Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.01 Approve 06-08-1987 Minutes REGULAR MEETING - June 8, 1987 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, June 8, 1987 in the meeting room of . the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7 : 32 p.m. by Mayor Linda Jeffery. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Moffatt, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Jeffery. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff - and those present in the pledge of alle- giance to the flag. * * * * San Ramon Road Crossing Lenora Holmes , representing the Murray School District, questioned if the Council had received a leter regarding the widening of San Ramon Road sent by the Board. They expressed concern about students crossing .San Ramon Road. The Board took formal action and are requesting pedestrian overpasses . Mayor Jeffery questioned if the School District would be willing to contribute any money toward this . Ms . Holmes indicated she hoped that the School Board and the City Council could sit down and discuss this and work out what ' s best for the children. Ms . Holmes did not feel there were any adequate safety measures for children crossing. Mayor Jeffery questioned if Staff could pull any studies related to foot traffic across San Ramon Road. City Manager Ambrose indicated another alternative would be bussing. The City has assumed many of the responsibilities which the School District has abrogated. Mr. Ambrose indicated that Staff would bring this item back before the Council for future discussion. * * * * Open Space Concerns Carol Goss addressed the Council and indicated she had sent a petition to Cm. Hegarty and Cm. Moffatt regarding the open space behind the Kaufman & Broad project. The petition was one of concern more than anything else. They were concerned regarding noise, litter, lights, etc . She :also questioned if there would be a fence along the creek. City Manager Ambrose questioned exactly where the open space was that she was concerned about . CM-6-169 Regular Meeting June 8, 1987 { „ &"I v 1` S d. City Engineer Thompson advised that this open space is a part of the townhouse project. Planning Director Tong reported that it is private property and Ms . Goss can come into City Offices and see those plans that have been submitted to the City. * * * * Far West/Castle Construction Zev Kahn, a Harlan Road resident, expressed concern regarding the blatant disregard on the part of local developers who are unresponsive to complaints . This developer is working on the Dolan school site property. Mr. Kahn reported that no water trucks operate, the streets have not been washed down for several weeks, debris blocks the sidewalks and makes the sidewalks unuseable. The developer is dumping loads of dirt on the lot and hammering begins well before 7 : 00 a.m. Mr. Kahn felt it is time for the City to look at its relationship with the developers . They are being treated too softly. They care nothing for the peace and tranquility of the surrounding neighbor- hood. The operation should be ' shut down - this would get their attention. Mayor Jeffery advised that City Staff will look into this situation. * * * * Privacy Request David Buelly, an Allegre Drive resident indicated he purchased his house in July, 1986. Kaufman & Broad is now building townhouses behind his house. There are about 24 2-story units which raise over his backyard, invading his privacy. Mr. Buelly questioned if there was any way he could get some relief and privacy. There are 3 houses directly affected. He indicated he understood that they are planting trees at the request of the City which will be 15 gallon 6' trees . He thought they might be Eucalyptus, which will take a long time to grow. Planning Director Tong suggested that Mr. Buelly come down to City Offices to review the approved plans and look at the conditions of approval . Anything beyond those conditions, Mr. Buelly would need to go directly to Kaufman & Broad. Cm. Moffatt indicated that Eucalyptus trees grow to well over 100 feet and grow very rapidly. * * * * CONSENT CALENDAR On. motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions : Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 26, 1987; Approved the City Treasurer ' s Investment Report for Period Ending May 31, 1987; CM-6-170 Regular Meeting June 8, 1987 Authorized Staff to advertise Contract 87-5, Dougherty Road Fence at Camp Parks, for bids ; Approved the selection of Peter Kaldveer & Associates to perform geotechnical services for the Civic Center and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement and authorized the City Manager to increase the scope of the study if unanticipated conditions are found and the additional scope does not exceed $1, 500; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 36 - 87 APPROVING PA 87-065 STREET NAME CHANGE FOR ALAMO CREEK DRIVE WITHIN TRACT 5511, RENAMING SAID STREET TO "WILLOW CREEK DRIVE" Authorized Staff to advertise Contract 87-6, for Kolb Park Improvements, for bids ; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $425, 867 . 44; Awarded contract for maintenance of Stagecoach Road slopes for replanting to Four Seasons Landscape and Maintenance, Inc. , ( $31, 720) . * * * * COMMITTEE FOR WATER POLICY CONSENSUS A request has been received from the Committee for Water Policy Consensus that cities adopt a model resolution seeking amendments to AB 1710 (Costa) Water Resources Development/Delta Improvements . The proposed resolution seeks amendments which would provide statutory protection for the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary. Assistant to the City Manager Rankin indicated that the bill is still pending, no hearing date has been set. Dr. Harvey Scudder, 7409 Hansen Drive, an Environmental Scientist addressed the Council and indicated that in the past he had done much research on the water situation in the California Central Valley. Over 35 years ago, this was a known problem. This is but one small part of a much larger problem. A tremendous amount of farm land is at risk. