HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.1 Approve 09-09-1991 Minutes REGULAR MEETING - September 91 1991
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held
on Monday, September 9, 1991, 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
Star Scout Sam Wilmurt, from Troop 905 led the Council, Staff and
those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag (610-20) .
Sam stated he was really glad to be there as it was fun to come to a
real City Council meeting. The Boy Scouts have a lot of activities
planned for this year. They go on a camp out each month. They
recently went on a 30 mile hike from Del Valle to Sunol. They hiked
on a nice trail here in the Valley.
PROCLAMATION - CALIFORNIA RIDESHARE WEEK (610-50)
Mayor Snyder stated that a proclamation had been prepared declaring
September 22-28, 1991 as California Rideshare Week and urged all
citizens to recognize the importance of ridesharing to the economy of
our state and the health of all citizens.
Complaints Related to Regional Ambulance Company (450-20)
Jim Wanberg, 6363 Ebensburg Lane addressed the Council and indicated
he had submitted a letter to the City today. He was disappointed that
an ambulance service has been allowed to locate just 18 feet from
their property line and bedroom. Sixteen neighbors who live within
100 feet also signed a petition to have the ambulance company
relocated. He is an 8 year resident and since August 5th, there has
been continuous noise. Since that date, he has logged nearly 40 noise
complaints. The Police Department recently accused them of abusing
the complaint process. After repeated sirens last Saturday night, he
was accused of threatening to blow the ambulance drivers away with a
shotgun. He stated at this point, he wasn't sure what he said or did
out of frustration. He asked for the City Council's help in
relocating this business. The Planning Department did not do a
thorough examination of this. He stated he may have displeased some
people by placing a sign "FUNK THE DUMB STUFF" on his property. Since
he was going to be leaving on September 27th for 3 weeks, he requested
immediate action related to his request.
A*�*• *^*�*A*^*A*A*^*A*^*^*^*^*^*^*A*^*A*^*A*A*A*A*^*^*A*A*A*A*A*^*A*A*
CM - VOL 10 - 322
Regular Meeting September 9, 1991
---------------------I-------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO:
of ITEM NO. ��
Cm. Burton stated all of the City Council appreciates what Mr. Wanberg
has been through to try and resolve this. Since it appears that he
has the backing of the neighborhood, Cm. Burton assured Mr. Wanmberg
that the City Council would look into this.
Planning Director Tong stated that contrary to Mr. Wanberg's comments,
the Planning Department did indeed do a thorough review of this
request. The zoning is C-2 and the area is one of the standard
commercial areas. Zoning for that site allows the ambulance service
as a permitted use. There is no requirement for any kind of a
Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Tong stated he had personally met with
Mr. Wanberg at the public counter to discuss the situation, and he was
going to try to resolve the situation with Regional. A letter had
been received from Regional Ambulance Company indicating that they
intend to act as a good neighbor. Even if the City Council were to
change the zoning, the existing use would then become a legal non-
conforming use.
Mr. Wanberg stated he owns his house and therefore, cannot simply give
30 days notice a move away. He has to put up with this, and he
questioned his property value and stated he doubted whether or not he
could even sell his house.
Sgt. Masterson stated one of the provisions of the California Vehicle
Code exempts ambulances from noise ordinances. When they are
responding to an emergency situation, they must use their sirens and
lights. If they did not and they were involved in an accident, their
liability would be very great. Mr. Wanberg is a good citizen. He
understands the problem, but felt the City has to consider the
liability issue if they respond without their lights and sirens. The
. Police have been out there 4 or 5 times and there are documented
reports. State Law mandates that they roll with lights and sirens.
Cm. Burton questioned if it would be possible for them to wait a block
or two before turning on the siren.
Sgt. Masterson felt they could probably wait until they get to Dublin
Boulevard, but he wasn't sure how much good this would do.
Cm. Moffatt stated in the town where he was brought up, there was an
engine company right across the street and he didn't remember hearing
any noise.
Dennis Bolt, Executive Vice President of Regional Ambulance Company
stated he reviewed the situation. Mr. Wanberg's concerns are
absolutely valid. Prior to moving in, they talked to Mr. Wanberg and
as a result, moved the parking onto the opposite side of the parking
lot. Patients now have to wait an extra few critical seconds while
the drivers walk around the building. The sirens are not turned on
until they get to Dublin Boulevard. This could actually place other
citizens in great jeopardy. With regard to frequency, they respond to
about 60-73 calls per month. They were unusually busy and there were
4 calls after sunset last Saturday night. Out of 21 sub-stations they
have serving the East Bay, this location has the least residential
CM - VOL 10 - 323
Regular Meeting September 9, 1991
impact of any. They are very reticent to move the paramedics out of
the City. With an opticon device, they could cause the signals to
change to green. They must ultimately leave the safety to the
ambulance drivers.
Mayor Snyder indicated that in Pleasanton, an ambulance sits right on
a residential corner. He questioned if there are any problems there.
Mr. Bolt advised that there are relatively no problems there. They
try to be as good neighbors as possible. They have been in that
station for 12 or 13 years and it operates under a CUP.
Cm. Jeffery felt that if they are unable to work this out, perhaps a
City Staff member could negotiate and work with both sides to see what
could be done.
Mr. Bolt assured everyone that this will get the highest priority at
corporate and they look forward to meeting with Mr. Wanberg and City
Staff to resolve the problem.
