Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-20-2004 Adopted CC MinCLOSED SESSION A closed session was held at 6:30 p.m., regarding: 1. Conference with Legal Counsel- EXISTING LrFIGATION- Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9. Name of Case: Robert M. Bischoff, Michael E. Bischoff v. City of Dublin, Animal Control - Superior Court of the County of Alameda Case No. VG0312915I 2. Conference with Legal Counsel- ANTICIPATED LITIGATION significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) (ONE potential case) - Facts and Circumstances: Government Code Section 54956.9(b)($)(A). A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, April 20, 2004, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers McCormick, Oravetz, Sbranti, Zika and Mayor Lockhart. ABSENT: None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the Council, Staff and those present. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTION Mayor Lockhart advised that there was no reportable action. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 201 ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS TO CITY FROM ST. PATRICK'S DAY SPONSORS 3. I (150-70) This item was pulled from the agenda. It will be rescheduled in the future. 7:06 p.m. Mary Beth Acuff, San Ramon Road, addressed the Council related to the USA Patriot Act. They approached City Councils in the area several months ago related to legislation in Washington and thanks to Cm. McCormick they got a resolution passed by this City Council and it was the first one passed in the Tri-Valley. Her phrasing is the basis for all those passed. We are solidly in the camp of those millions of Americans concerned that the U. S. Constitution not be usurped by contemporary legislation. They would like to have a community forum. Many people are not sure why this should be of concern to ordinary folks. A forum will take place next Wednesday, April 28t~ in thc Little Theater at Las Positas College at 7:30 p.m. You can ask whatever questions you may have on the USA Patriot Act. 7:09 p.m. Laura Leitner, Mahogany Street, addressed the Council related to Ordinance No.'s I0 and 11 ~04, voted on on April 6t~. She stated she is not usually a NIMBY, but IKEA will have such a drastic effect on traffic flow. They have put together a petition and will begin circulating it soon. She asked for an open mind when they return with signatures. 7:11 p.m. Ira Leitner, MahOgany Street, stated he has great respect for everybody. He thanked Cm. Oravetz for starting this movement. They want to get the 1400-1500 people to sign the petition because they feel 1-580 cannot support one more car. They respect IKEA and this has nothing to do with this company. He is a network engineer and he loves living in Dublin. The traffic situation is beyond Dublin and has to be addressed at all levels of government. IKEA will make a terrible situation even worse. He stated they will be doing everything they can to stop this. VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 202 7:13 p.m. Swati Chopra, Mahogany Street, who filled out a speaker request form, when called upon, indicated he did not wish to speak. Sanjeev Chopra, Mahosany Street, who filled out a speaker request form, when called upon, indicated she did not wish to speak. 7:14 p.m. Ann Crawford, Squirrel Creek Circle, stated she is a 2 5 year resident of Dublin has a lot at stake in Dublin. They voted for Dublin to become a City. She has also been asleep and didn't realize what is $oin$ on. We don't need a traffic report to tell us what the roads are like. This is nothing against II(EA. She will support the petition. She stated it recently took them one hour drivin$ from Castro Valley to Livermore. IKEA will bring in a lot of people. Her quality of life is such that she doesn't desire to have this. She wants to enjoy the clean air. At the very least, she asked that the City please reconsider the height of thc si~n, which is completely unacceptable in her view. 7:17 p.m. Tamara Ficarra, Applesate Way, stated she knows the Council has voted for IKEA, but also knows the roads are very very busy. She doesn't like the crowds and settin$ stuck there. Do we need to have this type of business in our community?. She isn't takin$ BART to pick up furniture. We also didn't mention the traffic coming from Stock, on, Modesto, Tracy and Manteca. She is opposed to buildin$ this. CONSENT CALENDAR 7:18 p.m. Items 4.1 through 4.14 Vm. Zika stated he would abstain from voting on the March 20, 2004 special meeting minutes. Mayor Lockhart pulled Items 4.5 and 4.6. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 203 On motion of Cm. Sbranfi, seconded by Vm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved (4.1) Minutes of Special Meeting of April 6th, and Regular Meeting of April 6, 2004; Adopted (4.2 600~60) RESOLUTION NO. 60 - 04 APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR THE TASSAJARA CREEK NORTH (SOMERSET LANE) AND TASSAJARA CREEK SOUTH (MAYMONT LANE) BRIDGES ASSOCIATED WITH TRACT 7414, TASSAJARA CREEK PHASE 3 (GHC ROXBURY, LLC - A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY) Adopted (4.