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 37 - 87 SUPPORTING AMENDMENTS TO AB 1710 (COSTA) , (Water Quality Standards) * * * * CM-6-171 Regular Meeting June 8, 1987 SAN RAMON BRANCHLINE/I-680 CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION STUDY Mr . Bud Murphy and the Contra Costa County Public Works Department have prepared a San Ramon Branchline/I-680 Corridor Transportation Study, with the purpose of developing and evaluating alternative transportation uses for the Southern Pacific right-of-way. These alternatives were narrowned down to four (4 ) technologies and two (2 ) alignments . The findings and recommendations were prepared for consideration by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors . The recommendations include : 1 ) future detailed studies on Light Rail Transit (LXT) and Busway technology alternatives, and 2) focusing future detailed alignment analyses on the Southern Pacific right-of-way, as well as retaining the potential alignment along I-680 right-of-way between Rudgear Road, Walnut Creek and Sycamore Valley Road, Danville. Since this study was prepared for consideration by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, Mr. Murphy indicated that they would like some input from the City Council . Mr . Bud Murphy addressed the Council and stated he is on the Public Works Staff for Contra Costa County. Two and one-half years ago they sought support. Contra Costa County has spent about $24 million for purchase of right-of-way properties . The Draft Study is now going through' a review stage. Three meetings have been held and were attended by approximately 200 people. The Study identifies 4 basic alternatives which are being recommended to be carried forward. The transit alignment was discussed utilizing the SP Right-of-Way vs . an I-680 alignment. Cm. Snyder reported that some of the Committee members felt it was best to not use the SP right-of-way in the northern areas, but extend the transit down the I-680 corridor. It appears that a split or change in direction might occur . Mayor Jeffery questioned when a decision will be made. Mr. Murphy indicated that it is possible that a decision will be made within the next 2 months . City Manager Ambrose reported that some residents are confused about the process of how and when they may express their views . Cm. Moffatt felt that if an I-680 alignment is used, then the SP corridor would assume a different use in Dublin. Cm. Moffatt felt that because Dublin is only one mile of corridor, and if San Ramon decides against using the SP corridor alignment, then Dublin would have a problem. Mr. Murphy reported that the most cost effective alignment for a transit system would be the SP corridor . Cm. Hegarty suggested that the topic be agendized in the future, with the Council forming some type of recommendation. CM-6-172 Regular Meeting June 8, 1987 Mr . Murphy indicated that at this time they are just trying to put together a list of viable alternatives . Mayor Jeffery stated, with Council consensus, that for future agenda discussion, we should state exactly what it will be - to look at all alternatives . * * * * PUBLIC HEARING BUS STOPS ON DUBLIN BOULEVARD @ SIERRA COURT Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that this request is being made by A. C. Transit, as a result of a request by BART Director Robert Allen. These stops are proposed to be installed on an experimental basis for up to one year and may or may not become permanent, depending upon the number of persons using the stop. The road is sufficiently wide on both side of the street to accommodate the bus.. Wheels buses currently stop at these locations . Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Moffatt questioned if AC Transit pays anything to utilize our streets . Staff responded that they do not. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance establishing bus stops on the north and south sides of Dublin Boulevard at Sierra Court. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE REGULATING THE SHOOTING OF FIREARMS Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that this ordinance is part of the comprehensive Municipal Code revision. The ordinance regulates the shooting of firearms within the corporate limits of the City. George Zika questioned if this included BB guns . Chief Severini indicated that they are not classified as a firearm because they are not discharged with a powder. Cm. Moffatt questioned if we have an ordinance covering BB guns . Chief Severini indicated he thought there is a County Ordinance which prohibits the use of BB guns in the City. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. CM-6-173 Regular Meeting June 8, 1987 "On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 31 - 87 REGULATING THE SHOOTING OF FIREARMS * * * * PUBLIC HEARING YIELD RIGHT-OF-WAY AT PORTAGE ROAD @ MAPLE DRIVE Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that this request was made by a Staff member during a meeting of the Traffic Safety Committee. TJKM has studied .the intersection with regard to visibility, traffic volume and accident history. Following their study, TJKM recommended the installation of a Yield Sign on Portage Road at Maple Drive. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and on an urgency basis, adopted ORDINANCE NO. 32 - 87 ESTABLISHING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS (Yield Right-of-Way - Portage Road @ Maple Drive) * * * * PUBLIC HEARING ENEA PLAZA - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING REQUEST Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised the Council that a letter was received in City Offices on Friday afternoon, requesting that this item be continued once again. No specific date was indicated. City Manager Ambrose reported that he had briefly met last week with the Attorney who was recently retained by the Eneas . He is out of the Country on a trip that was scheduled quite sometime ago. No one in the audience indicated a desire to speak on this issue. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to a further continuance of this item until the June 22, 1987 Council meeting. Mayor Jeffery indicated that the item will be heard at that meeting, regardless of whether or not the Eneas have anyone present. * * * * CM-6-174 Regular Meeting June 8, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN - V-8422 KEITH HOLMES SIGN VARIANCE APPEAL Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff presented the background report on this issue and advised that the existing 17 foot tall freestanding Kentucky Fried Chicken sign erroneously received Alameda County approval on September 30, 1981 ; a building permit was issued on October 5, 1981; and on December 21, 1981, the County Zoning Administrator notified the property owner and sign company that the freestanding sign was not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant was advised that they would need to remove the 17 foot tall sign and apply for a low profile sign (maximum 6 foot height, and maximum 24 square foot sign area) , or relocate the sign beyond the required 30 foot frontyard setback area, or apply for a Variance to retain the sign. On March 3, 1982, the Alameda County Zoning Administrator denied the Applicant ' s Variance request to allow the 17 foot sign within the front setback and not within the middle 1/3 of the lot. On I-lay 24, 1982, the City Council heard the applicant ' s appeal and continued the appeal indefinitely, pending completion of the sign study and the adoption of the Sign Ordinance revisions . Since the Applicant has recently filed a Site Development Review (SDR) request for a storage addition, it would be appropriate to resolve the sign issue at this time. The City' s Sign Ordinance revisions adopted May 12, 1986 did not result in changes affecting the Applicant ' s Variance request. Staff advised that in order for the Applicant to retain the existing sign in its present location, the Council would need to overturn the County Zoning Administrator ' s denial by adopting a Resolution making the following affirmative findings based on fact: 1) the Variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity; 2) special conditions and extraordinary circumstances apply to the property and do not apply to other properties in the vicinity, so that the strict application of this Chapter deprives the property of rights enjoyed by other properties; 3 ) the Variance meets the intent and purpose sought to be achieved by the regulations in this Chapter; and 4) the Variance does not adversely affect the orderly development of property and the preservation of property values in the vicinity. Mr . Keith Holmes , representing Harman Management organization, indicated he wanted it understood that they are not trying to put anything over here. They took all the necessary steps to insure that they were in compliance. The sign cost about $10, 000 and they felt one option would be to let it go for a 10 year amortization. Cm. Hegarty felt it should be clearly understood that it was originally the County that turned down the variance request. CM-6-175 Regular Meeting June 8, 1987 Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Vonheeder questioned if this was a part of the specific C-2 B40 Zoning District which establishes the setback requirements . This was addressed in the new Sign Ordinance, but relates to businesses being buried behind other businesses, which does not apply in this case. Cm. Snyder questioned under the new Ordinance, if the Zoning were approp- riate, but the sign is wrong, what period of time would an individual have to bring a sign into conformance and amortize. Planning Director Tong indicated there is a 3 year minimum amortization period which could be extended up to 6 years . City Attorney Nave indicated the Council could consider a resolution upholding the Planning Commission ' s action, but effective a certain date in the future. Cm. Snyder indicated that he had not heard anyone in 5 years say that the sign was offensive to them. He would like to see the Applicant given 3 years . This was the sign that started the whole review of the Sign Ordinance . City Attorney Nave requested that Staff be given 2 more weeks to look into the situation. Mayor Jeffery felt the Council could consider a special hardship in this case. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the height of a sign has anything to do with the time a sign can be amortized. Planning Director Tong felt Cm. Moffatt might be confusing the timing for removal of illegal signs . On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to continue this item until the Council meeting of June 22nd. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING - PULTE HOME CORPORATION APPEAL OF PLANNING COM.'MISSION APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that the subject application involves a 25 lot subdivision request covering 8. 