Mrs. Jean Wanberg advised that the drivers go out of their way to slam
doors and they don't always park on the other side. They cannot live
in their house any longer. She has to be at work at 4 a.m. , and they
are so frustrated, they don't know what to do. Every time they
complain, they are quiet for a couple of days and they the same thing
starts over.
Jim Piersal stated he works with Mr. Wanberg and understood what Sgt.
Masterson was saying with regard to sirens. However, he felt that if
he came in and located a business next to the ambulance business and
created unreasonable noise, he would be kicked out.
Mayor Snyder advised that in permitted uses, these types of things are
factors which have to be considered. The problem is the way the
County laid out the City in the first place. When you have a
commercial situation right next to a residential section, it creates
problems because of no buffer. Until the City can change situations
and make them better, it will have to deal with these types of
problems.
The Council expressed hope that a City Staff member could act as
mediator and resolve some of the problems in this situation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion -of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous
vote, the Council took the following actions:
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 91
REJECTING LOW BIDS AS NONRESPONSIVE AND AWARDING PURCHASE ORDERS
FOR STREET BANNERS TO SIERRA DISPLAY ($11,383.86) AND
STREET SCENES BANNER COMPANIES ($1,480) (350-20
A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A* *
CM - VOL 10 - 32 4
Regular Meeting September 9, 1991
Received the Finance Report for Period Ending August, 1991 (330-50) ;
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 90 - 91
REJECTING BID FROM MAGGIORA BROTHERS DRILLING, INC.
AS NON-RESPONSIVE AND AWARDING CONTRACT 91-03A TO
A.S.E. DRILLING, INC. ($40,162.60) (600-30)
and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement;
Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $415, 973 . 34 (300-40) .
Cm. Moffatt pointed out that he arrived at the special meeting of
September 4th a few minutes late, and after the vote on the Shannon
Center Exterior Painting project. Page 319 of the minutes should
correctly reflect this.
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, the Council approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 26,
1991 and with noted change, Adjourned Regular (Special) Meeting of
September 4 , 1991.
Cm. Burton requested that the Investment Report be pulled from the
Consent Calendar and indicated he noted that the City's investments
decreased almost a half million dollars from last month and asked for
an explanation.
City Manager Ambrose advised that one of the City's major bills is the
one for Police Services from Alameda County and this affects our
investment total. Also, as payments come up on CIP projects, they
affect this figure. Revenues typically come later in the fiscal year.
On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous
vote, the Council accepted the City Treasurer's Investment Report as
of August 31, 1991 (320-30) ;
Cm. Moffatt stated he had comments and concerns regarding the
Congestion Management Program and requested that it be pulled from the
Consent Calendar.
Cm. Moffatt indicated that we are also a member of the Tri-Valley
Transportation Council and stated he wanted to get a feel from the CMP
regarding the computer model that TVTC is involved in. At one time,
there was a suggestion made that some of the funds that were being
funnelled through this could be funnelled to the TVTC because of the
work they were doing. Cm. Moffatt asked if the City could write a
letter to Mr. Fay asking how things are going in this regard. Cm.
Moffatt also questioned the definition of "Level of Service" used in
the document and asked what LOS actually means.
A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*
CM - VOL 10 - 325
Regular Meeting September 9, 1991
Public Works Director Thompson explained the standards involved
relative to determining the LOS.
Mr. Thompson indicated that both plans are out. The TVTC covers the
Tri-Valley area. The County uses very large zones and is more for
larger arterials and freeways. We asked if ours could be paid for
with Proposition 111 monies, but if one part of the County gets it,
they all must.
Cm. Burton questioned if we have a project that generates 100 trips
during peak, would the whole project have to be reviewed by the CMA.
If so, we would be creating another layer to be added to the process.
One hundred trips is not very many.
Mr. Thompson advised that Dublin right now has the 2 big general plan
studies that come under this.
Mehran Sepehri stated that about 1, 000 homes generate 100 trips. When
they do a study, they look at what impact it has on I-580 and I-680.
Mayor Snyder advised that it has to be identified in the CMP
initially.
Cm. Jeffery advised that she and Mayor Snyder sit on this agency, and
Cm. Moffatt's concerns could be brought by them to the agency.
Cm. Moffatt asked if the CMP fines a local jurisdiction for non-
conformance and withholds funds, are there solutions offered, and what
if the solutions aren't acceptable? He questioned if there is a
higher authority to resolve these things, and also where does the
money go that is withheld?
Mr. Ambrose advised that we have an appeal right to go to all the
Cities and the Board of Supervisors. Proposition 111 has been
modified to cover all gas tax subventions. At present, no one knows
what happens to the money since no one has crossed that bridge yet.
Cm. Jeffery stated there are a whole bunch of problems and she would
be happy to take the concerns and try to get them discussed.
Mr. Ambrose stated the League of California Cities is trying to get
some clean up legislation passed.
On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, the Council accepted a status report related to the Congestion
Management Program (600-40) and directed Staff to transmit recommen-
dation to add projects to the RTIP candidate projects: 1) I-580/
I-680, Measure B project, including the hook ramps near Dublin
Boulevard; 2) BART access road parallel to Dublin Boulevard; and 3)
Dublin Boulevard widening - San Ramon Road to Village Parkway;
n*w*w*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*�*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*
CM - VOL 10 - 326
Regular Meeting September 9, 1991
FIREWORKS REPORT (650-60)
Dr. Zev Kahn requested that the Council change the order of business
and move the Fireworks Report forward as the next item of business and
discuss it prior to the 5 public hearings.
