Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-11-1985 Adopted CC MinREGULAR MEETING - FEBRUARY 11, 1985 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, February 11, 1985 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7'30 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. INTRODUCTION OF NEW RECREATION DIRECTOR Mr. Ambrose introduced the new Park & Recreation Director, Diane Lowart. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the following were approved: Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 28, 1985; Warrant Register in the amount of $277,189.32; Approved installation of banners advertising the Children's Theatre Workshop productions on 9/27-10/11/85, 11/22-12/9/85 and 2/7-2/21/86; Approved Financial Report for period ending December 31, 1984; Approved the City Treasurer's Investment Report for period ending January 31, 1985; Awarded bid for Contract 85-1, Handicap Ramps, Annual Sidewalk Program and Silvergate Drive Median Modifications to Hess Construction Company; authorized the Mayor to execute agreement; and authorized the City Engineer to negotiate a change order with Hess ConstrUction for additional handicap ramps; Awarded bid for Contract 84-11, Traffic Signals (3), Downtown Street Lights. and Street Tree Program to Rosendin Electric, Inc and authorized the Mayor to execute agreement; CM-4-21 Regular Meeting February 11, 1985 Awarded bid for Contract 8~-9, Village Parkway Sidewalk and Landscaping, west side of street to MCE Corporation; authorized the Mayor to execute agreement; authorized the City Engineer to negotiate a change order to-substitute concrete for quarry waste not to exceed $20,000; and authorized a budget transfer of $29,500 from the 'three signal projects. PUBLIC HEARING KAUFMAN & BROAD SINGLE FAMILY PREZONING & ANNEXATION APPLICATION Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. On January 1~, 1985, the City Council adopted a resolution approving the Kaufman & Broad single family prezoning and introduced an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council included a Site Development Review condition as part of the Planned Development Prezoning. On January 28, 1985, the City Council indicated their desire to review the architecture of the proposed units prior to acting on the ordinance. Staff clarified points raised at the previous City Council meeting and discussed the architecture of the proposal. A color and materials board was presented for viewing. Mr. Corliss, representing Kaufman & Broad, stated that Condition #9 re Site Development Review would be met. Mr. Corliss distributed packets concerning Kaufman & Broad's work to each Councilmember. Seventy one percent will have 3-car garages. Each will have solar water heaters and each will have energy conservation devices installed. Three models are now under construction. Cm. Hegarty asked questions regarding the open space and whether it was within the plan or not. Mr. Corliss said that the homeowner's association of both the Kaufman & Broad subdivision and the remaining Nielsen subdivision will jointly maintain the open space. No public comments were made. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Hegarty wanted to know what the homes looked like. He stated he would like to see large homes built. Cm. Jeffery stated she had no problems with the homes being built. She was very concerned however, that the Whole project was not coming into the City at the same time. She said the entire project should be within the City prior to construction. City Manager Ambrose said that an encroachment permit will be needed to allow the connection of Silvergate Drive. Cm. Moffatt stated he felt this was a good opportunity for citizens to voice any objections they may have regarding this project. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majority vote, the Council adopted CM-~-22 Regular Meeting February 11, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 09-85 ESTABLISHING REVISED GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PREZONING CONCERNING PA 84-076, KAUFMAN & BROAD SINGLE FAMILY 'PREZONING AND ANNEXATION APPLICATION waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 04-85 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE PREZONING OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS Voting NO on this motion was Cm. Jeffery. PUBLIC HEARING ESTABLISHMENT OF SPEED LIMITS Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Staff explained that the first element of a comprehensive Traffic Engineering Study is the establishment of speed limits. This Study is funded through a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety. The Consultant preparing the project reviewed the streets as required by the California Vehicle Code. Consideration was given to prevailing