4+ acres located at the top of Betlen Drive. The subdivision request was approved on May 4, 1987 by the Planning Commission with that approval specifying that the grading and lotting pattern to be utilized was to be that which had been originally submitted by the Applicant. An alternate grading and lotting plan reflecting the recommendations of Staff was not supported by the majority of- the Commission . CM-6-176 Regular Meeting June 8, 1987 J The Planning Commission ' s approval of the subdivision request was subse- quently appealed by Betty Moore, a property owner adjoining the subject property. The appeal letter indicates Mrs. Moore ' s objections to the proposed use of flag lots within the approved lotting and grading pattern and her concern that the layout of the northerly driveway may not provide adequate on-street parking. The letter cites her support of the alternate lotting pattern, indicating that in her opinion, the alternate plan would address her two concerns regarding the project. While the Applicant would prefer use of the grading and lotting pattern approved by the Planning Commission, the Applicant has indicated a willingness to adjust the approved grading and lotting plan to reflect the layout shown on the alternate lotting and grading plan. Contrary to the Planning Commission action, Staff continued to recommend the Alternate B Development Plan. Staff advised that if the alternate grading and lotting plan is determined to be the plan preferred by the City Council, then adjustments to the Draft Resolution for the Tentative Map request must be made . (Condition #1 - Insert as third sentence : "Development of this site shall be modified to substantially conform to Alternate B Development Plan covering Lots #1 through #11, consisting of one sheet also prepared by Bissell & Karn, Inc . , and dated received May 27, 1987 . " Condition #72 - Modify the Condition regarding planting plans to change the description of Area 1 to include the slopes between Betlen Drive and the pad areas of Lots #4 through #7, to change the description of Area 2 to include the rearyard slopes behind Lots #7 through #10 and #13 and #14, and to eliminate any reference to Area 4 . ) Mr. Dick Steele from Pulte Homes indicated that originally they were requesting a much more dense project. They are happy with the direction the project has taken. Betty Moore, 11292 Betlen Drive stated she did not feel that flag lots are consistent with the current configuration of Dublin. The Developer has expressed a willingness to work with either design. Cm. Snyder commended Ms . Moore for her comments . He felt most people would not even be aware of what a flaglot is . Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Hegarty expressed concern with the visual effects of driving down the freeway and seeing a wall . He did not feel that landscaping would hide the wall . If the open space is not maintained properly, it will become an eye sore. He stated the City should make sure that it is properly taken care of. The Council agreed to use the Alternate B Development Plan. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted CM-6-177 Regular Meeting June 8, 1987 RESOLUTION NO. 38 - 87 ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE SUBDIVISION MAP (TENTATIVE MAP 5777) REQUEST FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 25 LOTS PROPOSED OVER AN 8.4+ ACRE PROPERTY FRONTING ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE TERMINUS OF BETLEN DRIVE, REQUESTED UNDER PA 87-051 PULTE HOMES CORPORATION and RESOLUTION NO. 39 - 87 APPROVING ON APPEAL TENTATIVE MAP REQUEST PA 87-051 PULTE HOMES CORPORATION BETLEN DRIVE FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 25 LOTS PROPOSED OVER AN 8.4+ ACRE PROPERTY FRONTING ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE TERMINUS OF BETLEN DRIVE RECESS A short recess was called. All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened. * * * * CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX - DESIGN DEVELOPMENT Staff advised that the Civic Center Advisory committee has been working with the Architects for several months to refine the approved schematic design for the Civic Center facility. The Architect has prepared an updated cost estimate which requires an additional appropriation if the current program and building scheme is to be followed. The initial base cost of the building identified by the Architect ' s Independent Estimator was approximately $6. 2 million. This was prepared in January and closely approximated the preliminary estimate of $6.106 million issued to the City Council in November. The estimate did not include contingency factors for changes in the economic conditions between the time of the estimate and the actual construction date. Also, no contingency is shown for change orders which may occur. The City' s Construction Manager feels it is prudent to include these items in order to adequately fund the project. The estimate also excluded the addition of the cable television space. Staff estimated that the project will require an additional $3 . 