Mayor Snyder announced that the Council was willing to make this
change. He explained that this item was merely an informational
report, not a public hearing, but as a courtesy, people would be
allowed to speak.
Fire Chief Ritter presented the Staff Report and advised that on
July 8, 1991, as a result of concerns expressed by a Dublin resident,
Staff was directed to prepare a report on fireworks activities.
Chief Ritter explained that it is important to note that the
designation of fireworks as "safe and sane" is a term originated by
the Legislature, not the State Fire Marshal.
Fireworks sales are used as a fundraising activity for several non-
profit groups within the City of Dublin. The number of booths is
based on 1 per 3 , 000 population. Seven groups participated in
fireworks sales in 1991 with sales of $183 , 422 .58, of which $91, 711. 29
represented profits to the 7 organizations.
Chief Ritter advised that as an alternative to "safe and sane"
fireworks, the Dublin-San Ramon Lions Club sold Funnerworks and made a
profit of $1, 030.
The City of Dublin is the only Tri-Valley City to allow the sale of
fireworks. Dublin does not sponsor any Fourth of July activities.
Discussion ensued relative to neighboring cities and how the sales of
fireworks by the City of Dublin impact other surrounding cities.
Chief Ritter advised that nationally, since the mid-1970's, the toll
of serious fireworks injuries has more than doubled. References were
made to several studies and reports.
A 5-year summary (1987-91) of fireworks activities within the
jurisdiction of the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority indicates:
Safe and Sane 8 Fires $ 1, 100 damage
Dangerous 26 Fires $67,400 damage
Unknown 7 Fires $ 8, 550 damage
Each fire jurisdiction in the area brings in off-duty firefighters and
management personnel on the Fourth of July to staff reserve equipment.
Overtime costs for DRFA on July 4 , 1991 were $1, 296. 50.
Chief Ritter summarized by saying that due to the hot, dry and windy
climate of the Tri-Valley area, and the ever present potential for
injury, fireworks continue to be a special concern to area
firefighters.
n*n*n*n*A*�*n*n*n*A*n*n*n*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*
CM - VOL 10 - 327
Regular Meeting September 9, 1991
Cm. Burton questioned how many of the fires last year were in San
Ramon and how many were in Dublin.
Chief Ritter advised that there were 3 in San Ramon and 2 in Dublin.
Dr. Harvey Scudder, 7409 Hansen Drive stated he is a retired
Commissioned Officer of the U. S. Public Health Service. He felt that
more than anything else, this involves prevention. He expressed
concern in that by permitting fireworks sales, we are providing a
cover for illegal things. The attitude seems to be as long as you are
making money, what does the cost matter. It really does cost. We
must be concerned about things before they become statistics. He has
personally seen a child mangled by a fire bomb made for the 4th of
July. He has taken bottle rockets off his roof. He wrote the ballot
argument to ban fireworks and also the rebuttal for the 1988 advisory
election. In summary, Dr. Scudder stated that if one child is
severely injured, you more than make up for all the money the groups
bring in by selling fireworks.
Cliff Herbstman, representing Rotary stated he was in favor of the
sale of fireworks and disagreed with Dr. Scudder. There has been very
little damage caused. The facts presented provide there is little or
no damage. Statistics that he saw indicated that $91, 000 came back
into the community, and this is not an insignificant sum. Almost
every child in town benefits from this activity. Everything has
risks, so you must consider the value received. The money must be
raised some way. This is a very worthwhile activity. There are only
small voices that constantly raise this issue. The public perception
is being skewed.
Nancy Tudah, a Limerick Court resident felt that everyday life
contains many dangers. Fireworks are sold not just for fundraising,
but good citizens buy them. They have a great party on her court
every year. The City should avoid legislating adult behavior.
Banning will not control or stop the use of illegal fireworks.
Cindy Cobb-Adams, 11447 Cresta Lane stated that Dublin Little League
stands before the Council to uphold their freedoms. They serve 750
youth in the community. They take pride in their ability to provide
outstanding programs to youth. She discussed what they spend their
money on. Without fundraisers, they would not be able to provide
quality programs to youth. No player is turned away because of lack
of funds. She questioned whether the issue was one of public safety.
The statistics speak for themselves. Dublin has gone through an
advisory measure twice, so if the Council considers banning fireworks,
they should again put it to a vote of the people. They should
consider the impact on non-profit groups.
Dale Garron, 7254 Tina Place, Vice President of Dublin Soccer stated
he understood the concerns, but we would not have matches because they
cause fires. His biggest concern was that there has been no
documented damage. He suggested that perhaps vendors could contribute
to some of the overtime costs of the firefighters. As a compromise,
it may be possible that the organizations could get some kind of
.f .{ CM - VOL 10 - 328 f 7f
Regular Meeting September 9, 1991
blanket insurance coverage. Speaking as a board member, he advised
that money is very hard to come by for youth programs.
Mayor Snyder advised that the Council likes to hear solutions offered
for problems.
Tweedy Watts, Frederiksen Lane stated he appreciates people trying to
save him from himself. He questioned what our founding forefathers
who laid down their lives for independence would think. It seems
superfluous and the 4th of July is just one day to celebrate. He felt
people should be able to celebrate in whatever way they feel
appropriate.
