed in other line items. Mr. Thompson stated that at the direction of the City Council, the term of the agreement is being changed from 3 to 5 years. A-1 has requested that a specific clause be included in the contract relative to annual increases, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) . The City Attorney approved the language in the contract relative to this request. Rob Trible, owner of Snow White Sweepers stated he had lived in the area, in San Ramon for 13 or 14 years. He took exception to comments made by Staff and stated as a small business owner, he looks for business wherever he can find it. They submitted a bid and their costs were considerably lower and if the City was not happy with their service, they could disregard it and go with another bidder. Mayor Snyder corrected the fact that the City asked for proposals rather than bids. Mr. Trible stated they have been in business for about 8 years and they provide service to the Town of Danville. In addition to the sweeper that he has, they acquired another piece of equipment with which they have had some problems. He felt they have a competitive rate and he asked for the City to reconsider. He put a lot of work into their proposal and felt they should be given a chance. He has provided an economic incentive for Dublin. Cm. Moffatt questioned the number of employees and if they are bondable. CM - VOL 11 - 166 Regular Meeting April 27, 1992 Mr. Trible stated they have 12 full time employees and yes, they are bondable. They have no policies out right now as they have no need. Cm. Burton stated he has been very happy with A-1 Sweeping and felt there is loyalty to someone who is doing a good job. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 51 - 92 _ AWARDING CONTRACT FOR STREET SWEEPING, PARKING LOT SWEEPING, AND LITTER PICKUP SERVICES TO A-1 ENTERPRISES and authorized the Mayor to execute the Agreement. AMENDMENT TO BROWN ACT OPEN MEETING LAW - SB 1538 (660-40) City Attorney Silver advised that Senator Kopp has introduced legislation amending the Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ) The most recent version of the bill was amended in the State Senate on April 6th. Two memos were prepared for the Staff Report which gave a description of the various proposed changes. Ms. Silver advised that she had checked on the status of the bill today and learned that it is now in the Senate Appropriations Committee. It was amended on April 6th and again on April 21st. She was unable to get a copy of the April 21st amendments. Mayor Snyder pointed out that we have a unique -situation in the Tri- Valley area and he questioned how the provisions of Section 12 would apply. This section requires that ALL meetings of a local legislative body be held within the boundaries of that body's territory. Ms. Silver indicated that this section was amended and the new draft would list several exceptions to this requirement. Cm. Jeffery questioned if Section 3 was amended. She thought the provisions of this section might include all agencies receiving money from the City to bring them under the Brown Act. Ms. Silver stated this section was not amended on April 21. She felt that it would take more than just giving money to a group to have an organization fall under this section. What will happen as amendments occur is that the League of California Cities gets a group of City Attorneys together to prepare a question and answer paper that is sent out to all cities. There are obviously a lot of questions that would have to be answered. Cm. Moffatt questioned if this applies only to cities and not state legislators. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 01 CM - VOL 11 - 167 Regular Meeting April 27, 1992 Ms. Silver advised that this is correct. It applies to cities, counties, school districts and special districts, but not state legislators. Cm. Jeffery questioned if Senator Kopp has indicated why he has gone so strict on this. He is tying the hands of all city governments. It doesn't seem reasonable. They should concentrate on enforcing the current law. Ms. Silver stated she had not attended any of the Senate hearings. _ She contacted his office and got a paper indicating some violations or perceived violations of the Brown Act. Ms. Silver stated Senator Kopp's Office has worked with the League and has drafted many of the provisions suggested by the League. Kopp has a policy of never dropping a bill, however. Cm. Moffatt felt that if we take action at this point, next week it could change. He felt we should monitor the League of California Cities and at the appropriate time, we should take action. Cm. Jeffery questioned how fast this bill is moving. Ms. Silver stated with the legislative process, it can't be predicted. Bills must be out of the Senate by early May or they will die. It is helpful to the League's lobbyists to have specific examples related to opposition. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to prepare a letter to be sent to Legislators strongly opposing this bill and giving examples of how it will impact us. Copies should also be sent to local Legislators. * * � III AWARD OF BID FOR DUBLIN BOULEVARD/SILVERGATE DRIVE MODIFICATION, PHASE I, CONTRACT 92-04 (600-30) Public Works Director Thompson presented the Staff Report and advised that this project will modify the Dublin Boulevard/Silvergate Drive intersection to a more normal "t" configuration. Two bids- were received and the low bidder is East Bay Excavating, with a bid of $24 , 940.90. In March, the Council asked Staff to look at the possibility of relocating the asphalt berm on the north side of Dublin Boulevard to provide a safe access for pedestrians and wheelchairs around the 3 street light poles. Mr. Thompson advised that the asphalt berm can be fully relocated down Dublin Boulevard from Silvergate Drive to Hansen Drive for approximately $5,400, based on extending the contractor's unit prices for removal and installation of asphalt berm. For a partial relocation just at each of the 3 street light standards, the additional cost is estimated to be $1,500. A change order could be issued to relocate the asphalt berm. CH - VOL 11 - 168 Regular Meeting April BEEN '27, 1992 Cm. Burton questioned how long it would actually be before we widen the street. Mr. Thompson responded that it could be 5 or 6 years. Cm. Burton felt that $5, 000 is a lot of money to move the berm, but the risk of a serious accident is great. It is a serious problem. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted _ RESOLUTION NO. 52 - 92 AWARDING CONTRACT 92-04 TO EAST BAY EXCAVATING, INC. ($24,940.90) DUBLIN BOULEVARD/SILVERGATE DRIVE MODIFICATION and directed Staff to issue a change order to the contractor to extend the contract to include relocation of the asphalt berm at $5,400. HERITAGE CENTER REPORT (910-40) Recreation Director Lowart presented the Staff Report which gave a history of how this report was requested. Staff was directed to prepare an analysis of the fiscal impact to the City for acquiring, renovating and maintaining the Heritage Center properties. Ms. Lowart advised that the City Attorney determined the procedures which should be following if the City is to acquire the properties. The City would need to: 1) obtain an appraisal; 2) prepare a legal description; 3) prepare a purchase or transfer agreement; and 4) obtain a soils report. Costs were estimated at: Acquisition - $29,400 - $49, 100; Renovation - $257,440; Total one-time costs = $286,840 - $306, 540. Maintenance & Operation costs were estimated annually at $46, 470. With regard to acquisition, Ms. Lowart stated she thought information might be presented this evening identifying that costs could be lower. Ms. Lowart stated the City's Building Department inspected both the church and the school to determine the renovation necessary in order for the buildings to comply with current building, electrical and access codes and to identify those areas in need of repair. The Public Works Department inspected the grounds to determine the initial maintenance costs. Ms. Lowart reviewed the Staff Report which identified detailed information for the old St. Raymond's Church, the old Murray School and the Dublin Cemetery. In summary, Ms. Lowart advised that costs for maintenance and operation of the Heritage Center will vary according to how the buildings and grounds are utilized. The cost estimates do not provide Y for personnel costs associated with direct programming of historical CM - VOL 11 - 169 Regular Meeting April 27, 1992 activities, conducting burials at the cemetery or for the costs associated with Staff support to a historical commission. The maintenance and operation costs could decrease if the City chooses to lease the buildings to a non-profit organization, and increase if the buildings and grounds receive greater use than is currently anticipated. Cm. Jeffery questioned if insurance costs were included. Ms. Lowart stated the property insurance costs would depend on the _ value placed on the property. Staff did not anticipate any increase in the City's liability coverage at this point. Cm. Moffatt commented that he thought these costs could be spread over a 10 year period so that they could be amortized. Rejuvenation could also take place over a period of time. Ms. Lowart indicated that the sooner the repairs are made, the sooner it will be accessible to the public. Mr. Ambrose reminded everyone that there are also certain Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements which apply to all public buildings. The City had a contractor come out and give us an estimate. Building Inspector White reiterated that the Building Department did not give any estimates, but rather contractors did. Cm. Jeffery clarified that the purpose of this discussion was for the Council to receive a report only and that no recommendation was made beyond receiving the