Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-15-1996 CC Adopted MinutesREGULAR MEETING - October 15, 1996 A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, October 15, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by Mayor Houston. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Barnes, Burton, Howard, Moffatt and Mayor Houston. ABSENT: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Houston led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.. INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES 7:01 p.m. $.1, :3.2, :3.:3 (700~10) Police Chief Jim Rose introduced Lieutenant Charles D. Farruggia to the City Council. He indicated Lt. Farruggia was a 25 year veteran of law enforcement. Lt. Farruggia stated he was excited about his new assignment to the City of Dublin. He has lived in the Valley since 1971 and had been a patrolman in unincorporated Dublin in 1079. He remembers when he could count the number of stoplights in Dublin on one hand. Community Development Director Eddie Peabody introduced Susan Garber, Office Assistant II in the Community Development Department. Susan comes to the City from Dougherty Regional Fire Authority where she was a Clerical Assistant for 2 years. Parks & Community Services Director Diane Lowart introduced Patsy Rankin, the new Senior Center Coordinator. Patsy worked in Moraga for seven years in recreation and with Seniors. She is currently pursuing her Master's Degree in Psychology. PatsY has told the seniors that she does not plan to replace Bonnie ~onard, but wants to follow in her footsteps. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 1996 PAGE 485 PROCLAMATION 7:06 p.m. :3.4 (610-50) Mayor Houston read and presented a Proclamation to Police Chief Rose declaring October 23rd ~ 31 st as "Red Ribbon Week". Chief Rose thanked the Council for the proclamation and indicated that it would be displayed at the front counter. He stated that drug and alcohol abuse was not good for the moral fiber of our City and urged that citizens avoid drug and alcohol abuse every day not just during Red Ribbon Week. Tri~Valley Youth Fund (950~60) Pat O'Brien, 2 7 Castlewood Rd, Pleasanton, indicated he represented the Tri~Valley Youth Fund. He indicated there was a grant challenge to help raise funds for the soccer field at Camp Parks. He presented the Mayor with a $$,000 check to be held until it was matched by Dublin. Tennis Courts at Dublin High School (280~20) George Zika, 8046 Peppertree Road, wanted to make the Council aware that the School District was locking the tennis courts at the High School. He thought the City had a joint use agreement with the School District. The City has also paid a lot of money to renovate several of the School District facilities. He knew of no other high school that locked their tennis courts. He wanted to know why Dublin High's tennis courts are being locked. This meant there were only two tennis courts available in the City of Dublin for residents to use. Mayor Houston asked the Parks & Community Services Director to check with the School District about their policy. Cm. Barnes indicated that the Liaison Committee would be meeting with the School District on October 29 and Perhaps it could be addressed at that meeting. Mayor Houston requested that Item 4.9 regarding the City Song be pulled for discussion. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 1996 PAGE 486 CONSENT CALENDAR 7:14 p.m. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Accepted the report and adopted (4.2 300-20) RESOLUTION NO. 117 - 96 MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING UNEXPENDED IMPACT FEES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996~97 Received Banner Compliance Program Report; (4.3 400-30) Adopted (4.4 600-40) RESOLUTION NO. 118 - 96 RELATING TO EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FOR PA 96-037 SCHAEFER RANCH REORGANIZATION Accepted and filed Preliminary Financial Report for the Month of September 1996; (4.5 330-50) Adopted (4.6 Adopted (4.7 6oo-3o) RESOLUTION NO. 119 - 96 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT FOR SUPPLEMENT NO. 007 (CYCLE) STATE-LOCAL PARTNERSHIP FUNDS (SB300) 600-40) RESOLUTION NO. 120 - 96 APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 6822 AND ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT WITH ALAMEDA COUNTY FOR FUTURE PARKLAND DEDICATIONS (CALIFORNIA CREEKSlDE) Adopted (4.8 600-40) RESOLUTION NO. 121 - 96 · APPROVING PARCEL MAP 6879 and accepted roadway dedications; CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 1996 PAGE 487 Adopted (4.10 600~$0) RESOLIFFI'ION NO. 122 ~ 96 AWARD OF BID FOR "COMPUTERS, PRINTERS, AND RELATED EQUIPMENT" TO NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND REJECTING CERTAIN BIDS RECEIVED Approved the Warrant Register (4.11 300~40) in the amount of $366,482.53. Mayor Houston stated that he felt strongly that the Council should not spend the funds for the production of the City Song. He wanted the $~O00 put toward soccer fields. He asked the rest of the Council to reconsider this expenditure. Mayor Houston made a motion to reject the Recording Agreement forproduction of the Official City Song. The motion died due to lack ora second On motion of Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by majority vote, the Council authorized the Mayor to execute a Recording Agreement for Production of the Official City Song (4.9 ¢00~30); Mayor Houston voted NO. Cm. Howard stated that the CiO, was fronting the money for the recording of the Cio' Song, but that the CiO' would be getting its money back once the recordings were sold Cm. Burton inch'cated that the CiO' of Dublin would be hosting the Dublins of America in the future and the City needed something unusual to promote our CIO'. REQUEST FROM TRI~VALLEY COMMUNITY FUND FOR CONTRIBUTION TO "TRI~VALLEY YOUTH REPORT CARD PROJECT" 7:15 p.m. 5.1 (950-80) Assistant City Manager Rankin stated that the City had received a letter dated September 30, 199¢ from Stephen V. Brooks, Executive Director of the Tri~Valley Community Fund. In the letter, the Tri-Valley Community Fund requested a $2,500 contribution from the City of Dublin to help underwrite a research and analysis program to reveal the current pressing issues and challenges facing the area's teenage population. Steve Brooks, 11 ¢81 Berlin Drive, indicated he is a resident of Dublin and was very pleased to appear before the Council. The Tri~Valley Community Fund wanted to work CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 1996 PAGE 488 as partners with the City. They regularly funded Dublin projects such as Kaleidoscope, the Senior Center, and the computer labs at Dublin High School. Their mission was to raise money to allocate to the arts, education, health and human services. He indicated that Pete Snyder, former Dublin Mayor, was a member of the Board of Directors and current Mayor Guy Houston has provided some helpful input in regard to the project. Mr. Brooks explained about the Tri~Valley Youth Report Card Project. They had been working on the project for over six months. The effort will involve research and analysis of data, as well as conducting interviews. There will be focus groups involving both teenagers and parents. It is anticipated that 800 interviews will be conducted with Tri~ Valley teenagers. The intent is to produce a report which can guide community decision makers in selecting effective solutions to challenges facing the youth population. Financial support is being sought from the five cities in the Tri~Valley, corporate and business sponsors, and service clubs. Pete Snyder, 11497 Silvergate Drive, told the Council that it was his idea to solicit the various cities in the Tri~Valley. The Project would include interviewing over 800 children. He cautioned that the report must not sit on the shelf, but must come back to the community. He indicated that Betsy Chapman and Lucecia Jamison, two teens from Dublin, have helped on the Project. Cm. Moffatt asked if the information would be collectively for the Tri~Valley or broken out by City? Mr. Snyder responded that the information could be broken down any fashion the City wanted. Mr. Brooks concurred that they could generate information for Dublin or San Ramon. Mr. Snyder explained that 70 youths from Dublin would be interviewed. The interviews will be done over the telephone with very pointed questions. Parents will need to give their O.K. to have their children participate. It will not be an easy task and will require a delicate process. Cm. Moffatt asked when the interviews would be done. Mr. Brooks responded in $0 days. Cm. Burton indicated when he first thought about this request, he felt it would be just another study. But having learned more, he hoped there will be programs and suggestions of what cities can and should do. He felt it should be worthwhile. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 1996 PAGE 489 Mr. Snyder stated that in 1983 there was the Valley's Quarter Study. It foresaw that the Valley could have youth problems. He felt some people were in a state of denial. Hopefully, this study will find part of the solution and give direction in addressing problems. Mr. Snyder indicated that the company doing the interviews will have to pay the staff doing the phone interviews, but that they are going to put the information received from the interviews together pro-bon°. Cm. Barnes felt this was great and was an example of the Tri-Valley pooling resources. Mayor Houston stated in the beginning he felt the focus was on the problems. He felt there was a need to look at the success stories as well. There are a lot of good kids and good families in the Valley. He wanted us to learn from them. He encouraged them to not just focus on the problem areas. Mr. Snyder agreed that there was a need to look at the positive, as well as the negative. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the appropriation of $2,500 from Unappropriated Reserves to the Tri~Valley Community Fund for the Tri~Valley Youth RepOrt Card Project. Mayor Houston announced that Item 7.1 would be addressed at this time. PARK ALTERNATIVES FOR SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT 7:39 p.m. 7.1 920~$0 Parks & Community Services Director Lowart presented the Staff Report. On April 8, 1996 the City Council and Planning Commission conducted a Study Session on the Schaefer Ranch Project to address development issues that could affect the physical design and institutional framework of the project. The consensus of the Council and Commission was that a public neighborhood park should be included on site, but some flexibility from' the Parks and Recreation Master Plan policies should be allowed. The proposed development of 500 + acres Schaefer Ranch includes 474 single family homes separated into four distinct neighborhoods ranging from single family attached units to custom estate residential. A small commercial/office complex is also included with large areas of oPen space and recreational amenities. At buildout, the project would have an estimated population of 1,517. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 1996 PAGE 490 The City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan establishes a standard of 5.0 acres of public park per 1,000 residents which is split between neighborhood parks at 1.5 acres and community parks at 3.5 acres per 1,000 population. The proposed project would generate the need for approximately 7.6 acres of parkland (2.3 acres for neighborhood parks and 5.3 acres for community parks). The project would also be subject to the Public Facilities Fee in the amounts set forth in Resolution No. $2~96. If land was dedicated for parks under the Quimby Act Ordinance, the park land component from the Public Facilities Fee would be deducted. At its September 16, 1996 meeting, the Parks & Community Services Commission reviewed five alternative park proposals for the Schaefer Ranch Project. Alternative//4 was the preferred alternative of the Parks & Community Services Commission because of the combination of the sports oriented park removed from the neighborhood and the leisure oriented park adjacent to the neighborhood would serve the residents well. Alternative//4 would provide a soccer field, Little League (t-ball) fields, 2 basketball courts, a sand volleyball area, picnic and barbecue areas, as well as rest-rooms. They also felt the maintenance and responsibility for the lake/detention basin and slopes should be assumed by the Homeowners' Association and not the City. Alternative #5 providing a 4.0 + acre park which could accommodate both the passive, informal recreational activities and the more active sports 'uses was the preferred alternative by Staff. Location of park, access to park, visibility and control, noise standards, sewer access, and maintenance costs were additional reasons to support this alternative. It has been suggested that the developer dedicate the land for the park(s) and construct the park(s) in return for credit against the Public Facilities Fees. The estimated Public Facilities Fees for this project are $3,555,000. Of this amount, $2,757,732 is allocated for park land acquisition and park improvements. If the preferred alternative of the developer and the City Council is in excess of 7.6 + acres, credit should not be given for the park land value and development costs in excess of the Public Facilities Fee ~ Parks. If the value of the park improvements (in excess of the developer's park requirement) are credited against these fees~ the City's General Fund will need to absorb the difference. Mayor Houston asked how big Mape Memorial Park was to give some perspective. Ms. Lowart responded 3 acres, but the topography with this site for Alternative #4 is steep and would need extensive regrading. The park would not be within the development. Dublin Boulevard would break off the homes from the park. Staff felt access to the park could be a problem. Most people would have to come via cars. There was also a potential problem of the park being a secure area. With the large berms CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 1996 PAGE 491 surrounding the park, the Police Department felt strongly that sight distance will be a hindrance. It will require the police to get out of the patrol car to check the park. There is also the freeway noise. Sewerage will need to be stored in holding tanks and pumped out. Only 4 acres of the park will be.able to be developed. Staff preferred Alternative #5. This alternative would allow a 4 acre site within the development. There would be the loss of five residential lots and it would not quite meet the standards of the Parks Master Plan, but the park would accommodate a number of uses. Access would be easy; visibility would not be a problem as it would be all one level; there would be no police patrol problem; there would be neighborhood watch; and there was no sewer problem. If the Council choose Alternative #4, Police suggested that the park be all one level and not have the different levels as proposed. There would be the need for more lighting to help make the park more secure. Police also suggested the use of a remote control camera that would film the park and be looked at later. Staff also recommended that the toilets be relocated to the tot lot/activity area. Installation of gates at the entrances that could be closed at night, but that the police could activate was a suggestion. Fencing the whole park would also help secure the area. A letter from Kaufman & Broad dated October 10, 1996 had been received too late to be included in the Agenda Statement. This letter urged the selection of Alternative #4. Cm. Moffatt asked if the cost of moving dirt or the toilets was incorporated in the fees presented in the Staff Report. Ms. Lowart responded that the fees were based on costs incurred in construction of other parks. The cost of the above suggestions were over and above the costs presented in the Staff Report. Cm. Moffatt asked if the developer could build the park themselves and lessen the costs. Ms. Lowart answered yes. Cm. Burton asked about lighting for the soccer field. Ms. Lowart indicated that the lighting was to luminate the park and not for use of soccer field at night. Cm. Burton asked if the developers would compensate the City if there was only a 4 acre park. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 1996 PAGE 492 Ms. Lowart stated the developer would pay fees for the balance which would be used to develop other areas. Ms. Ix>wart indicated there were site constraints due to the topography. Staff wanted to get the most out of the park site. There was open space, but open space does not meet the City's guidelines so the developer would not be given credit for the open space area. Staff was recommending that the lake be maintained by the Homeowners Association. The lake would not be used by someone outside the development. Cm. Burton asked what kind of water would be in the lake. Ms. Ix>wart responded the lake was really a detention basin which would collect storm water mn-off. It would be nice fresh rain run-off during the rainy season, but at other times the amount of water would be reduced. Cm. Burton asked if it could be used for swimming and boating. Mr. Lowart answered if they wanted to use it that way, there would be a need to look at it more. Mayor Houston indicated the difference in the maintenance cost was due to the fact that Alternative #4 was really two parks versus