Ann Henderson, 11673 Amarillo Court, stated she was present to support
fireworks, but have them ignited by professionals. She would like to
see the City come together and put on a grand celebration, possible at
Dublin's newly renovated football field. This would be a good spot.
This would be a great way to celebrate our 10th birthday and put on a
true community display. She stated she sincerely understood the
plight of all the fundraising groups. Her children have benefitted
from the sale of fireworks, but felt adults are delivering a mixed
message. She asked that the City Council look at alternative ways
that the groups can earn money and ban fireworks. She concurred with
Dr. Scudder's comments that one fire could eliminate all the profits
that the groups have made and the danger in terms of life and limb
would not be worth the money. Two people that she knows who purchased
safe and sane fireworks were approached as soon as they left the stand
to buy illegal fireworks. She pointed out that the 1988 ban lost by
only 124 votes. It took Al Goodman with the Valley Times 3 months to
research the issue and to learn that the slick flyers and brochures
were paid for and done by the fireworks companies. They spent $2 . 52
for each and every vote. Basically no money was spent supporting the
ban. It is hard to fight the kind of corporate funds that come from
the fireworks companies.
Lenora Holmes, 7843 Hillrose Drive, read a letter written by Lyn
Dinelli which opposed a ban. She added that since the City Council
initially decided to let the issue go to the voters, they established
a precedent and it is really not up to the City Council to take any
action at this time. It is the voter's right to have the opportunity
to decide. Her personal opinion was that she does not believe in safe
and sane fireworks, and she does not buy them. However, we cannot
have enough police protection for all the other laws on the books, so
what makes the Council think a ban of this type could be enforced.
Pat Morgan, 8542 Wicklow Lane, representing the Irish Guard Band
stated she also does not support fireworks, but doesn't know of any
other way to bring in this amount of money to the various groups.
Banning will not stop the manufacture or sale of illegal fireworks.
Without the help of fireworks sales, they would have band boosters
trying to sell 96, 000 candy bars.
Dr. Zev Kahn, 11708 Harlan Road pointed out several facts in the
report that needed clarification. The winning margin in the 1988
A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*/ L A*A*A*A*A*A*A*/ */ *A*A*A*A*A*A*
CM - VOL 1 0 - 3 2 9
Regular Meeting September 9, 1991
election was only 7 1/2%. Since Pleasanton only expressed generalized
statistics in their letter, he felt it would be helpful for them to
show actual statistics. Also, he questioned if some of the overtime
costs were as a result of the San Ramon special event. With regard to
solutions, this discussion was generated because of one citizen's
concern. In the past, he felt the majority of the Council had
established a policy whereby people have been told to come forward
with a referendum if they wished to overturn an Ordinance. If this
needs to be done again, it should come to the Council in the form of a
petition.
Mayor Snyder stated he assumed that Dr. Kahn was not in favor of a ban
and supported the sale of fireworks.
Dr. Kahn stated he would let the Council think about his comments and
draw their own conclusion.
Dennis Revell stated he appreciated the opportunity to appear and to
provide information regarding what is happening in other communities
in the State. He thanked Chief Ritter for supplying his office with
the local incident reports for the last 2 years. The overwhelming
number of injuries are due to illegal fireworks. The fireworks
industry voluntarily agreed to remove sparklers from the market. His
client took the initiative in doing this. They will be putting into
effect a program of tracking the source of illegal fireworks and
assisting fire and police departments. Dublin's statistics show that
we do not have a problem with safe and sane fireworks. As an
industry, they would like to work with those people who have problems
with fireworks and work to deal with any problems in the community.
The answer is to crack down on the use of illegal fireworks.
Cm. Jeffery questioned why Mr. Revell referred to "state approved"
rather than "safe and sane" fireworks.
Mr. Revell advised that the name "safe and sane" was given by the
State Legislature. California has the most restrictive statutes.
Sparklers were actually their largest selling item.
Cm. Jeffery questioned what their next highest selling item is.
Mr. Revell indicated that 75% to 80% of their sales are family packs
which range in price from about $19 to $99 .
Cm. Burton advised that they also sell a family pack for $9 . 95.
Jeff Watts, 7780 Frederiksen Lane thought the subject of a community"
picnic was a good idea, however, going and seeing fireworks does not
give the same satisfaction as setting off your own. Fireworks cannot
be banned just because 1 or 2 people don't follow the rules.
Christmas trees and trick or treating aren't banned and we should not
ban an American tradition.
Dan Bigelow, 6783 Pearl Place, stated he has a concrete business and
has lived 5 years in Dublin. This issue is very much a money
CM - VOL 10 - 330
Regular Meeting September 9, 1991
situation. The various programs depend on this money, which is a
substantial amount. He expressed concern regarding the needs of kids.
There are a lot of new families coming into this area. The needs
exist for athletic programs and we need to have the funds available
for support. He asked if the City would be willing to donate the
money. He hoped it would go to the voters. He felt it was a Catch 22
situation because people are concerned about fire protections and
safety, but they also need programs for the kids. Big doors can be
opened with athletic programs.
Cm. Jeffery stated that in talking with neighboring cities, it is a
problem. She brought up the possibility of having some kind of
signage or release form stating that the fireworks can only be used on
private property in Dublin, Union City and Newark. There needs to be
some way we can let people know that they can't use them in
Pleasanton, San Ramon, Livermore or in Dublin's parks.