$ 600~30) RESOLUTION NO. 61 - 04 ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR SCARLETT DRIVE AND APPROVAL OF REGULATORY TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (SONIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC) Approved (4.4 600-35) Budget Change of $7500 from Category 2 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 62- 04 AWARDING CONTRACT 04-02 - TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADE DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND SCARLETT DRIVE TO STEINY AND COMPANY, INC. ($38,636) Mayor Zockhart pulled Items 4.5 and 4.0 which extend the Emeframes for the Tract Developer Agreement for Tassajara Creek, Phase I and for Phase II and asked what pa~s ~re bein~ extended. Public Works Director Melissa Moron stated both extensions are to ensure that all of the impFovements am complete and that the rest of the homes are constructed. Before we CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 204 accept public improvements, ail construcEon ~raffic must t~ off the s~reets and we accept p~stine improvements. On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted (4.5 600~60) RESOLUTION NO. 63- 04 APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE TRACT DEVELOPER AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 7075 (TASSAJARA CREEK PHASE I BY GHC INVESTMENTS, LLC) and adopted (4.6 600-60) RESOLUTION NO. 64 - 04 APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE TRACT DEVELOPER AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 7279 (TASSAJARA CREEK, PHASE !1, BY GHC INVESTMENTS, LLC) Authorized (4.7 600-35) Staff to solicit bids for Contract 04-01, Traffic Signal at Dublin Boulevard and Inspiration Drive; Approved (4.8 600~35) Budget Change of $7,000 from the General Fund and authorized Staff to advertise for bids for Contract 04~06, 2003~04 Annual Street Overlay Program; Received (4.9 320-30) City Treasurer's Investment Report for 3~a Quarter of FY 2003~ 04, indicating that the City's investment portfolio totals $951648,248 (market value), with funds as of March 31, 2004 invested at an average yield of 2.133%; Received (4.10 330-50) Financial Reports for the Month of March 2004; CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 205 Accepted (4.11 600~35) improvements for Contract 03~08, Alamo Creek Bike Path- Amador Valley Boulevard to North City Limits and authorized the release of retention after 35 days if there are no subcontractor claims; Approved (4.12 600-35) Contract 0 I- I 2 Change Orders 35, 38 and 39 and accepted improvements for I~ 580/Tassajara Road Interchange Improvement Project, approved release of retention after 35 days if there are no subcontractor claims, and approved a Budget Change in the amount of $55,630.14; Adopted (4.13 600- 30) RESOLUTION NO. 65- 04 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ZAHN GROUP FOR CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE SHANNON COMMUNITY CENTER and approved a Budget Change; Approved (4.14 300~40) the Warrant Register in the amount of $908,435.06; On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Cm. Oravetz (Vm. Zika abstained), and by majority vote, the Council approved (4.. 1) Minutes of Special Meeting of March 20, 2004. PUBLIC HEARING AMB PROPERTIES, WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) AND PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION THAT COUNCIL APPROVE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ,(DA) PA 02-003 7:22 p.m. 6.1 (410-30/600-60) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Janet Harbin presented the Staff Report. The City Council will consider an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review for a transit village at 6700 Golden Gate Drive, proposed by AMB Property, and to appeal the Planning Commission's recommendation to Council to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 206 Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan and Development Agreement for the transit village. On March 4, 2004, the law firm of Adams Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo, representing the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union Local 595, Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 104, and the Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 342, submitted a Letter of Appeal appealing the February 24, 2004 Planning Commission approval of the Site Development Review and the Tentative Parcel Map for the AMB Properties project and the Planning Commission's recommendations of approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan, and the Development Agreement to the City Council. The Letter of Appeal includes a second letter, also dated March 4, 2004, consisting of 36 pages plus 7 attachments. The arguments supporting the appeal are voluminous, but there appears to be two grounds for the appeal. The first ground is summarized by the Appellant as: "the Citfs failure to comply with CEQA by relying on an inadequate ISND, instead of prepmin$ an environmental impact repo~ (EIFO." The Appellant further states: "substan~'al evidence in the record suppo~s a fair arXument that the project will have sixnificant environmental impacts on traffic, public health, air quality, water quality, and other The Appellant's second ground for the appeal is that the City allegedly failed to follow. procedural requirements by not sending the proposed negative declaration to the State Clearinghouse and providing a SO-day comment period. The Appellant asks the Council to uphold the appeal, withdraw the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration and prepare a draft £IR for the project. In addition to the Letter of Appeal, the Appellant submitted late comments on the MND for the project after the public review period was over, and in response to Staff's Responses. Staff advised that the Appellant's first argument is addressed in: 1) this