6 million appropriation, if the current estimates and project scope are maintained. This figure is derived by subtracting the COP proceeds, interest earned on the COP proceeds and General Funds already expended on the project, from the estimated cost. At the last CCAC meeting, the Architects presented various changes which would reduce the cost of the project. The areas of the largest savings involve program modifications or changes which would impact the image of the project . Since that meeting, the Architects have continued to look for CM-6-178 Regular Meeting June 8, 1987 additional savings . Again, many of the proposals result in changes to the program, or substantial changes to the public amenities. Due to the large deviations, Staff felt that it was appropriate to obtain City Council input on the desire to maintain the approved program. In any case, the Design Team is. continuing to evaluate cost savings which will not impact the functioning of the complex. Staff presented three basic options for Council consideration: 1. Direct the Architects to proceed with the complex as proposed. Staff would be directed to evaluate funding options including, refinancing of the COP issue, use of reserves, or a combination of funding sources . The Architects will continue to evaluate cost saving measures which do not affect the program. 2 . Direct the CCAC to develop recommended program cuts within the existing design scheme, which will reduce the building cost. If this approach is taken, it may be appropriate for the City Council to conduct a special meeting in which it could prioritize various elements of the program. For example, are the Council Chambers more desirable than the public/regional meeting room? The Architect estimates that these efforts would not eliminate the need for additional appropriations . 3 . The Architect can be directed to redesign the entire complex. This would start the design process over and the form of the building may take a different form. This would result in an additional delay. Staff recommended that the City Council receive a brief presentation on the Civic Center Complex Design and the proposed public amenities, discuss the project and pursue Option 1. George Miers introduced Bill Hoffmann of his staff, a representative from Adamson & Associates, the cost estimating firm and Brian Danley with the construction management firm. Mr. Miers indicated that the Civic Center will be a focal point and source of civic pride. The police facility will be absolutely state-of-the-art. In terms of public areas, this project conveys a very public-usable facility. People will begin to find more and more uses as it becomes more established. The regional meeting room is an important program item which is public- oriented. The Council Chambers will seat approximately 160 people, and will also be state-of-the-art. The acoustics will be such that a microphone system probably will not be needed. Landscaping plans and designs were shown and described by David Gates . City Manager Ambrose indicated that we are trying avoid the problem of 7 to 10 years from now, the Council and residents having to consider adding onto a facility. Future growth projections and expansion space are being built into the project initially. The possibility of refinancing is still being investigated. Mr. Ambrose reported that Staff just finished the Update to the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and the Budget, and there are a lot more projects than funding sources . CM-6-179 Regular Meeting June 8, 1987 Cm. Moffatt stated we need either more money or less building. Mayor Jeffery indicated that we have worked on this for a long time and she felt there were really only 2 choices - either we look at refinancing or we basically start over. This will be much more than a mere building, it is an image. Cm. Hegarty felt that if we had come up with the need for more money 2 years ago, then there would be no question. Perhaps we were too conservative in the beginning and some of the elements were misleading. He did not feel we .would be overextending ourselves by increasing the certificate issue, but we should question everything. At the present time, we are dealing with unknown factors which will be unknown until we go out to bid. We should build what we want to build according to the City' s goals . We will be money ahead 20 years from now. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved Option 1 which would direct the Architects to proceed with the complex as proposed. Staff was directed to evaluate funding options including refinancing of the COP issue, use of reserves, or a combination of funding sources . The Architects will continue to evaluate cost saving measures which do not affect the program. OTHER BUSINESS Federal Prison Facility Open House City Manager Ambrose reminded the Council of the open house scheduled at the Federal Prison facility on June 11th at 10: 00 a.m. Prison Officials want to discuss the proposed 100 bed addition to their project. Lunch will be provided. Budget Study Session Mr. Ambrose reminded the Council of the study session for review of the budget and the update to the Capital Improvement Program on Tuesday evening, June 16th at 6 : 00 p.m. , at Shannon Community Center. Food will be provided. Alameda County Fair Parade Mayor Jeffery reminded everyone that if they are interested in riding in the parade on June 27th, they need to respond to the proper people coordinating the event . * * * * CM-6-180 Regular Meeting June 8, 1987 Sister City Visitors Mayor Jeffery reminded the Council that July 24th, is the anticipated day of arrival of the Sister City contingency from Bray, Ireland. They will be here during Dublin ' s first Shamrock Festival. * * * * League of CA Cities Conference - Monterey When queried, the Council advised that the only attendees at the League ' s Conference in July in Monterey will be Mayor Jeffery and Vice Mayor Vonheeder. * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10: 23 p.m. * * * * Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk * * * * CM-6-181 Regular Meeting June 8, 1987