City Attorney Silver stated she felt this could be done, but indicated
she would need to check State Law. Dublin's Ordinance is fairly
specific.
Cm. Jeffery questioned if those who get permits to sell could somehow
be bonded for any possible damage caused. She questioned if the City
has any liability.
Ms. Silver advised that the City doesn't have the liability because
the City is not selling the fireworks. State Law allows the sale.
Cm. Burton stated the presentations by the citizens and groups
certainly were well done and thought out. It was very worthwhile for
everyone to come. He stated that while he is for the sale of safe and
sane fireworks, he respects the concerns of those against. The
citizens have made a decision and he did not feel anything presented
tonight changes anything. He did not feel they are as dangerous as
some people try to make them. The letters are signed by Fire Chiefs,
and as a rule, they have it on their agenda to ban sales of fireworks.
Cm. Moffatt stated he was sure there are a lot of people both for and
against fireworks. He stated he would like to bring the issue back
before the Council as a public hearing or encourage people to sign
petitions to have the Council either restrict or allow the sale. He
did not recommend a hasty decision and for this reason would like to
see it come back as a public hearing with a little more advertising
regarding what's going on and get more comments.
Mayor Snyder questioned what the guise would be of a public hearing
and if there would be an Ordinance to consider. This has actually
been a public hearing to allow people to respond to the issue.
Cm. Moffatt stated the question is still there regarding alternate
ways to raise money.
Mayor Snyder stated non-profit groups can do whatever they want to
raise funds. It is not up to the City Council to provide staff time
A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*
CM - VOL 10 - 331
�f .f
Regular Meeting September 9, 1991
to look for ways of raising funds; it is the responsibility of the
groups. The Lions Club just spent about $40, 000 on the handicap
playground and there was no fireworks money, so it can be done.
Cm. Burton questioned what the Council is trying to determine. This
was just an informational report.
Cm. Howard stated she did not feel the Council should go any further.
The people have already voted on it. If the people feel differently,
they should provide a petition.
Mayor Snyder indicated that if the people want to referend the
Ordinance they could do this.
Cm. Burton stated it is certainly their privilege if they want to go
through this process. It is evident that a good number of people want
to raise funds by selling fireworks.
Cm. Jeffery stated she felt this was hypocrisy of major proportion.
One child or a household of treasurers lost is not worth $100, 000.
There are a lot of ways that we can earn money for our children. She
stated she would personally help any group that wanted to pursue
alternate ways. The other consideration is that we try to be a good
neighbor and the fact that fireworks are not allowed in other
communities, contributes to people breaking the low in our neighboring
communities. She stated she would be willing to put it back on the
ballot. A number of people have contacted her who would support a
ban.
Cm. Howard did not feel it was proper for the Council to put their
personal feelings forward. Until the Council can determine what it
can do for the community, it should not do anything about banning
fireworks. She felt that people in other communities who buy the
fireworks know what they are doing.
Cm. Jeffery stated she would like the City Attorney to look into
including in Dublin's Ordinance some kind of requirement that explains
that they can use the fireworks only on their own property in Dublin.
Cm. Burton stated this would be okay from an informational standpoint,
but questioned how we could enforce it.
Ms. Silver stated she would research this.
No other action or discussion took place. If the Ordinance is to be
changed it would be necessary for the people to get the required
number of signatures on a petition. If this is the desire of the
community, it would then be placed on the ballot.
A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*
CM - VOL 10 - 332
Regular Meeting September 9, 1991
PUBLIC HEARING-DOUGHERTY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY
REZONE REQUEST @ 7494 DONOHUE DRIVE AND A PORTION
OF PARCEL @ 7601 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD (450-30)
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
Planning Director Tong advised that on August 26, 1991, the City
Council adopted Resolutions approving a DRFA General Plan Amendment
and Conditional Use Permit and introduced an Ordinance approving the
DRFA rezone request.
The application involves the rezoning of two contiguous parcels, which
are to be combined to create a . 6 acre building site for the
rebuilding of DRFA Fire Station #1. The application would rezone 1)
the 15, 000 sq ft existing DRFA Fire Station #1 site at 7494 Donohue
Drive from R-S-D-20, Suburban Residential Combining District to C-1,
Retail Business District, and 2) the 13 , 687 sq ft proposed acquisition
site at 7601 Amador Valley Boulevard (portion) from PD, Planned
Development District to C-1, Retail Business District.
No comments were made by members of the public relative to 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. 13 - 91
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE REZONING
OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7494 DONOHUE DRIVE AND
7601 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD (PORTION)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE HOUSING ELEMENT (420-30)
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
Senior Planner Carrington advised that the public hearing for this
item and the following item related to the Rental Availability
Ordinance could be conducted together.
Mayor Snyder so declared both public hearings opened.
Mr. Carrington advised that this General Plan Amendment would allow
fees to be paid in-lieu of the Housing Element Policy which requires a
percentage of units in large multi-family projects to be rented for a
specified period of time.
The Planning Commission, on August 5, 1991, recommended that the City
Council certify the Negative Declaration for GPA 91-001 and that it
approve a GPA to revise Strategy III.E of the Housing Element.
CM - VOL 10 - 333
ii ii ii i. if if if .f if ii li f
Regular Meeting September 9, 1991
Mr. Carrington advised that a goal of the Housing Element is to
achieve a balanced community with housing available for households
over a range of income levels. The City is experiencing a shortage of
rental housing.