Agenda Statement; 2) the Agenda Statement for Item {5.2; $) the Mitigated Negative Declaration; 4) the February 10, 2004 Responses to Comments Matrix; and 5) the Responses to Late Comments on MND dated April 20, 2004. The Appellant's second argument is addressed in: '1) this Agenda Statement; 2) the Agenda Statement for Item {5.2; $) the MND; 4) the February I0, 2004 Responses to Comments Matrix (Responses Number 2 and ${5); and 5) the Responses to Late Comments on MND dated ..April 20, 2004. ' cousc [ m uX s ' VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 207 In summary, Staff stated the grounds for the appeal are that the City failed to comply with CEQA by relying on an inadequate Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and, instead, should have prepared an EI1L The Appellant also argues that the City failed to follow procedural requirements of CEQA by not submitting the Initial Study/MND to the State Clearinghouse and providing a 30~day comment period. Staff believes it is appropriate for the City Council to adopt the MND for the Project and find that no subsequent EIR was required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and that the Project would have no significant impacts because it includes programs, standards and improvements required through the West Dublin BART Specific Plan and through the City's standard conditions of approval. The grounds for adoption of the MND are set forth in the Agenda Statement for this item and the Agenda Statement for Item 6.2. Submission of the MND to the State Clearinghouse was not required. Staff therefore recommended that the Council affirm the Planning Commission's approval of the Tentative Parcel Map and Site Development Review, find the Planning Commission Resolutions recommending Council approval of the MND, PD Rezoning and Development Agreement are not appealable and deny the appeal. Tanya Gulesserian, Attorney with Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, stated she was representing the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595, Sheet Metal Workers Union Local I04 and the Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 342, whose members reside, recreate and work in the City of Dublin. She stated she would like to reserve a few moments after the applicant's presentation to clarify any information necessary. The [;IR process is the legally mandated process of reviewing when fair arguments have been made that there will be significant impacts on the community. Staff's presentation did not go into why the EIR is not required in this case. Staff has stated opinion that EIR has already been done; however, no EIR has been done for the Dublin Transit Center project as required under CEQA. She discussed the legal requirements. The Negative Declaration that was prepared in 2000 was done on 3 Specific Plans in Dublin. This is the same scenario that courts are clear that project reviews are required. Substantial evidence standard was discussed. Sierra Club vs. County of Sonoma cited. The project will result in significant traffic, air quality, water quality, public health and numerous other resources which they detailed in their comment letter. Mitigation proposed is unenforceable, doesn't exist in conditions of approval, or is nonsensical. Staff did not analyze the impacts on the retail component, or a typical office building. They used traffic counts for a typical corporate headquarters building. This would be a single tenant building. Staff never analyzed traffic during construction. There was failure to analyze worst case hypothetical scenario. CEQA requires the city to look at worst case traffic impacts from the project. She discussed impacts with and withoul BART station..Staff admits that the project will contribute t9 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 208 unacceptable traffic level impacts. Their own traffic expert finds that level F will be at intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. Triple turn lanes were suggested in order to approve to level D. This is highly radical and there is no discussion on whether this would actually be done. The City Council's job is to ensure that significant impacts will be mitigated to less than significant level before you approve a project. Parking was discussed. This plan doesn't provide on site parking to meet current City standards. Public Health- experts performed health risk assessments. Risk levels exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District acceptable levels. Impacts have not been analyzed by Staff for this project. Measures were suggested which could reduce impacts. Hydrology, flooding and water quality impacts were discussed. Basement construction requires further analysis. They have submitted evidence with assistance from technical experts. Traffic - conditions of approval state mitigation measures in other documents should be incorporated here to reduce impacts. Extension of St. Patrick Way is spelled out and is clear in the Development Agreement. The fee hasn't been identified and the timing of improvements hasn't been identified. If there are conflicts, it states that the Development Agreement shall prevail. It is unclear as to what mitigation measures will actually be incorporated. There is no clear example that a clear argument has been made that this project may have significant impacts. You only need this under CEQA. She urged the City Council to uphold the appeal. Vm. Zika discussed the comment about small retail requiring 30 additional trips