speeds, accident records and roadside conditions not apparent to the driver, as required by State Law. Local jurisdictions have the authority to establish speed limits between 25 miles per hour (MPH) and 55 mph as appropriate, through the enactment of an ordinance. If a street does not have a posted speed limit, the California Vehicle Code (CVC) states that in residential and business districts, it shall be 25 mph, and 55 mph elsewhere. However, Section 40801 of the CVC disallows the use of radar enforcement of speed limits on specified streets unless the speed limit is justified by an engineering and traffic survey. Section 40802 of the CVC establishes the following criteria for streets, which must be surveyed if radar enforcement is utilized in the enforcement of speed limits: 1) Roadway width of more than 40 feet. 2) More than one-half mile of uninterrupted length. 3) More than one traffic lane in each direction. Based on these criteria, the City Traffic Engineer identified the street segments to be included in the survey. The Vehicle Code also defines the elements to be included in the engineering and traffic survey. The following criteria are found in Section 627 of the CVC and were Utilized by JHK & Associates in making recommendations for speed limits: 1) Prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering instruments. 2) Accident records. CM-4-23 Regular Meeting February 11, 1985 3) Highway, traffic and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver. An ordinance was prepared which~would consolidate the speed limits for City streets under one document. Mr. Rankin presented the Staff Report which included traffic safety and realistic speed studies. Mr. Rankin explained that the Speed Study must be backed up by Engineering Studies. Mr. Charles Abrams and Erik Ruehr of JHK & Associates presented the results of their study. Mr. Ruehr explained the procedures used which correspond to State Law. Recommen~ded speeds for the following streets are: Amador Ptaza/Amador Valley to Southern End 30 Amador Valley/Stagecoach to Dougherty Road 35 Clark/Village Parkway to Dublin Boulevard 30 Dougherty /Amador Valley Boulevard to Northern City Limit ~5 Dougherty/Amador Valley Boulevard to Southern City Limit 35 Golden Gate/Dublin Boulevard to End 30 Regional/Amador Valley Boulevard to Southern End 30 Scarletv Court/Dougherty Road to End 30 Village Parkway/Amador Valley Boulevard to Southern End 30 This represents streets where the recommended speed limit would result in a change from the posted speed. The consultanv noted that the study included many street segments within residential areas. The conditions found in JHK's study did not warrant a change from the current 25 mph designation. Cm. Hegarty was concerned about the transition from the recommended 35 mph section to the residential section where there is an existing 25 mph speed limit. Staff noted that a traffic signal will be installed ay Stagecoach Road to provide a transition. Carol Kresby, a resident, questioned whether the study also looked at the number of accidents. Mayor Snyder explained that this was included in the report. Ms. Kresby questioned whether radar was a necessary enforcement device and whether the cost was necessary. Mayor Snyder informed Mrs. Kresby that all funds were provided by the State of California, and the intent of the study was to improve safety. Dan Rodriguez, resident, was concerned about the current developments, such as Heritage Commons and Amador Lakes, and was it taken into consideration when they did the traffic studies. It was explained that the study is required to take into consideration the current conditions. Mr. Ambrose noted that an update had to be done every five years. Mayor Snyder closed the publ'ic hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and introduced an ordinance establishing traffic regulations. CM-~-2~ Regular Meeting February 11, 1985 PUBLIC HEARING DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN Mayors Snyder opened the public hearing. Over the past two years, the City of Dublin has held numerous and extensive meetings to review, discuss, and consider the Dublin General Plan. At City Council direction, the Staff prepared and released for review and comment the Supplement to the EIR (SEIR) and the Final Draft General Plan. During the comment period on the SEIR the Bay Area Council and John DiManto, Inc., submitted comments on the SEIR and Final Draft General Plan. The Pleasanton Housing Authority submitted comments related to only the Final Draft General Plan. Jobs/housing Relationship: State law (Government Code Section 65913.1) provides that, in exercising its authority to zone for land uses, a city shall designate and zone sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards, in relation