Recently, JL Construction requested that Strategy III.E be amended to
allow developers the option of paying an in-lieu fee rather than
providing rental units. The City Council initiated this General Plan
Amendment study in response to their request.
Mr. Carrington advised that the proposed in-lieu rental fee would be a
flat fee for every required rental unit and would be determined by the
Council at least every two years. Increases could occur annually
during the years that the Council does not determine an in-lieu rental
fee by an amount equal to the rental rate increase used in determining
the current in-lieu rental fee. The obligation to provide rental
units may be satisfied by the applicant's payment of in-lieu rental
fees.
RENTAL AVAILABILITY ORDINANCE (430-20)
Mr. Carrington advised that the Rental Availability Ordinance would
allow fees to be paid in-lieu of a requirement to rent a percentage of
units in large multi-family projects for a specified time period. The
proposed in-lieu rental fee is $10, 808 per in-lieu dwelling unit, with
the first annual increase to be $11, 348. The amount of the in-lieu
rental fee would be based on the amount necessary to subsidize the
rental of a three-bedroom market rate apartment for 5 years for a
family of 5 earning 80% of the Alameda County median income, where no
more than 30% of income is spent on rent.
Mr. Carrington advised that Dublin residents will be given first
priority for rental units; Dublin employees will have second
preference for rental units; third preference will be given to those
who need to move to Dublin to be near Dublin residents or services;
and fourth preference will be given to those who live outside Dublin.
Mr. Carrington explained that the exterior design of the rental units
would be identical to the non-rental units, and would be dispersed
throughout the project.
Mr. Carrington advised that the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton do
not have directly comparable in-lieu rental fees; however, they do
have rental policies and programs.
Cm. Burton indicated that the developer must put up the in-lieu fee at
the time building permits are issued. JL Construction was going to do
this at the time of final inspection. This seems to be unfair to have
to pay the fee at the time of permit when the issue won't be settled
until later. The permit stage is a very tenuous stage in a project.
Mr. Ambrose stated that JL has most of their units built. It is also
a lot easier to collect at the time of building permit. This is
typically the last permit issued.
n*A*n*A*�*w*n*A*A*n*A*A*n*A*n*A*A*A*w*w*n*A*A*�*A*�*A*A*A*A*A*^*A*A*^*
CM - VOL 10 - 334
Regular Meeting September 9, 1991
Cm. Burton felt they could go through a change of ownership or have
delays, etc. He felt that we want to get builders to come in and
build and we should consider these impacts.
Mr. Ambrose stated this is their choice. They don't have to pay in-
lieu fees, they could provide the units.
The Council discussed possible modifications that could eventually be
made to the units.
Mr. Carrington advised that they have to be essentially the same kind
of units.
Mr. Tong advised that the intent is that the rental units by
comparable and similar in type to the rest of the project.
Cm. Moffatt asked if under the Rental Availability Ordinance the
decision to pay or maintain 10% rental units had to be made prior to
all the permits being pulled. If a company for some reason abandons
the project and someone else takes over and changes it, does the new
developer have the ability to change the 10% rental or in-lieu fee?
Mr. Carrington stated that there would be conditions of approval that
would set the requirement and provide the option of in-lieu fees. If
you are a developer, you would have an agreement before you pull your
permits. If you buy a project, you also buy all the agreements and
conditions that your predecessor agreed to.
Mr. Ambrose cautioned that with some of these projects, they can be
chopped up into 4 or 5 owners. Everybody might want something
different. Trying to negotiate rental agreements with different
owners might be very difficult.
Cm. Burton felt it would be more appropriate for developers to decide
at the time of final inspection as they have a lot more money in the
project at that stage.
Mr. Ambrose stated the City finds that they try to cut their occupancy
into several different stages.
Cm. Burton felt we should then allow them to make the decision based
on occupancy of the first units. They will know at that time what the
market is. Putting it up front, you are asking for trouble. He
questioned if they would be able to split the in-lieu fees and provide
some units.
Mr. Carrington advised that this is not an option. It must be all or
nothing. They must pay all in-lieu fees or provide all units.
Mayor Snyder stated he had similar concerns. In the delay of a
project, the figures may not even be relative to market costs.
Mr. Ambrose stated it sets up a disincentive for sales.
n*n*w*w*w*w*w*n*A*A*n*A*n*A*n*n*n*n*n*n*n*n*^*n*n*n*n*n*n*A*n*n*n*A*A*
CM - VOL 10 - 335
Regular Meeting September 9, 1991
Cm. Burton asked if the clock starts at the time they put the money on
the line.
Mr. Ambrose advised that if they pay the in-lieu fee, the City will
take the money and provide other housing.
Cm. Burton felt there were so many unknowns, we should not force them
to look at the market so early in the game. He questioned if the City
has to pay interest on the money that is put up.
Mr. Ambrose advised that it is up to the Council to decide.
Cm. Moffatt felt the concept is good, however, there are some hazy
areas that should be nailed down a little more. Staff appears to be
using all 3 bedroom units as examples, and he questioned this.
Mr. Carrington explained that a builder targets different income
groups. We are aiming at those who earn 80% of the average income.
With regard to why Staff chose a 3 bedroom unit, this is typically the
units that are most in demand.
Cm. Burton questioned the need for senior housing and studio
apartments and 1 bedroom units.
Mr. Carrington advised that most builders will provide a mix of unit
sizes.
Mr. Ambrose stated the objective of the City Council is to provide
rental housing.
