Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-23-1986
REGULAR MEETING - June 23, 1986 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, June 23, 1986 in the meeting room of the DUblin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Mayor Peter Snyder. ROLL' CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt, Vonheeder and Mayor Snyder. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alleg- iance to the flag. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 9, 1986; Approved Financial Report for Period Ending May 31, 1986; Approved closure of Burton Street between Amador Valley Boulevard and Tamarack Drive on July 4, 1986, subject to homeowners providing proper barricades and proof of insurance; Approved the Request for Proposal (RFP) for Dolan Park Design and directed Staff to advertise for consultants; Approved the Request for Proposal (RFP) for Kolb Park Design and directed Staff to advertise for consultants; Authorized appropriation of 1985-86 unappropriated revenues to each Fund's Reserve for Authorized Projects; Continued resolutions related to Tract 4719 Landscaping & Lighting District No. 1983-2 to the Adjourned Regular Meeting scheduled on Thursday, June 26, 1986; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 51 - 86 and CITYWIDE STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT APPROVING PRELIMINARY ENGINEER's REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT CM-5-123 Regular Meeting June 23, 1986 RESOLUTION NO. 52 - 86 CITYWIDE STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT APPOINTING TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING PROTESTS IN RELATION TO PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS (July 28, 1986) Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $264,198.01 DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT SEWER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Dublin San Ramon Services District Officials have responded to the City of Dublin's request to review assumptions contained in the DSRSD Sewer System Master Plan. The district has offered to meet with representatives of the affected agencies to determine the scope of the proposed project. By a consensus, the Council directed Staff to contact the affected agencies to determine interest in developing scope of work and arrangements for the proposed project. PUBLIC HEARING STOP SIGNS AT INTERSECTION OF PEPPERTREE ROAD & SHANNON AVENUE Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Staff explained that based on future growth anticipated in this area and on input received from the public, the Council requested that stop signs be installed. No public comments were made. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and bY unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and on an urgency basis, adopted ORDINANCE NO. 11 - 86 ESTABLISHING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS (Stop Signs on Peppertree Road @ Shannon Avenue) CM-5-124 Regular Meeting June 23, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY AND CITY COUNCIL INITIATED REZONING - DUBLIN TOWN & COUNTRY ASSOCIATES Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Staff explained that at its meeting of May 27, 1986, the City Council authorized a Specific Plan Amendment Study to consider removing the restriction on the maximum percentage of the total gross floor area that can be used for personal service, financial or office uses in the Dublin Town & Country Shopping Centerl Concurrent with that action, the Council initiated a Rezoning Study to consider amending the current Planned Development (PD) District regulations to allow occupancy by the land uses generally provided for in the C-l, Retail Business District. - The Applicant presented the reasons for the requested elimination of the restriction on the amount of allowable occupancy by personal service, financial or office uses. Those arguments included 1) the slow progress to date in leasing the tenant spaces within the Shopping Center; 2) the lack of an anchor tenant; 3) the need for a mixture of uses to provide a "balanced" center, and 4) the constraints on leasing to additional food establishments created by large sewer hook-up fees for restaurants. Two Planning Commissioners, at their meeting of June 16, 1986, expressed reservations regarding both the Specific Plan Amendment and the Rezoning request, in that the Specific Plan Amendment on a property-by-property basis would result in a piecemealing of the Plan Area and undermine the original intent of the Plan. In response to those concerns, the Commission directed Staff to advise the City Council of its desire to have any future Specific Plan Amendment Study, including the Study currently under consideration for the Moret property, be expanded to include the remaining 8+ acres of Area 3 of the Plan. Discussion was held relative to confusion over terminology and definition 'optometrist'. An optometrist could also be considered as office use or as a dispensing optician, which sells eyeglasses, etc. Council agreed to remove optometrist from the office category and include it in the personal services section. The recommended percentage of office space allowed was discussed. The percentage allowed was 10% of gross floor area. Mr. Jeha, applicant, indicated they would like to have additional flexibility and requested a higher perCentage be allowed for office use. Staff reported that the Planning Commission felt that 10% office space was desirable. Cm. Vonheeder questioned certain uses under the office category, specifically, Accounting. Cm. Hegarty questioned what a Veterinary Office was. Staff responded that it would be considered a facility for the treatment of animals, not just offices. CM-5-125 Regular Meeting June 23, 1986 Page 3 of Exhibit B Resolution was discussed and under the list of prohibited uses, Staff felt was too broad. - All other retail stores and personal services not mentioned above including new and used vehicle sales and/or vehicle repair and service, service stations, and other