to zoning for nonresidential use, and in relation to growth projections of the general plan to meet housing needs as identified in the general plan. To address the jobs/housing relationship concerns raised by the Bay Area Council and John DiManto, Staff suggested that the City Council consider adding the following implementing policy under Section 2.3.4 Business Parks: "D. Prior to planning and/or building permit approval of more than (number, %) of the planned jobs in the Extended Planning Area, one or more Specific Area Plans shall be developed to designate sufficient land for housing in reasonable relationship to total jobs and to demonstrate how needed municipal services will be provided." The number or percentage of jobs included in the above policy depended on what was determined to be a reasonable relationship between jobs and housing. State law did not specify a numerical ratio for housing in relation to jobs. If the above policy was set at 6,000 (15~/) of the planned jobs in the Extended Planning Area, approximately 200 acres of Business Park development and a jobs/housing ratio of approximately 1.26 : 1.0 could be approved prior to the requirement for the Specific Area Plan. After that point, in order to create more jobs, the Specific Area Plan would be required to designate land for housing that would maintain a reasonable relationship to the total number of jobs in the City. If the policy was set at 9,000 (22~) of the planned jobs, approximately 300 acres of Business Park development and a jobs/housing ratio of approximately 1.52 : 1.0 could be approved prior to the Specific Area Plan. Similarly, if the policy was set at 12,000 (29~) of the planned jobs, approx-imately 400 acres of Business Park development and jobs/housing ratio of approximately 1.78 : 1.0 could be approved prior to the Specifi.c Area Plan. 0M-~-25 Regular Meeting February 11, 1985 Southwest corner of Amador Valley Boulevard and Dougherty Road: The Pleasanton Housing Authority recommended that the ~ acre site located at the southwest corner of Amador Valley Boulevard and Dougherty Road be developed through a tax exempt mortgage revenue bond with 20~ to 25~ of the units to be used for lower income housing. The revised draft General Plan, page 9, Site Number 8, designated the Site for Medium-High Density residential, retail/office, or mixed uses. The designation did not require use of mortgage revenue bonds nor that any of the units be set aside for lower income housing. Staff found that the designation in the revised draft General Plan, in conjunction with the other applicable policies, was appropriate for the site. Mr. John DiManto, stated that he had attended several of the meetings over the past 1 1/2 years. He was surprised to see the Jordan property indicated for Business Park/Industrial: Low Coverage uses. He felt this was contrary to the physical land planning policies in the General Plan. He requested the City Council to consider the Residential/Open Space designation for the Jordan property. Mr. DiManto also expressed concern that the policy regarding the jobs/housing relationship might be seen as a growth control measure. Mr. Rod Andrade, McKay & Somps, representing the Jordan property owner, said that the land use designation of Business Park/Industrial: Low Coverage was very appropriate for the site. He suggested that the City, in reviewing applications in the Extended Planning Area, weigh the combined fiscal impacts of both residential and business park development proposals. Vivian Kahn, Bay Area Council, stated the jobs/housing policy was what they wanted to see. They were very pleased with it because it would let people know what was expected of developers. Mr. Rodriquez stated he was concerned about the Dublin area taking the brunt of all the low income housing. He favors single family_homes. Jobs/housing ratio was discussed. Cm. Jeffery suggested that 9,000 (22~) of the potential jobs would allow the City some flexibility. Cm. Moffatt favored 6,000 (15~) with the understanding that the City would monitor and review the situation. During the discussion, the City Council clarified the policy so that the Specific Area Plans would only address existing jobs and jobs being proposed, rather than all potential jobs at build out. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote, the Council set the number or percentage of jobs in the additional implementing policy as being 22%. Voting NO on this motion was Cm. Moffatt. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted cM-~-26 Regular Meeting February 11, 1985 adopted RESOLUTION NO. 10-85 ADOPTING RESPONSES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 11-85 ADOPTING FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN adopted RESOLUTION NO. 12-85 ADOPTING THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS RE DOUGHERTY HILLS OPEN SPACE Judy Alexander of Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro is requesting, on behalf of Dublin Hills Partnership, that the City consider accepting ownership of the open space on the west side of the Dougherty Hills. The sPecific property is a parcel of approximately 91 acres that was created with the KREMCO Tentative Map (Tract 4719) and Planned Development Rezoning (1486th Zoning Unit). Maintenance and insurance of the parcel is proposed to be handled through the Maintenance Assessment District along Stagecoach Road. Costs are proposed to be shared by the 150 single family owners and the Amador Lakes owners. The parcel was shown as Lot 154 on the Tentative Map, but was changed to Lot 153 on the Final Map. On motion of Cm. Jeffery , seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council established a date of Tuesday, February 19, 1985 at 9'00 a.m. for a field' trip to the Dougherty Hills Open Space, and directed Staff to make arrangements for the field trip. RECESS A short recess was called. Ail Councilmembers were present when meeting was reconvened. DUBLIN CONNECTION Dr. Richard Cochran, Murray School District Superintendent has inquired as to whether or not the City Council would be interested in either hosting a reception or undertaking some form of recognition for the Irish Marathon Runner, Dick Hooper, who will be in the Bay Area from July 15-21, 1985 CM-4-27 Regular Meeting February 11, 1985 On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, ~nd by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to hold a reception in honor of Dick HOoper while he is here in July. Cm. Vonheeder will meet with Dr. Cochran to discuss the reception. They would like to have an evening reception at Shannon Center, possibly on July 15th. BRANAUGH QUARRY SURFACE MINING PERMIT - DRAFT EIR Alameda County prepared a Draft EIR for the Branaugh Surface Mining Permit application. The project involved a quarry on ~0 acres on Collier Canyon Road west of Doolan Road. Staff prepared comments regarding conflicts with the Dublin General Plan and Sphere of Influence, coordination with adjoining parcels, aesthetic impacts and traffic. On motion of Cm. geffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to transmit comments to Alameda County. GENERAL PLAN CONSULTANT BUDGET ADJUSTMENT The 198~-85 budget for General Plan Consultant Services was $2,700. The budget did not anticipate the need for the Supplement to the EIR and the revised draft Dublin General Plan. A budget adjustment of $5,100 was needed. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized a budget transfer for General Plan Consultant Services from the Contingent Reserve. 1985 GOALS & OBJECTIVES STUDY SESSION DATE The City Council last year expressed its desire to conduct an annual study session for the purpose of reviewing progress on the City's goals and objectives. City Manager Ambrose stated it would be helpful if a date 'were selected which would not conflict with the Planning Commission meeting, as Department Heads would need to be in attendance at the meeting. Planning Director Tong stated that due to an upcoming planning conference, it is likely that the March ~th Planning Commi'ssion meeting will be cancelled. By general consensus, the Council selected the date of March 4, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. for review and consideration of 1985 Goals & Objectives and author- ized Staff to take out a display ad to encourage citizen participation. The meeting will be held in the Library. CM-~-28 Regular Meeting February 11, 1985 OTHER BUSINESS Annexation of Camp Parks Mr. Ambrose stated he received communications from Senator Cranston's office regarding problems associated with the Annexation of Camp Parks. Mr. Ambrose reported that he had prepared a lengthy response, including a chronology of the various events leading up Dublin's request to annex this property. Conflict of Interest Law Cm. Vonheeder reported recent discussion with regard to public officials holding PG&E stock. Each city is being requested to contact the League of California Cities regarding this measure and send a letter supporting Assemblyman Eisenberg's Bill. Harbor Bay Outing Harbor Bay Business Park has invited the Council to attend a bay cruise tour. Staff was directed to find out how long the offer will be available and report back to the Council at its meeting of February 25th. March of Dimes V.I.P. Walk Discussion was held related to the annual one mile fun walk from Chabot College to the new Medical Express Building in Hayward. The walk is scheduled for Wednesday, April 17, 1985 at 9'00 a.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10'30 p.m. ~i~y CM-4-29 Regular ~Ieeting February 11, 1985