Cm. Jeffery felt the Council seemed to be thinking more as developers.
The Ordinance gives the Council the opportunity to stand for what the
City needs in rental housing.
Cm. Moffatt stated the money we collect will be used to subsidize
rents or lower housing costs. He does not want to create a rental war
and wants no rent control. He questioned who makes the decision on
who gets the money.
George Zika expressed concern that the Council is talking about
collecting a fee when it has no clue of what they will do with the
money. Dublin has a very low vacancy rate. We have had problems with
JO messing up our parks and we should not give them a break if it
gives them an opportunity.
Mayor Snyder stated these two items are general to the community to
supply rental housing.
Mr. Zika reiterated that the problem is we have no plan on what to do
with the money. We should start doing something in this direction.
Mr. Carrington advised that there are many options open to the City
Council to disperse the funds. We have 7 years to use the funds.
A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*
CM - VOL 10 - 33 6
Regular Meeting September 9, 1991
Mr. Zika stated 7 years seems like a long time, but he wasn't sure
east and west Dublin will ever get off the line. The City has no
plans to use the money, but we need the units.
Mayor Snyder advised that the City could use one of the parcels
adjacent to Arroyo Vista to develop some rental units. We already
have some tentative designs. If we accept in-lieu fees, we need to
look at additional property. He felt it would be better not to
cluster the units, but rather scatter them.
Mr. Zika stated that since we have such a low vacancy rate, we should
not accept the in-lieu fees. We have no immediate need for the fees,
but we certainly need the rental units.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 91 - 91
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-001, INCLUDING THE AMENDMENT
TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT, THE RENTAL AVAILABILITY ORDINANCE,
THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING (PA 91-001) , THE
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE AND THE DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE
and
RESOLUTION NO. 92 - 91
APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE
HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
Cm. Moffatt asked if the League of California Cities was asked for
examples of ordinances.
Ms. Silver advised that this a unique type of ordinance. We have a
provision in the General Plan that recognizes a certain percentage of
rental units. This ordinance would provide for payment of fees in
lieu of the units. She stated she was not aware of other cities who
have taken a similar approach. This is an enabling ordinance and it
is not appropriate to specify a project.
Cm. Jeffery stated she would feel better if we gave them the option of
when to pay.
Cm. Burton made a motion which was seconded by Mayor Snyder to have
the fee at the time of final inspection rather than building permit.
Ms. Silver presented revised language for Section 8 . 12 . 070 (c) of the
Ordinance.
Cm. Burton agreed to change his motion and Mayor Snyder agreed to
change his second to the motion.
CM - VOL 10 - 337
Regular Meeting September 9, 1991
Therefore, on motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Mayor Snyder, and by
unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and introduced the
Rental Availability Ordinance with Page 4, Section 8. 12 . 070 (c) amended
to read: "The in-lieu rental fee shall be paid no later than the final
inspection of the first dwelling unit of the project.
Mr. Carrington pointed out that it will be necessary to also revise
the written agreement by the City Manager.
PUBLIC HEARING
JL CONSTRUCTION PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING, DUBLIN MEADOWS (450-30)
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
Senior Planner Carrington advised that on August 5, 1991, the Planning
Commission denied JL Construction's request to allow payment of a fee
in-lieu of maintaining 10% (21) of the multi-family units as rental
units for 5 years at their Dublin Meadows project. The Applicant is
now appealing this decision to the City Council.
Mr. Carrington advised that the rezoning request would amend Condition
#54 of City Council Resolution No. 32-89 .
No comments were made by members of the public relative to this issue.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous
vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an Ordinance
amending the Zoning Ordinance to permit the PD Rezoning to amend
Condition #54 of Resolution No. 32-89 to allow the option of paying an
in-lieu rental fee rather than providing rental units.
PUBLIC HEARING
DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE (430-20)
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
Senior Planner Carrington presented the Staff Report and advised that
this Ordinance would allow density bonuses and other incentives to
developers providing housing for very low and lower income households
and for senior citizens as required by State Law. In effect, a
density bonus allows the City to create greater land value in a
project which can then be used to subsidize affordable housing in the
form of units restricted by household type. Another benefit is that
the restricted units incorporate lower income households into
substantially market rate housing projects. The Ordinance would allow
a 30% density bonus, compared to 25% allowed by State Law.
n*n*n*A*A*n*n*. *n*n*n*n*^*n*n*A*A*A*w*n*n*n*n*n*A*n*n*w*w*A*A*w*n*w*w*
CM - VOL 10 - 338
Regular Meeting September 9, 1991
In order to qualify for this bonus, a housing project must consist of
5 or more dwelling units and meet one or more of the following
criteria: 1) at least 20% of the total units are designated for lower-
income households; or 2) at least 10% of the total units are
designated for very low-income households; or 3) at least 50% of the
total units are designated for senior citizens.
The Ordinance would allow additional incentives to developers of
restricted units of: 1) waiver of certain City fees applicable to the
restricted units; or 2) priority processing of the project; or 3)
reduction of interior amenities for the restricted units.
Additionally, as required by Section 65915 (d) of the Government Code,
the Ordinance provides for Staff consideration of waiving or modifying
development and zoning standards which would otherwise inhibit the
utilization of the density bonus on specific sites. These standards
shall include but not be limited to such items as minimum lot size,
side yard setbacks, and placement of Public works improvements. The
developer must show that the waiver or modification is necessary to
make the restricted units economically feasible.