similar stores and services. The above paragraph was changed to read - New and used vehicle sales and/or vehicle repair and service and service stations. Richard Wiebe, part owner of the Town & Country Center addressed the Council and stated they need flexibility from the original prohibitions and limitations of the original agreement. They would prefer a C-1 zoning and were requesting 25%-30% for office uses. Mr. Wiebe stated they appreciated all the work that Staff and the City Council had gone to. Len Mignani, Western Development Services, and the leasing agent for the shopping center indicated they were doing everything possible to market the center. He felt that office uses would give them more opportunities to lease the space. Roy Moret indicated his support of Town & Country's request and felt they should get as much support from the City Council as possible. Mr. Moret questioned the recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding the feasibility of including all of the remaining property in Area 3 and felt it would delay his project. Planning Director Tong indicated that the Moret application is being processed and including the remaining property in Area 3 would not increase the processing time. Cm. Hegarty indicated that when the previous review of the Jeha project was done, it was reported to the Council that an anchor store would be in the center. Myron Crawford questioned who would be responsible for additional costs of study. Mr. Tong indicated that since the Planning Commission is requesting the additional study, the City would bear the costs. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Vonheeder indicated she was in favor of raising permitted office type uses to 50% to give as much flexibility as possible. Cm. Moffatt indicated he would like to go even further and put all of Area 3 into C-1 zoning. Cm. Moffatt felt the City was practicing spot zoning and cited several cases which ruled against cities. Cm. Jeffery felt that the reason for the specific plan was that the City wanted something special for this entrance into Dublin and that the City should try to retain the original goal. CM-5-126 Regular Meeting June 23, 1986 Cm. Vonheeder suggested that perhaps not everyone's goals were the same for this City entrance. Cm. Hegarty agreed that the Council wanted something visually and aesthetically pleasing and felt the ideal was not coming about because of a lack of cooperation amongst the property owners. He indicated he would agree to increase the allowed office uses to 50% and would like to see it rezoned to C-1. Cm. Moffatt felt that inconsistent zoning will create court challenges. City AttOrney Nave indicated that the whole point of having a specific plan was to avoid this. Cm. Moffatt made a motion to change Area 3 to C-1 zoning. The motion died for lack of a second. City Attorney Nave stated that such a motion would be best addressed by the Planning Commission and suggested that the motion should be changed to direct the Planning Commission to conduct a study to make this change. Cm. Moffatt changed his motion. The motion, again, was not seconded. Mayor Snyder felt the center was there for retail purposes. Cm. Hegarty felt the center needed something to bring the people in. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majority vote, the Council agreed to change the allowed office use to 40%'. Mayor Snyder and' Cm. Jeffery voted NO on this motion. The Council directed that all Resolutions and documents be changed to reflect this new allowed percentage. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 53 - 86 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING PA 86-050.1 SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY (AMENDMENT TO AREA 3) AND PA 86-050.2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT REZONING OF THE DUBLIN TOWN & COUNTRY SHOPPING CENTER On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majority vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 54 - 86 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN PA 86-050.1 SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN (AMENDMENT TO AREA 3) Cm. Jeffery voted N© on this motion. CM-5-127 Regular Meeting June 23, 1986 On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 55 - 86 APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING CONCERNING PA 86-050.2 SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN - AREA 3 DUBLIN TOWN & COUNTRY SHOPPING CENTER On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to permit the rezoning of real property located at the Southwest Corner of Amador Valley Boulevard and San Ramon Road. Mayor Snyder and Cm. Jeffery voted NO on this motion. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to include the remainder of Area 3 in the Moret San Ramon Road Specific Plan Amendment Study. PUBLIC HEARING DOUGHERTY ROAD/HOPYARD ROAD/I-580 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS Mayors Snyder opened the public hearing. At a previous meeting, the City Council approved the use of Scarlett Court as an interim bypass for the westbound offramp to facilitate the new offramp configuration, subject to development of a provisional parking lot to replace the on-street parking on Scarlett Court that will be temporarily eliminated during this phase of construction. Representatives from the City of Pleasanton and from Smith, Gray & Company provided an update and status report on the detour of offramp traffic onto Scarlett Court. Pat Flynn, Smith, Gray and Company, a company hired by the City of Pleasanton to manage the project, addressed the Council. Mr. Flynn explained the phasing of the project and indicated they were shooting for completion by September 1987. With regard to the on-street parking on Scarlett Court, Cm. Jeffery expressed concern that people will be parking on one side of the street and not be able to safely get to the other side. Cm. Moffatt questioned if it were legal to cross double yellow lines to make left turns. Staff responded that this was legal. Danny Kahler, a