one park in Alternative #5. Jim Parsons, W/A Design Resources, Inc., asked the Council to focus on Alternative #4. When the Joint Study Session had been held, there was not a park design. He stated that six hours had been spent at the Parks & Community Services Commission going over the park alternatives. The Parks & Community Services Commission voted 5 to 0 to support Alternative #4. This provided a 6.4 acre sports oriented park with a $ acre park in the middle of the development. They had intentionally separated the parks. Large berms had been created to help absorb the noise from the freeway. The berms would be gentler at the entrance. The entire field could be seen at the entrance. The picnic area was elevated 6 feet above the soccer field. The basketball courts would be elevated 5 feet above the playing field. There would be three ranchettes that would be elevated and be able to look down on the park. The last thing the developer wanted to do was to create an unsafe park. The sports park had been designed as an auto oriented park. In regard to the sewer problem, initially the park did not have bathrooms. He stated the bathrooms could be moved closed to the streets or closer to the tot lot. The second park was meant to be a leisure oriented park. The Parks & Community Services commission requested a larger park so the lake was moved to the north to give the park $ flat acres. Mayor Houston asked Mr. Parsons to address the lake. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING' October 15, 1996 PAGE 493 Mr. Parsons indicated that there were two functions of the lake, One was a detention basin and the second was as a visual amenity. He stated it was common to have detention basins as lakes. Around the lake, it would be 25 feet flat for the maintenance road and for residents to jog or take a Sunday stroll. They wanted to have two separate parks. He stated that Alternative # 5 was unacceptable to them. They wanted to make the park inviting and safe. Bill Font stated that fees had been discussed. Schaefer Developers will pay the differential, which is about $790,000 for the community facility fees to the City. That would be the difference between the $:3.5 million and the credit for the land they are dedicating. But they wanted to reserve the right if other new developments utilize these facilities and generated fees, consideration to have those fees credited against their development in the future be given to them. Schaefer will pay the fee as they develop, but if something develops in the City they would like reimbursement mechanisms where other developers will pay a portion of their fees. Mr. Parsons stated the parks would be constructed by the developer and would be a "turn~key" finished park given to the City ready to be used. Eric N. Swalwell, 11404 Betlen Drive, indicated he was the president of the' Dublin Soccer League. He read a letter he drafted to the Council. He felt the park at Schaefer Ranch would help with the existing needs of the soccer/little league groups. He stated that the soccer board had looked at the plans. He felt the developer had a positive attitude. Alternative #4 was supported by the DSL Board. George Zika was concerned that Alternative #4 annual maintenance costs were twice as much as Alternative #5. He was also concerned about the homeowner association taking care of the lake. He stated that Homeowner Associations did not have a good record in Dublin. He proposed an assessment district be formed so that the City could take care of the lake. He felt the security problem could be dealt with by a chain link fence and remote control cameras. He did not believe credit should be allowed for the public facility fee. He reminded the Council that they had promised that any new development would not cost the existing residents. He felt if they wanted Alternative #4, they should kick in the extra money needed. Jeff Chapman, 11579 Circle Way, stated he was a member of the Parks & Community Services Commission. He concurred that the Parks & Community Services Commission spent a solid six hours reviewing the park alternatives. He felt Alternative #4 gave the "most bang for the buck." The homeowners would get their neighborhood Park and the community would get a pa,rk that was accessible. As to what to put in the parks, he did not think that needed to be discussed as yet. He.indicated that the vote by the Parks & Community Services had been 6 to O. The Commission was happy with what they came up with. He felt the City and the developer should be happy, too. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 1996 PAGE 494 Cm. Burton asked if the Parks & Community Services Commission discussed the option of future developers in that area. Mr. Chapman did not recall any lengthy discussion on that issue. Tom Ford, 7262 Tina Place, felt there was a shortage of park acreages in the City of Dublin. He was looking for the maximum park. He supported Alternative. 84. He stated that Briarhill had no neighborhood park and no acreage for one. He felt this would help keep pace with the needs of that area. He indicated fees from Hansen Hill and Donlon Developments should be coming in so there should be abundant money. Bob Fasulkey, 7776 Topez Circle, indicated he was a member of the Parks & Community Services Commission. He stated the Parks & Community Services Commission spent six hours going over Alternatives 84 & 85. The Commission unanimously supported Alternative 84. Alternative 85 did not meet the minimum standards of the Quimby Act. He wanted to emphasize that a great deal of effort had gone into reviewing the alternatives. Frank Ford, 7259 Tina Place, felt the Community needed as much park space as it can get for the youth. Alternative #4 was the one he supported. He indicated there was a need for these parks in that area. Cm. Howard asked why the