The Ordinance would allow the City to contract with the Dublin Housing
Authority, the Alameda County Housing Authority or other similar
entity to administer the rental and sales requirements.
In order to maintain the availability of the restricted units, the
City would impose resale conditions.
Mayor Snyder asked questions related to the number of units.
Mr. Carrington advised that 15 must be restricted units. The
relationship is between the total number of units.
Mr. Ambrose stated that the incentive for the developer is that he
gets 7 more units for market rate.
Mr. Carrington advised that most builders do not take advantage of
density bonus ordinances. He was familiar with one in San Diego
County that has been in effect since the 19701s, and developers don't
take advantage of it.
Mr. Tong advised that there would be recorded deed restrictions on the
units and these aren't very popular with developers.
Mr. Carrington stated there are also some resale restrictions. A
restricted unit would have to be sold to a like restriction buyer.
Cm. Moffatt stated he was concerned with creating another Tubbsville
if there is no incentive for people to make improvements to their
units.
Time limits on restrictions was discussed.
A*A*A*A*A L A*A*A*A*A*^*/ * �*/ *A*A*A*A*A*A*/ *A*A*A*A*A*A L A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*
CM - VOL 1 0 - 33 9
Regular Meeting September 9, 1991
Mr. Tong advised that the senior housing restriction is 10 years and
this is the only bonus granted.
Cm. Jeffery stated she was concerned regarding the State Law. To have
to continue the restrictions regarding who must follow you isn't good
policy. It would seem we are setting things up for a different
standard. She was uncomfortable with the assurance of compliance and
questioned what the punishment would be if a sale got through somehow.
She felt there were some holes in this policy. It appears to be close
to rent control. Markets change, and she questioned if it is the
City's responsibility to do this. It doesn't have provisions for
flexibility.
On Page 5 or the Ordinance, Section 8. 16. 060 (a) refers to
modifications which may be requested such as street widths, paving,
etc. Cm. Jeffery questioned if the Fire Department should review
this.
Mr. Carrington advised that all construction must be in compliance
with applicable codes.
Mr. Tong advised that there is a certain amount of flexibility in
design standards versus direct health and public safety. State Law
requires us to allow for some flexibility if the applicant can show
that the project is otherwise not economically feasible. They would
have to produce a document which shows this.
Cm. Jeffery thought there should be some type of administrative
process that allows the ability to hear special circumstances.
Mr. Carrington stated the goal is to provide housing to a targeted
group.
Cm. Jeffery asked if there is any penalty for not following this.
Mr. Ambrose stated the penalty is to the developer and violations are
discussed on pages 9 and 10 of the Ordinance.
Cm. Jeffery questioned if someone lives in one of these units and they
rent it out for a while and don't tell us, what happens?
Mr. Ambrose advised that this would be a misdemeanor.
Cm. Jeffery questioned if this Ordinance has to be adopted.
Mr. Carrington stated that the enforcement provisions are taken
directly out of State Law. If we don't adopt it, the City would have
to make findings. The onus is on us to show why these cannot be
granted. Mr. Carrington advised that Staff is open to other
incentives the Council might want to consider. We do need to adopt an
ordinance, but we can fine tune it regarding the nature of concessions
we are willing to grant.
A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*
CM - VOL 10 - 340
Regular Meeting September 9, 1991
•t a
Cm. Jeffery stated she has a problem with reductions to interior
amenities and felt all the units should be the same.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
Cm. Moffatt made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Burton that any
permanent home improvements be factored in and included in the selling
price.
Before a vote was taken, this verbiage was removed, and the motion was
restated.
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by majority
vote, the Council waived the reading and introduced an Ordinance
adding Chapter 8. 16 to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code, Enacting
a Density Bonus Ordinance. Cm. Jeffery voted against this motion.
Mr. Carrington noted that several numerical corrections would be made
prior to bringing the ordinance back for adoption. These related to
references to 8. 16. 060 on Pages 6, 8 and 9.
Mr. Tong advised that Staff could examine what some of the other
ordinance have done.
Ms. Silver pointed out that improvements would increase the taxes.
She stated she would follow up on Cm. Moffatt's concerns and look at
some other ordinances.
OTHER BUSINESS
Safety Barrier on I-580 @ Sports Grounds (800-30)
Cm. Moffatt indicated he had received the letter related to the Dublin
Sports Ground barrier wall. He asked if this would be in front of
Crossroads Toyota.
Mr. Ambrose advised that it is to be a short barrier and he thought it
would be a little under 3 feet high. It is basically a safety
barrier, and would not block views of the businesses.
CLOSED SESSION
At 11:45 p.m. , the Council recessed to a closed executive session to
discuss: 1) Pending Litigation, Measure D (640-30) in accordance with
Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) ; and 2) Personnel (700-10) in
accordance with Government Code Section 54957 . 6.
n*n*n*n*n*n*n*n*A*n*n*A*n*n*n*n*n*n*n*n*A*A*n*A*w*A*n*A*n*A*n*n*A*n*n*
CM - VOL 10 - 341
Regular Meeting September 9, 1991
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 1: 10 a.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
n*n*n*n*n*n*n*n*n*n*n*n*n*w*w*w*n*n*n*n*n*n*n*n*A*A*n*n*n*n*w*. *n*A*A*
CM - VOL 10 - 342
Regular Meeting September 9, 1991