business owner on Scarlett Court, questioned the use of 3-way stop signs as opposed to a signalized intersection. Mr. Kahler indicated he thought he recalled in earlier discussions that this was to be signalized. Access in and out of buildings will present big problems with no break in traffic. CM-5-128 Regular Meeting June 23, 1986 City Engineer ThompsoTM indicated that the discussion related to signals pertained to the timing of the Dougherty Road/Scarlett Court/Dublin Boulevard signal. A1 Rosetti from Miracle Auto Painting questioned how traffic would be controlled. Lee Thompson responded that the signal will still be used, but with a lot more green time to keep the intersection clear. The island at the corner will be removed to allow double left turns out of Scarlett Court. The parking lot was discussed and reportedly would be mainly used by businesses for employee parking. Doreen Green, Busick Air Conditioning questioned.exactly where the off ramp will be located, Mr. Flynn responded that it will be directly opposite Lew Doty Cadillac. Carey Green, who occasionally works for Busick Air Conditioning questioned the crossing of'yellow lines in heavy traffic. Cm. Jeffery felt people would be better off making turns coming off the off- ramp. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to work with the City of Pleasanton with regard to this project. PUBLIC HEARING REVENUE SHARING APPROPRIATION AMENDMENT Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. At a public hearing on June 25, 1986, the City Council authorized the appropriation of $275,260 in Revenue Sharing Funds for the 1985-86 Fiscal Year. The funds were authorized for Police Services expenditures. The 1985-86 hearing was conducted based on the preliminary 1985-86 budget. During the year, changes have occurred in the funding level of the Revenue Sharing Program compared to the estimate used in the 1985-86 budget. Staff anticipates that a total of $292,281 of Revenue Sharing Funds will be available for expenditure during the 1985-86 Fiscal Year. This will exceed the Adopted 1985-86 Revenue Sharing Appropriation by $17,021. In order to provide continuity with earlier appropriations, Staff recommends that the additional appropriation be utilized to fund Police Services expenditures. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 56 - 86 AMENDING THE 1985-86 REVENUE SHARING BUDGET CM-5-129 Regular Meeting June 23, 1986 FUNDING OF NON-PROFIT GROUPS At the March 24, 1986 City Council meeting, the Council reviewed a request for financial assistance from the Valley Artists, Inc. As no policy has been developed to deal with 'such requests, the Council indicated its desire to develop policies related to funding non-profit grouPs. The Park & Recreation Commission was directed to address philosophical issues and the Council would address budget issues. The Park & Recreation Commission discussed the philosophy of providing funding to non-profit groups at its May 13, 1986 meeting, with discussion centering around the groups eligible for funding, the programs/projects eligible for funding and application procedure to be followed. It was the consensus of the Commission that it was inappropriate for the City to fund individual groups and that City funds should be utilized to serve the entire community. The Commission did not feel that there was an actual need for funding groups and felt that by offering funds, the City may be creating the need. It was the Commission's recommendation that the City provide in-kind services such as utilization of Shannon Center at no cost or by establishing a lending · library of equipment, which was already being used by the Recreation Department for other City sponsored activities. The current rental policy for Shannon Center provides for limited use by Dublin-based groups at no charge. In order to~ qualify, 7'5% of the groups membership must live in Dublin or the Dublin San Ramon Services District. For those groups not meeting this requirement, but providing a valuable service to Dublin residents, the Park & Recreation Commission recommended that each be considered on a case-by-case basis for policy exceptions. The Commission will review the building usage by non-profit groups in six months time in order to determine if the groups are taking advantage of this service. Cm. Hegarty indicated he would like to see funding going to groups because of the offsetting dollars being spent in Dublin. Also, any group who is denied funding by the Park & Recreation Commission has the right to appeal the decision to the City Council. Park & Recreation Commissioner Elizabeth Schmitt relayed discussions at the Commission level and stated the reasoning for the decision to deal on a case-by-case basis. Recreation Director Lowart clarified that the Commission was recommending in-kind services rather than funding of groups. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty,, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to provide in-kind services such as utilization of Shannon Center at no cost or by establishing a lending library of equipment, which was already being used by the Recreation Department for other City sponsored activities. CM-5-130 Regular Meeting June 23, 1986 TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY Preliminary plans are underway for the 1986 Tree Lighting Ceremony. For the past two years, a tree was lit at the Dublin Library and entertainment was staged outside the library. The ceremony preceeded a regularly scheduled City Council meeting. At the June 10, 1986 meeting of the Park & Recreation Commission, the Commission discussed this year's ceremony as well as evaluated the ceremonies of the previous two years. In their evaluation, they noted that although the location of the tree on Amador Valley Boulevard was appropriate, the library parking lot was less than ideal for the ceremony. A number of factors contributed to this; poor lighting, lack of parking, questionable weather and inadequate sound system. The Commission recommended that the City continue to light the tree at the Dublin Library, but conduct the actual ceremony at Shannon Center. In addition, it is their desire to also light the large oak tree in front of the Center that hangs Over the bridge, and conduct a simultaneous tree lighting. By moving the ceremony to Shannon Center, it could be held inside, thereby eliminating the need for a last minute cancellation due to inclement weather. Cm. Jeffery questioned if the library function could be staged behind the library. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendation to conduct the tree lighting ceremony at Shannon Center and light a tree at Shannon Park. Staff was directed to investigate the logistics of lighting a tree at Shannon and the associated costs. SELECTION OF NAME AMADOR LAKES/STAGECOACH ROAD PARK At the Park & Recreation Commission meetings of May 13 and June 10, 1986, the Commission discussed a name for the soon to be completed Amador Lakes/Stage- coach Road Park. Staff identified guidelines for the Commission to consider such as 1) Geographic Location, 2) Landscaping, 3) Historic Significance, 4) Name of People - Living vs. Deceased, and 5) Traditionally Known As .... As a result of their discussion, the Commission recommended that the City sponsor a contest to name the Amador Lakes/Stagecoach Road Park, as this will be the first City-owned park and the Commission felt that it might be appropriate for the residents to have a voice in it's name. Staff recommended that if the Council feels that a contest to name the park is advisable, the Council should determine the contest guidelines taking into consideration the following factors: 1) Contest Rules, 2) Judging Criteria, and 3) Prizes. CM-5-131 Regular Meeting June 23, 1986 Discussion was held with regard to the diffiCulty in holding contests. Cm. Jeffery suggested that the Park & Recreation Commission narrow the list to 5 names and let people vote on the names, perhaps through the City Newsletter. Staff responded that a Newsletter won't be published again for a year. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the COuncil directed Staff to ask the Park & Recreation Commission to reconsider the names and select the best 3 and send those 3 names back to the Council to make the final decision. DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT STUDY CONCEPTS JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW As part of the work program approved by the City Council, Larry Cannon of WBE, planning consultants, has summarized various concepts for the Downtown Improvement Plan. The concepts are based on informal input received to date from discussions with the City Council, Planning Commission, property owners, business persons, Downtown Improvement Study Committee and City Staff. By a consensus of the Council, the date of Tuesday, July 22, 1986, was selected for a joint meeting t.o discuss and provide firm direction regarding the concepts. Staff will arrange for a meeting location, preferably the West Room at Shannon Community Center. OTHER BUSINESS Dublin Day at the Alameda County Fair City Manager Ambrose reminded the Council that Thursday, June 26th was Dublin Day at the Alameda County Fair and that tickets were available at City Offices. San Ramon Road Phase II City Manager Ambrose reported that the State Department of Transportation had released the San Ramon Road Phase II project and bids woUld be opened on August 4, 1986. CM-5-132 Regular Meeting June 23, 1986 Budget Hearing Meeting City Manager Ambrose reminded the Council of the Budget Hearing Meeting scheduled for Thursday, June 26th at 6:00 p.m., at Shannon Center. Other items will possibly be on this agenda also. Transportation Tax Project Funding Staff reported that with regard to the recent publicity over the Project lists for funding by the proposed transportation tax, perhaps the Council should take a stand. There is a move to cut the project list to one major project in each area. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to stand by their original decision. "Wheels" Dedication Ceremony There was a reminder of the activities on Sunday, June 29th at the Pleasanton Sports Park for the new bus system in the Valley, Wheels. Mae Hernandez, an Amador Valley Boulevard, questioned the location of stops on Amador Valley Boulevard. Cm' Jeffery advised that the closest stop would probably be on Village Parkway. Meetings with Zone 7 Mayor Snyder advised that he had received a note from Bob Buddemeier from Zone 7 indicating a desire to get together with the Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin to discuss the use of arroyos. Consensus of the Council was that Cm. Hegarty and Cm. Moffatt would represent Dublin at these meetings. Downtown Improvement Study Committee Appointment Cm. Hegarty reported that his appointment from the business community, Dean Kollewe of Central Bank had resigned from the Committee. Cm. Hegarty indicated he had appointed Scott Thompson of Homestead Savings to fill this vaCancy. CM-5-133 Regular Meeting June 23, 1986 Violation of Zoning and/or Vehicle Code Cm. Vonheeder asked Staff to investigate a situation that had been reported to her. People were apparently sleeping in a car at the northeast corner of Emerald Avenue & Amador Valley Boulevard. The situation had reportedly been going on for 9 months. Gann Initiative Both Staff and Council felt that it will be incumbent upon the City Council to make sure that the public is aware of the potential significant problems that the Gann Initiative, if passed, will create in not only Dublin, but California in general. Among other things, Dublin would have a problem with remaining a contract City. This initiative would encourage mediocre government. Other initiatives pending could affect the City,s garbage and cable television franchise fees. 'There is also legislation proposed that would, in effect, push all of us into the Social Security program. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. ATTEST: _ C<[-· ' I-'er-~r-~i ~ k '- ~ CM-5-134 Regular Meeting June 23, 1986