developer said Alternative 8 5 was unacceptable. Mr. Parsons responded that if the soccer fields were moved as in Alternative #5, it would generate noise in the neighborhood, as well as creating more traffic in the neighborhood. They wanted the placement of the park to be where it was easily accessible for everyone and they had provided for parking on the site. Mayor Houston agreed that if the park was close and accessible, then there would be complaints of lights and noise. He asked Mr. Parsons to expand on Mr. Zika's concern of maintenance of the lake. Mr. Parsons responded that the State Department of Real Estate regulates Homeowner Associations. The Homeowners Associations have to go through hoops to qualify and they are reviewed. Reserve accounts are set-up. This would be a 3 acre surface lake. There would be 3 1/2 ft of water in the winter. There would be cattails around the edge with a management program created for the lake. Mayor Houston asked him to address the issue of credits. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 1996 PAGE 495 Mr. Parsons indicated they had not gotten into the discussion of costs. The issue was to select the best location for the parks. Rob Yohai, president of Schaefer Heights,. stated they did not have a desire to escape the facility fees. They were just trying to "cap" their park credit. Since they would be overdedicating, they wanted to recoup from any new development that occurred. They intended to pay the facility fees. They wanted to create "turn~key" parks for the City. Mayor Houston indicated the cost was higher because the amount of space was more. Ms. Lowart stated there were no other projects planned out there. The fees for Donlon and Hansen Hill have already been paid. Mayor Houston asked if the park could be redesigned to have it all on the same level. Mr. Parsons responded that they could go through these one by one or they could go back to the Parks and Community Services Commission. He did not feel the fence was a good idea. Mayor Houston felt it was important that the Council address these issues. Cm. Burton stated that the location of the toilets would take more study. He felt it should go back to the Parks & Community Services Commission in regard to the layout of the park. He agreed the Council should decide whether it was to be Alternative #4 or #5, how the fees would be addressed, and whether an assessment district should be formed. Mayor Houston asked the Council to give an overall view and let the finer points go back to Parks & Community Services Commission. He was in favor of Alternative #4. He did not want to have fences and video cameras around the park. He wanted an inviting park for the residents. Cm. Barnes indicated she had come to the meeting favoring Alternative # 5. It would take $7¢0,000 to maintain the area. This would take money away from the library. She was concerned it was so close to the freeway and would have the noise. Tot lots at one end and toilets at the other end of the park was unacceptable as any mother or grandmother knew. Where would the money come from for the annual maintenance costs? Cm. Burton stated Alternative #4 was giving twice as much park so there would be twice as much to maintain. He was in favor of Alternative #4. But if the Council chooses Alternative #4, there would be 1.18 acres more than met the standards. He was in favor of giving them that much back. He felt it would be a community park. He favored an assessment on the lake so it did not become a cess pool. The noise of.the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 1996 PAGE 496 Sports ground was not appropriate for the neighborhood. He agreed with offsetting fees for new developers. Ms. Ix>wart indicated that although the amount of the two parks was 6.4 and $ acres, realistically, there was only 4 acres that was developable at the 6.4 site plus the 3 acres for the neighborhood park made it 7 acres. Mayor Houston stated if the soccer field was built somewhere else in the City, it would still need to be maintained. Cm. Moffatt questioned the public facility fee and why the difference of $1 million. Was it less land? He asked how the annual maintenance costs would be financed over the years. Would it be an assessment district? Ms. Ix)wart stated the lake was not a public amenity so the City would not be responsible for maintaining it. Mr. Ambrose indicated that if an assessment district was established, there could be problems if Proposition 218 passed. Cm. Howard had been looking at Alternative # 5 but due to little parking and the noise problem, she liked the location of Alternative//4. Cm. Barnes felt the City should not give up any money. Mayor Houston stated the developer would pay less fees because they Were willing to build the parks. Cm. Barnes asked how much the City would get? Mayor Houston responded the City would get the parks plus $790,000 from the developer. Cm. Burton asked if there was a consensus that the developer get a credit for excess amount of park if other development came in. Cm. Barnes was concerned that the library and other community services would be short changed. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved Alternative # 4 which was the accepted recommendation of the Parks & Community Services Commission, directed Staff to bring back to the Council a report that studies the results or consequences of offsetting fees by future developers, and agreed that the Parks & Community Services Commission would handle the design of the parks. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 1996 PAGE 497 Mr. Ambrose asked if the Council wanted to have the design of the parks brought back to the Council. He explained that normally for a public park, the design would be brought back to the Council, but this was going to be a turn~key park so it was different. Cm. Burton stated the Council wanted to see the design of the parks. Mayor Houston called for a 5 minute break at 9:14 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:24 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 9:24 p.m. 6.1 (420-$0) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Community Development Director Eddie Peabody indicated that Staff had been working on this item to refine the land use and the circulation for the past six months. He thanked Pat Cashman and Stuart Cooke of the Alameda County Staff for their input. Associate Planner Jeri Ram presented the Staff Report. She indicated that this Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and General Plan Amendment will modify maps and text that will result in a better parcel configuration for development in the area. She showed slides comparing the existing uses vs. the proposed changes. More specifically, it would allow for combined Industrial/Office uses near Gleason Drive, allow residential development near Gleason Drive and create a new site for a multi-family development between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. Also, Hacienda Drive will be straightened and connected at Gleason Drive into a "T" intersection. The Planning Commission heard this item at a public hearing on September 24, 1996 and unanimously recommended approval of the Project. A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a SO-day public review and comment period on August 27, 1996. Only one comment letter was received from Beth Stone, East Bay Regional Parks District, requesting that the proposed regional trails (one regional trail along the Tassajara Creek corridor, and a local connection from the creek CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 1996 ~ PAGE 498 corridor through the project site along the north Side of Dublin Boulevard in a westerly direction) be clearly shown in the final document for this project. She also requested that EBRPD be contacted during the design and implementation phase of the project so that they may be involved in the review process. As a result of the Applicant's requested amendments, Staff recommended two new policies be added to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan in relation to land use compatibility and environmental assessment. The first policy deals with the Alameda County Sheriff's firearms ranges. Before the construction of any of the residential units within 400 feet of Gleason Drive by any developer, the Alameda County Sheriff's firearms ranges shall be relocated or reconstructed by that developer for appropriate sound and public safety mitigation to the satisfaction of the Sheriff. Any developer seeking building permits on any residential dwelling unit north of Central Parkway shall fence the Sheriff's firearms ranges to the satisfaction of the Sheriff for public safety purposes prior to the issuance of building permits. The second policy deals with hazardous materials on the property. Prior to the issuance of building permits for site-specific developments, environmental site assessments shall be made available to the Community Development Director with appropriate documentation that all recommended remediation actions have been completed. The Applicant proposed a revision to the future alignment'of Hacienda Drive depicted in the EDSP changing Hacienda Drive north of Central Parkway to a "T" intersection with Gleason Drive. The Public Works Department concurred that the future alignment reflected a preferable alignment over the current alignment in the Specific Plan. Cm. Burton asked if there would still be industrial/warehouse use where the changes were made? Ms. Ram indicated Staff was still working on the uses. The City has received an application which will need office/warehouse zoning. Cm. Burton questioned where the semi-trucks would be routed in relation to the houses? Ms. Ram responded that development would take place in two stages and there would be a 20 to $0 ft. set~back. Cm. Burton expressed concern that semi-trucks could shake the foundation of houses. He wanted the amount of weight on the roads to be limited. Pat Cashman, Alameda County Surplus Property Manager, stated this was an exciting day. There was lots of construction underway. Kaufman & Broad have begun the long building process. Staff has been working with him over the last six months on refinement. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 1996 PAGE 499 Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. Cm. Burton felt it was pretty clear cut and a lot of time had been spent refining.. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 123 - 96 and ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION & MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR PA 96-020 RESOLUTION NO. 124 - 96 APPROVING THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PA 96-020 PUBLIC HEARING REALIGNMENT OF THE ESTABLISHED RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR A NEW ROAD PARALLEL TO AND SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN GOLDEN GATE DRIVE AND REGIONAL STREET (PARALLEL ROAD) 9:40 p.m. 6.2 (670-40) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Public Works Director Lee Thompson indicated that the City had received a letter from one of the affected property owner's attorney requesting a continuance until November 4, 1996. Staff did not feel the item was time sensitive and would be able to set-up a meeting next week to meet with the affected property owners. Mayor Houston continued the public hearing until November 4, 1996. PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF DUBLIN FIREARMS ORDINANCE 9:43 p.m. 6.3 (585-80) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 1996 PAGE 500 Associate Planner Tasha Huston presented the Staff Report. At its August 13, 1996 meeting, the City