and asked at what point CEQA is triggered? Ms. Gulesserian responded she felt one additional trip would contribute to significance which we haven't analyzed. Vm. Zika asked about the different traffic figures for corporate versus regular office building. How significant is that? Do we have any data or is this just a conclusion? Ms. Gulesserian stated numbers were provided showing the different counts. Vm. Zika discussed the lack of adequate parking comment. Housing and retail establishments close to a transit center provide that you have less than the usual required number of parking spaces because people .will walk to and from the transit center to services and homes, etc. He asked if they are against high density growth which is smart growth? Ms. Gulesserian stated this assumes the BART station will be built. There is no discussion of timing. The issue is whether the potentially significant impacts have been analyzed. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 209 Cm. Oravetz stated smart growth is what we're all about. Research out of UC Riverside and Cal Poly Tech is telling us this is what we need to do. He commented, since· she is representing unions, he asked if they will be seeing more unions coming at us? Ms. Gulesserian replied transit villages are part of the new wave of urban infill and reflect more sustainable development. This does not mean that we should not do environmental review for these projects. We can make them be the best they can be for our community. They will be a poster child on how to do an urban village in a transit center. We must make statement on how they can be nu'tigated. This type of planned development is good, but not an excuse not to make sure the impacts are addressed. We just need to work on it a little more. These union members reside in the area. They work and commute and recreate in the City of Dublin and in Alameda County. They are concerned about sustainable development. Poorly planned development projects lead to growth moratoria on future project approvals. We cannot ignore all of our environmental laws. Mayor Lockhart asked if any of their consultants were present this evening? Ms. Gulesserian replied no. Mayor Lockhart asked if any of the consultants had actually been to Dublin. Did they observe the community and the land? Ms. Gulesserian stated yes, several of them have worked on other projects in Dublin and Alameda County. Mr. Rollins lives in the Bay Area and had opportunity to come and visit the site. Two others visited the site and location and did public health portion. Mayor Lockhart asked why they refer to this as empty land? Ms. Gulesserian stated this was a typo. City Staff has repeatedly referred to this as empty land. Mayor Lockhart indicated she believed the consultants referred to the land as empty when in fact, there is a large warehouse there which is operational. Cm. Sbranti talked about current uses. How does this environmentally worsen what's there now? Diesel trucks are in and out all day. Ms. Gulesserian responded mixed transit uses are good projects to replace industrial in projects such as this. They are looking at the environmental impacts of this project and CITY CouNCiL '~TES '~' VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 210 there are no residential uses there at the present time. They will compare the existing base line traffic impacts with the proposed project. City Staff has found that there will be significant impacts. Cm. Sbranti explained that this is the second transit village we have in Dublin. The Eastern is considerably more intense. How was that project not appealed? Ms. Gulesserian stated she did not have an opportunity to look at that project. Cm. McCormick noted that the word vacant land was used. Some of their conclusions make her believe that the land really is vacant. There is a thriving business there now that makes 400 trips per week out of there. Other experts who studied the area have found that this new use will actually improve the air quality. She suspects, that their consultants were misinformed. This is unfortunate. She stated she finds it suspect. Ms. Gulesserian urged her to look at the letters submitted by their consultants, You will see findings related to cumulative air quality impacts based on the City's projects and consistency with numbers with the Clean Air Plan. All projects need to be looked at. Mayor Lockhart announced that the City will be going next week to receive an award with the Clean Air Plan. We won in the smart growth category. David Gold, Partner at Morrison & Forester, stated he has worked for last 3 years with AMB on this project. This particular project is satisfying to be involved with. Has worked for 20 years with elected officials on other plans. Dublin is well situated to develop transit oriented projects. Challenges come with implementation. The Bay Area Council, Sunny McPeak and others have indicated CEQA can be abused. Building mitigation measures into a planning document is totally and completely appropriate. The appellants never sat in on the public hearings 4 years ago. He discussed the planning process, which has occurred over the last 4 years. Now, after 5 years of planning, they appear and are demanding an £IR. Don't allow common sense to be turned on its head. Staff has done an exhaustive job of reviewing CEQA case law. He read the language "subsequent £IRs and Negative Declarations". Substantial changes are proposed or substantial changes occur. They have a 100% paved industrial warehouse