report. Mr. Ambrose stated this was correct as this was the direction of the Council. Cm. Jeffery felt it was appropriate to keep in mind that this must go through the budget process. Mr. Ambrose stated there is extreme concern about the City's financial situation. Staff is concerned about committing to any new costs before it can look at the impacts on existing programs. If the Council proceeds, no final action can be taken until the City Council has reviewed the Budget and Capital Improvement Program this year. Cm. Burton stated we may be able to accomplish some of the costs through the Measure AA grant funds. Guy Houston advised that his background is in real estate development and he felt that some of the costs for acquisition might be cut down. The only property being sold is for $10,700. A second property is a leasehold interest and the third property, the cemetery, would be a gift to the City. It doesn't make sense to do an appraisal. He estimated that an appraisal for the church property would be about $2, 500. He distributed information from Chicago Title Company which ■ ■ ■ ® ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ s ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ e ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ e , CM m VOL 11 m 170 Regular Meeting April 27, 1992 indicated they would charge $500 total for each of the 3 properties. It is not customary to get toxic reports on every piece of property, and he thought this could be dismissed altogether. Gordon Rasmussen, President of DCI felt that most of the costs were exaggerated. They have $1, 060 per year insurance costs and maintenance runs less than $2, 000 per year. They are not trying to put something onto the City, but trying-to make a gift. Staff's figures are, disturbing. They know what it costs to take care of the cemetery because they have done it for over 100 years. You do not _ need a soils report for a cemetery. They do not plan to bring the cemetery out to the road, but rather to end it where it is now. Marie Cronin, President of DHPA, past president of LAVHS and member of the DCI stated the City was to be commended for its interest in pursuing possible acquisition of the Heritage Center. The Staff Report did a good job of covering the many phases, however, the cost breakdowns and financial statement needs major analysis. The costs listed in the report are ridiculous. To throw money away like this would be financially irresponsible. A lot of the more expensive things have already been done. Their annual budget for maintenance has been $1, 500 - $2, 000. For the school, the insurance costs are about $1, 000. Soils reports are unneeded. She has been involved in the Heritage Center since the late 19501s. Staff's report is riddled with about $200, 000 of overcosts. She recommended that the City Council approve the concept of acquisition of the Heritage Center for Dublin's 10 year anniversary. Val Hatheway stated everyone had talked about the costs, but no one talks about the value. You can't replace an original item. Year by year, deterioration has taken place and items, one by one, disappear. If the historical value means anything to the people, now is the time to act. People need to think of the value. Dorothy Maddox stated she had been a teacher for over 20 years. One of the best ways for children to learn is to learn about the history of their community. She has taken her classes there year after year. Tom McCormick, 7170 Emerald Avenue, Vice President of DHPA thanked the City Council for bringing this project this far. It is essential to support preservation and we need to move forward with this. He has experience in preparing budgets and has major budget responsibilities and stated he felt the report is grossly exaggerated. He had never seen such estimates in his whole life. The budget needs to be completely reworked. People in the community who have budget experience could help out. He found it unbelievable that no revenue was included in the budget. He is constantly being asked by people who want to use the church for weddings. Some realistic figures, plus revenue could give the City something they could live with. This budget is a disgrace. It's time to approve acquisition of the properties. Cm. Jeffery questioned the fact that revenue could support the facility. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ .■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ' CM - VOL 11 - 171 Regular Meeting April 27, 1992 Mr. McCormick clarified that he did not say that revenue could support the total program, but it could help. Zev Kahn stated he found problems with the proposal from Staff. He felt what could facilitate this whole thing would be to bring all the groups together. When you recommend code compliance and areas of concern, you need to identify this. A lot of the issues are not code issues. The City could coordinate all the items. Corporations could help. He agreed that we are financially strapped and it will take some innovative thought to make this work. Everyone could benefit _ from this and there would be pride that the community could do some of the work. A lot of the items seem to be cleanliness items rather than code. A lot of the work could be done on a volunteer basis and a task force could deal with a lot of this. Pete Hegarty stated he has been involved as past president of DHPA. The Heritage Center is a very rich resource to the community. They' also have 1 1/2 acres on the other side of the creek, which does have value and does have use. He highly recommended that the City go forward with this. There has always been a dispute over who donated the property and has always been a fly in the ointment. Unless we act, we are going to lose this. Putting a plaque here and there is not the same. The community will supply a lot of what is needed. Lou Seever, on the Board of DCI, requested that the City Council take time and sit down and get estimates. There are people and companies in this community who care. Fund raisers could be held. Large corporations such as Hexcel bend over backwards to help restore the damaged headstones. If people knew what was going on, they might be willing to jump in and help to take some of the burden off our shoulders. Mayor Snyder advised that this will be discussed at some length at budget time. If someone knows a better source for obtaining estimates they can come forward. He stated he took umbrage with criticism of Staff's report. It is not Staff's place to make decisions regarding such things as volunteers. They prepared a report as directed. Cm. Jeffery stated the issue is not support or non support at all. There is not a person on the City Council who does not support this, but rather differences are how it should be done. She was interested in looking at the best way to do it. Cm. Burton thanked everyone for coming. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by majority vote, the Council referred the budget and acquisition papers to the already established task force to prepare documents prior to budget time and to clarify some of the figures with the understanding that the task force is to pursue acquisition. The task force was instructed to prepare purchase agreements, clarify the budget and make a presen- tation to the Park & Recreation Commission. Cm. Jeffery and Mayor Snyder voted against this motion. CM - VOL 11 - 172 Regular Meeting N 0 N April 27s 1992 Cm. Jeffery stated she felt this action was inappropriate at this time. Anything that is going into the budget needs to be considered all together. TEN YEAR CITYHOOD CELEBRATION (950-40) Recreation Director Lowart presented the Staff Report related to plans for the July 4th Family Picnic, one component of the Ten-Year Cityhood Celebration. The event would be scheduled at the Dublin Sports _ Grounds on Saturday, July 4th and would be from 12 : 00 noon to 4 : 00 . p.m. Activities would include games, contests, entertainment and a barbecue lunch to be prepared by "celebrity chefs" . The preliminary budget is $7, 500; with $2, 000 to be expended during the current Fiscal Year and the remaining $5,500 to be included in the 1992-93 budget. Ms. Lowart advised that the planning committee also looked at the possibility of having an evening event with a laser light show. Cm. Moffatt asked if the activity could be scaled down to fit the budget. Ms. Lowart stated she would need to know exactly what this meant. Cm. Howard pointed out that the money is already budgeted. Mayor Snyder stated if you don't use the money in the designated fiscal year, it goes back into the General Fund. Cm. Burton stated he thought it would be a lot worse if it failed to be a successful event. We are on a conservative budget right now. He liked the idea of a celebration, but we have already spent $14, 000. Cm. Howard stated she felt that most people go out of town at that time. Cm. Moffatt stated he hoped this wouldn't interfere with the tree lighting ceremony in December. Mayor Snyder stated there was no need to spend time working on this if it isn't supported by a majority, which it doesn't appear to be. Cm. Howard didn't feel there was enough time left to plan this event. Cm. Burton suggested that this celebration be dropped, but Staff could come back with something more modest. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote, the Council cancelled the 4th of July community picnic event. Cm. Jeffery voted against this motion. :e:u:a : ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 'CM - VOL 11 - 173 Meeting April 27, 1992 CONSTRUCTION OF NEW EAST COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER FACILITY (500-80) City Manager Ambrose presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Managers of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon have discussed with the Alameda County Administrator the need to replace the existing 27 year old animal shelter facility at Santa Rita. A number of alternatives have been explored during the last several years. The cost to build a new facility is estimated at $4,750, 000 and an equity share arrangement is being reviewed. Dublin's pro-rata share would be based on the number of live animals handled at the _ shelter on an annual basis. In Fiscal Year 1994-95, the City would incur its first debt service payment of $112,419. In Fiscal Year 1995-96, the City's annual debt service would be $61, 590. Debt Service would be annually adjusted based on the number of animals handled for each City and the County for the previous year. Mr. Ambrose advised that if the City of San Ramon chooses not to participate in the joint project, costs could increase, and the shelter size would in all likelihood be decreased in size. In summary Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff Reports will be presented to the City Councils of the City of Livermore this evening and the City of Pleasanton on May 5th. It is the joint recommendation of the City Managers of these cities that we proceed as an equity partner with the County to construct the animal shelter. As an equity partner, the cities will not pay any more for the shelter than they would if the County proceeded on its own and billed the cities back for the cost of the structure. Once the agencies have given an indication of whether or not they want to participate in this venture, Staff would prepare and bring back a resolution that would approve the draft agreement and authorize the City's participation in this joint venture. Cm. Burton questioned how many animals we have each month. Mr. Rankin advised that a quantity of 565 is being projected this year. Cm. Burton felt that about $120 per animal is very expensive. Mr. Ambrose stated the City has to be in a position to respond to complaints, dog bites, etc. Mr. Rankin stated Livermore has 2 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) positions and Pleasanton has 1 1/2 FTE. Mr. Ambrose advised that if we were to go on our own, it would still be more expensive than the current situation. Mr. Rankin advised that an animal shelter is a costly building to erect. Mr. Ambrose advised that how we provide animal control services is another issue. This deals just with the shelter debt service and building construction. ■ ■ ■ ■ i ■ ■ ■ i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 174 Regular Meeting April 27, 1992 Cm. Moffatt questioned the licensing costs. If there are a lot of unlicensed animals out there, he questioned how we can get them licensed. Mr. Ambrose stated we have been frustrated with the County in this regard. If more time were allocated, they could do a licensing program and the number of licenses would increase substantially. Mr. Rankin advised that Staff is continuing to look at some other alternatives. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved in concept the City of Dublin's participa- tion in a Joint Powers Agreement to construct the East County Animal Shelter as an equity partner. OTHER BUSINESS Burton Surgery (610-80) Cm. Burton thanked everyone for the very thoughtful card and houseplant sent regarding his recent surgery. He stated it was good to be back. Traffic Mitigation Workshop (1060-40) Cm. Moffatt called everyone's attention to the Regional Traffic Mitigation Program Workshop being held on May 7th, 3 : 00-6: 00 p.m. , at the San Ramon Community Center. Those people who serve on transportation committees are invited to attend. Cm. Moffatt stated that Supervisor Mary King has appointed Ed Campbell to the Tri-Valley Transportation Council and she is assuming the role of alternate. Tri-Valley Joint Council Meeting (140-80) Mr. Ambrose announced that the Tri-Valley Joint Council will meet in the Regional Meeting Room at 7: 30 a.m. , on Monday, May 4th. ABAG Meeting (140-10) Mayor Snyder advised that the ABAG ad hoc committee had their first meeting this afternoon. Small cities were rebuked ,for creating so much hassle. CM - VOL 11 - 175 Regular Meeting April 27, 1992 CLOSED SESSION Cm. Burton requested that he be excused from attending the closed session. At 11: 10 p.m. , the Council recessed to .a closed executive session to discuss: 1) Pending Litigation (640-30) in accordance with Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) • City of Dublin v. Nohr • City of Dublin v. Ross (Miracle Auto) _ • City of Dublin v. Dolan • City of Dublin v. Corallo • City of Dublin v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. • City of Dublin v. Schaffer • City of Dublin v. Alameda County, et al. (Measure D) • City of Dublin v. Dublin Meadows Partners, JL Construction ■ Olympia Drywall v. City of Dublin, et al. ■ Far West Associates v. City of Dublin, et al. ■ Genson v. Dublin 2) Personnel (700-20) in accordance with Government Code Section 54957. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CM - VOL 11 - 176 Regular Meeting April 27, 1992