Council reviewed a draft Ordinance requiring firearms sales in residential districts to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. After discussion, the Council directed the Ordinance be reviewed by the Planning Commission and considered for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The draft Ordinance was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its September 24, 1996 meeting. After deliberating, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to take no action on the proposed Ordinance. The proposed Ordinance includes a definition of Firearm Sales, would be added to a listing of the uses which are considered Conditional Uses requiring a Planning Commission approval, and a clause intended to "grandfather" existing Firearms Sales businesses in residential areas in the City. Cm. Moffatt thought that our home occupancy ordinance would not allow sale of guns from the home. To be sold from the home, the guns would need to be made in the home and then they could be sold from the home. Ms. Huston indicated that firearms would fall under a Conditional Use Permit rather than the Home Occupancy Guidelines. Mayor Houston felt under the current ordinanc% a resident could not maintain guns for sale in their home, but that the customer would have to place an order for the gun. Cm. Moffatt expressed concern that weapons were being stored for sale. He felt the neighbors should be notified of this fact. Cm. Burton asked if Staff had verified that there have been no problems with gun dealers in the neighborhood. Ms. Huston responded that it was her understanding that the City has not received any complaints. John R. Wagner, 8342 Mulberry Place, indicated that this was the fifth time he had been here about this issue. He felt the Planning Commission had done a thorough job and they felt there was not a problem. There was nothing to fix. He was sorry Cm. Moffatt had had the experience with the gun, but the weapon could have been a club or knife rather than a gun. He would like to see violence eliminated. In Switzerland, residents carry weapons home and there is very little crime in Switzerland. He felt safer with someone living next door with a gun rather than someone selling Amway. He felt it should be noted that the two people at the other meeting who spoke in favor of the ordinance were from out of the area. He felt this ordinance would take away his constitutional rights. States that have permits to carry guns have dropped in crime rates. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 1996 PAGE 501 Scot Marburger, 7581 Frederiksen Lane, stated he runs a small gun business out of his home in Dublin. He felt Cm. Moffatt's main concern was for public safety and letting the neighbors know about the gun business. In order for someone to sell guns, that person goes through a criminal and mental background check at the Federal level every three years. On the State level, there are checks on a yearly basis. The seller needs to keep detailed records to whom they are selling the weapons. He questioned why a CUP would be needed. Others work out of their home without the need of a CUP. He has to maintain four licenses to sell guns and has to go through on~site inspections. The guns are stored in a fireproof vault. Persons buying guns are submitted to a background check that takes 15 to 20 days. He felt the requirement of a CUP was very subjective. If the Planning Commission says OK, the CUP is issued. If the Planning Commission says no, then the CUP would be denied. He discovered that the grandfather clause only pertained as long as he lived at where he is living now. If he moved, he will need to get the CUP. With the cost of $300 license for 3 years and $90/year from the Department of Justice, it is getting very expensive. He urged the Council to realize that selling guns is already controlled in this City at the Federal and State levels. He urged the Council not to pursue this Ordinance. Steve Saris, 8074 Crossridge Road, felt notifying the neighbors could be a double edge sword. It could target the home. Children are attracted to firearms. He stated there were nine different types of licenses that deal with guns. He had to have a collector's license just for collecting guns. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. Cm. Burton stated he has guns. A. lot of people have guns, but no one is bothering them. He felt this was a lot of nothing. He felt it could cause problems with enforcing the ordinance. He agreed with the Planning Commission and felt the issue should be set aside. Cm. Barnes stated she was the most anti-gun person she knew. But she felt if the Council singled out one type of business, they could be exposing themselves to problems. Although she was against guns, she did not think this was the answer. Cm. Howard said she went along with the Planning Commission. Cm. Burton made a motion to agree with the Planning Commission to take no action in regard to having a firearms ordinance. Mayor Houston stated there was no need for a motion since no action was to be taken. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 1996 PAGE 502 PROPOSED NEW AREA CODE ALTERNATIVES 10:I0 p.m. 8.1 1010-20 Assistant City Manager Paul Rankin presented the Staff Report. Telecommunication providers have been impacted by the increasing use of equipment which requires connection to the telephone system. Growth in cellular telephone and pager users; computer modem connections, including ATM's and retail check-out counter automated payment systems; and increases in residential customers selecting a second line have affected the growth in the number of telephone numbers assigned. A single Area Code has a capacity of approximately 7.9 million numbers. The industry has begun the process of devising a plan for a new Area Code for the existing 510 Area and is seeking public comment on the proposed alternatives. Due to the fact that there is a definite need for a new area code to properly service this region in the future, the industry planning group is attempting to develop a plan for submittal to the PUC by November 1996. It is anticipated that the earliest that the new Area Code could be operational is April 1998. There were three alternatives being presented as part of the Public Input Process. Alternate 2 has been withdrawn by the Industry. Alternate 1 is described as the North/South split with the City of Dublin being combined with Contra Costa County to form the area to receive a new Area Code. This would result in the City of Pleasanton and Livermore retaining the 510 Area Code along the area from Albany to Fremont. Alternative 3 incorporates Contra Costa County and Eastern Alameda County. This would keep the Tri-Valley cities intact under the same area code and appears to be the preferred Alternative. Cm. Barnes stated she wanted all of Dublin to be under one area code. Mayor Houston asked how much input did the Council have? Mr. Rankin indicated that Schaefer Ranch would probably not be in the same area code. Cm. Moffatt asked what happened to cellular phones? What would their prefix be? Mr. Rankin responded that he did not know the answer. Mayor Houston wanted a letter sent indicating that the Council wanted Dublin and all Dublin's sphere to be in one area code. This would be alternate #$, but also keep Western and Eastern Dublin together. On motion by Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorize the Mayor to execute the letter on behalf of the City requesting that all of Dublin's sphere be in one area code. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 1996 PAGE 503 OTHER BUSINESS New Directional Arrow on Dublin Boulevard (820-20) Cm. Howard wanted to thank Staff for the new directional arrow on Dublin Boulevard to indicate the left turn by Bank of America. Informational City Card (150-1 O) Cm. Moffatt indicated that some cities are using a small informational card that has the names and phone numbers of the City Council and the City Manager. These cards are distributed by City personnel who are out in the community to members of the community so they will know who to call and where to call. Cm. Burton felt it was a reasonable idea. Use of Internet (610-05) Cm. Moffatt sugg~ested the City use the Internet. He also would like to see Minutes of the City Council meetings put on line. Selling Ci_ty Song Tapes (120-50) Cm. Barnes indicated that although the Mayor would rather not spend $5,000 on the City Song, but see the money go to the youth, she felt the youth groups could sell the City Song Tapes as a way to raise money for their organizations. Cm. Howard stated that the Library also wanted to sell the tapes. Earthquake Insurance Costs (520-1 O) Mayor Houston stated that an article in the SatUrday newspaper showed a disparity over what the residents of Dublin will pay for earthquake insurance over what the residents CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 1996 PAGE 504 of San Ramon will pay. Dublin residents pay $5.70/$1,000 while San Ramon pays $1 .$0/$1,000. Both cities are on the same fault line. Cm. Barnes asked if it was the County line that made the difference? Mayor Houston responded that the article insisted that the rates are based on extensive studies using scientific data and other research. But Livermore was less expensive than Dublin. He did not want to increase San Ramon's rates, but he wanted Staff to find out why there is such a big difference. League of California Cities Lobbying for Prop 218. (140~20) Mayor Houston indicated he had received a letter from Apply Valley objecting to the League of California Cities lobbying for Prop 218. They were questioning a public agency lobbying for or against any proposition. They and he did not feel it was an appropriate use of funds. Cm. Moffatt responded that the League has been very careful not to lobby. Usually the League will give an analysis to alert the people on what a bill is about. It is suppose to be informational and not taking a stand for or against any issue. Mayor Houston said he would accept that explanation. Cm. Barnes indicated that both meetings of the League that she had attended, participants were cautioned not to give an opinion but to only give facts. Garbage Can Complaint (810-20) Mayor Houston stated he has received a complaint in regard to garbage cans not being put out of sight. Mr. Rankin responded that the current ordinance does not require that the garbage cans be put behind a fence. Garbage cans can be left next to the garage. Election Signs (630-20) Cm. Barnes indicated she had been approached by a gentleman who is requesting that all banners and signs from the election be taken down the day after the election. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 1996 PAGE 505 Oktoberfest at Camp Parks (I 30-80) Cm. Burton announced that an Oktoberfest Celebration will be held at Camp Parks from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. this Saturday. He felt it would be a great place for kids. CLOSED SESSION 10:29p.m. 10.1 (640-30) 10.2 (640-30) The Council recessed to a closed session: 1) Public Employee Performance Evaluation Pursuant to Government Code Section 5495 7 Title: City Manager; and 2) to confer with Legal Counsel - anticipated litigation - initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9 - one potential case. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION Mayor Houston announced that no action was taken in the closed session. ADJOURNMENT 11.1 There being .no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:I5 p.m. · Minutes prepared by Sandie Hart, Secretary. Deputy City Cler'E CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 1996 PAGE 506