site with heavy trucks out there. CEQA doesn't require the City to start over. He urged the City Council to follow Staff's recommendation and the Planning Commission's recommendation and deny appeal and not reward this 1 lth hour effort. Jim Abrew stated he has been a resident of Dublin for 39 years so he has seen a few changes around here. He is a 45 year member of 1,ocal 50,5. He stated he. feels we need CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 211 an environmental report on this thing. He read in the paper that we will have 700 parking spaces over there. This will cause a traffic impact. We should do a full impact study on this thing. Bruce Kern, Executive Director of Alliance for Business, urged the City Council to deny the appeal and support the Negative Declaration. After listening to the dialog, he stated he now understands why Michelle Perot with Sierra Club finds infill projects so difficult. Dublin has done a great job in providing housing for the community. Only 15% of residents of the East Bay can afford a house. This is the overriding consideration for everything. Our own children cannot even afford to buy a house. In Alameda County alone, we have several thousand housing units corging on board. The environmental laws seem to be going against common sense. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. Cm. Oravetz asked about Tom Brohaw's traffic analysis report. Senior Civil Engineer Ray Kuzbari stated he doesn't see how any of the points brought up have any validity. When we received the letter in December, Staff spent a lot of time working with our consultant to respond to their comments. He had all the points brought up regarding the traffic issues. We responded very thoroughly and clearly. We did such an exhaustive job that this seems to be unproductive at this time. The intersection most impacted will be Golden Gate Drive/St. Patrick Way. This intersection is projected to function at level A; a very healthy level A. Cm. Oravetz asked ff we took into consideration the new BART station with the IKEA study? Mr. Kuzbari responded yes, we looked at the buildout of all of Dublin, the General Plan bufldout scenario. Vm. Zika asked the difference in traffic in corporate office headquarters and regular office 'buildings. Mr. Kuzbari stated ITE has both categories and there is a definition in the manual for each type of use. This project size is 150,000 square feet, so if you use general office instead of corporate office, this will mean I0 to 15 additional trips at the am and pm peak hour. It is a blip; nothing happens. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 212 Cm. Sbranti talked about hydrology and the question of whether or not a report was done. Public Works Director Melissa Morton stated because the site is predominantly impervious, Staff did not anticipate that additional storm water would run off the site. They discussed an underground structure or basement having impacts, ff there is anticipated groundwater on the site, a dewatering activity would drain and reduce or eliminate pollutants before discharge into the storm system. The City has an active NPDES program and has adopted measures and will ensure that their storm water pollutant plan reduces or eliminates. We actually show a reduction with a change in Streams and creeks were discussed and measures to ensure stability in the future. Cm. Sbranti talked about the threshold for environmental work and requirement of substantial change. What is the threshold under CEQA? What is substantial change? Attorney Kit Faubion from the City Attorney's Office explained that CEQA wants you to do as much as you can as early in the process as possible. It is a different situation where there has already been environmental review. When you have already done environmental review, you are allowed to rely on the prior review. The point of CEQA is to look at change. CEQA guidelines give direction, but don't tell you what a substantial change is. Examples were given on what could be a substantial change. In this case, the various reviews submitted show that there wasn't substantial change and the studies didn't show any substantial change and in some cases not even negative. Mayor Lockhart stated this has been a wonderful process for learning. The process we went through helped a lot to see where we're going and what we're doing. Inffll projects such as this, smart growth projects, are good and healthy for our City and community. We cannot pull the blanket over our heads and say there is traffic out there so I'm not going out today. We can't stop traffic, but we can control the elements of traffic and quality within our community. We are trying to build a balanced and healthy community. What this project does for the downtown community in Dublin will be amazing. This will update and improve our downtown area for all of our residents. This is exactly what they're striving for in building a community of villages. She stated she will support denying the appeal. Vm. Zika agreed and stated he will also deny the appeal. The City has worked for 10 years to revitalize the downtown area with the BART station. While he still has concerns ' ' crr¥ coV cm M NUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 213 about parking, he will deny the appeal. Their appeal doesn't have any teeth. Staff has done an excellent job in preparing this. Cm. Oravetz stated he will also deny the appeal This is smart growth and good traffic. The difficulty is they weren't here a couple of weeks ago to talk about the traffic for IKEA; he could have used their support. Cm. McCormick stated she looked at the challenge to CEQA and whether we need an EIR. After listening to both sides and being involved and looking at the documents for a long time, she concluded that they have done a good job in reviewing this. We have standards we apply to all our projects. She has faith in these standards. She is a strong supporter of labor and hates to mm this down, however, she will support the denial. Cm. Sbranti stated he feels the same way about labor, but when you look at the work done by City Staff and AMB over the last 4 or5 years, the environmental work, and reading expert's comments, you need to look at common sense issues of is this a good project with housing next to retail next to transit. It is good and he will vote to deny the appeal. On motion of Vm. Zika, seconded by Cm. McComick, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 66- 04 DENYING APPEAL AND AFFIRMING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-12 (APPROVING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW) AND FINDING THAT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO'S. 04-08, 04-09, 04-tl (RECOMMENDING, RESPECTIVELY, COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, PD REZONING AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE WEST DUBLIN TRANSIT VILLAGE) ARE NOT APPEALABLE RECESS 9:02 p.m. Mayor Lockhart called for a short recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:11 p.m., with all Councilmembers present. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 214 PUBHC HEARING - AMB PROPERTIES, WEST DUBHN TRANSIT VILLAGE - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT ~ AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PA 02-005 9:I2 p.m. 6.2 (450-$0/600-60) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Janet Harbin presented the Staff Report. The City Council will consider a Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Site Development Review and a Development Agreement for a mixed-use project transit village containing a maximum of $04 multi-family residences, neighborhood retail uses, and an approximately 150,500 square foot office building at 6700 Golden Gate Drive on 9.06 acres located in the West Dublin BART Specific Plan Area. The Project has been the subject of several prior City approvals. The West Dublin BART Specific Plan and related General Plan amendment were adopted by the City Council in December, 2000 to master plan the portion of the City's downtown between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard, and generally between San Ramon Road and 1-680. The goal of the plan was to encourage the transition of light industrial land uses to a more vital, high- intensity development of mixed uses thereby creating a transit-oriented community near a transit hub. The next layer of approvals for the Project site occurred in June, 2002 when the City rezoned the site from the M-1, Light Industrial district to the PD-plarmed Development district and adopted a related Stage 1 Development Plan, as required by the PD district regulations. The current applications are the last in the series of discretionary approvals for the Project. Through the Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and SDR, the Applicant shows the City how all the applicable standards and programs from the Specific Plan, and the uses and development standards from the .Stage 1 Development Plan will be implemented through building, grading and other ministerial development permits. BART has also been planning for its property. In April 2001, BART approved the West Dublin BART station and Transit Village and certified a Supplemental EIR examining the potential environmental effects of both the planned station and a mixed use transit . ' ' '" ' MINUTES ~ CITY COUNCIL VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 215 village north of the station. The developer of the transit village portion of the project has since applied for and received development approvals from the City. The Staff Report discussed: Floor Area Ratio (FAR); Mixed Use Residential Density; Mixed use Retail Component; and Traffic Issues. The Staff Report addressed: Stage 2 Development Plan; Statement of Proposed Uses; Stage 2 Site Plan; Phasing Plan; Compatibility with Stage 1 Development Plan; Architectural Standards; Development Standards; Preliminary Landscape Plan; and Inclusionary Zoning RegUlations. Under the Site Development Review, the following areas were addressed: Topography and Site Development; Architectural Concept & Theme; Lot Coverage; Landscape Design Theme; Traffic and Circulation; Intersection LOS Analysis; roadway Segment LOS Analysis; Parking Analysis; Traffic Effects of BART Development; Dedication of St. Patrick Way; Access to BART~Owned Property; Pedestrian Access to BART Station; Water Supply; Sanitary Sewer and Recycled Water Irrigation; Storm Drainage/Hydrology; Police and Fire Department Requirements; and Maintenance of Landscaping and Streets. In summary, Staff stated this application has been reviewed by the applicable City Departments and agencies, and their comments have been incorporated into the Stage 2 Development Plan and the conditions of approval for the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and SD1L The proposed project is consistent with the Dublin General Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and Stage 1 Development Plan rezoning previously approved, and represents an appropriate and well~planned transit~oriented project for the site to assist in revitalizing the West Dublin BART Specific Plan area and the economic viability of the area. Additionally, the City has taken many steps prior to this project in approving various environmental documents and taking action to support the mixed use development of this site. Item 12 modified requires affordable housing agreement. Instead of building 7.5% of units, they will build 10% or 30 units and the rest would be paid in-lieu fees. 15/6/9 they would like to negotiate for a I0 year term DA. Applicant has requested a 15% reduction in the parking space requirement. Vm. Zika asked how they will keep BART commuters out of the shared parking spaces. Ms. Harbin said they may have a gate and restricted parking. She discussed the various environmental technical reports which had been prepared over the last several years. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 216 She stated George Nicholson from Omni-Means was present to address any traffic related questions. Cm. Oravetz asked about the changes to the intersection mentioned and when this would occur. Ms. Harbin stated the interchange is to be completed this spring. Senior Civil Engineer Ray Kuzbari stated the design phase of the traffic signal at Amador Valley Boulevard & Starward Drive is underway. It will be put in in 2005. The 1~580 westbound off ramp and San Ramon Road improvement is currently underway. There is a weaving section where many of the vehicles which exit the freeway have to cross over $ lanes to turn left on Dublin Boulevard. This project is currently underway and we are putting a traffic signal at this intersection and this will become a non-issue in a couple of months. Cm. Oravetz questioned if an economic study had been done on what the benefits will be to downtown Dublin? Ms. Harbin stated there was an economic development study done for the downtown specific plans when they were proposed in 2000 and it considered the various land uses and it showed there would be a substantial increase in revenues to the City. City Manager Ambrose stated the City Council did those when they considered the Specific Plan back in 2000. It looked at the entire west Dublin BART project. John Greet, President of Legacy Partners, stated he was involved with the first commercial project in the east, Humphrey Zeiss and Creekside when he was with Opus West. Hacienda Crossings is probably the most recognizable project in the Bay Area. What sets Dublin apart from other cities is the determination to make better projects. The process is fair and equitable. This project is a credit to both AMB and to the City. It will be pointed to as a model for mixed use transit oriented development. The company originated and is headquartered in the Bay Area. He introduced Luis Belmonte Luis Belmonte, Executive Vice President of AMB Property Corporation, discussed AMB's proposal and gave an in~oduction of the AMB Property Corporation. They are in $5 major metropolitan areas in North America, Europe and Asia. They take their fiduciary responsibilities very seriously. They strive to be a good corporate citizen. They will increase the percentage onsite of affordable units from 7.5% to 10%. In the $ ½ years since they purchased the property, they have worked with City Staff and the City CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 217 Manager. This project has many reasons to be a win/win situation for both them and the City. Other communities will view this project as a model for smart growth. AMB owns 100% of this project. Legacy Partners was hired and they have not determined at this time ff they will have a part in the future development of this project. He requested City Council approval so they can take the next steps to develop this. Vm. Zika thanked him for upping the number of affordable units. Cm. McCormick.asked about studios, one bedroom and 2 bedroom. How will they be divided up? The response was there will be a blend with 24 studio and 1 $0 1 bedroom units. If you take the proportion, the affordable mix will equal the other mix. Community Development Director Eddie Peabody stated they will have to build a number with the same formula as the overall mix of the project. There will be at least one 3-bedroom for very low income. Cm. McCormick asked about the 8 units to be paid in-lieu. City Attorney Elizabeth Silver advised that all of this will be set forth in the affordable housing agreement. Cm. Sbranti stated in looking at retail, he was concerned that 1000 sq ft might be on the low side. Could this be expanded? Mr. Belmonte stated there are a number of opportunities to add retail if there is a market for it. When the project is fully built out, there will be a market for retail. Once we have foot traffic, you have justification for retail. Cm. Sbranti' asked what is immediately north of St. Patrick Way?. How far away is Orchard Supply Hardware? Ms. Harbin stated the OSH building is very close to the sidewalk that would be on the side of St. Patrick Way. The store is set back somewhat from there. City Manager Ambrose stated there is not enough room to develop retail or office on that side of St. Patrick Way. There are opportunities in the general vicinity, however. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 218 Andres Grechi, Corporate Design Director for MBH Architects showed the uniqueness and various features of the project. He clarified that the retail space is :5,500 square feet rather than 1,000 square feet. Mayor Lockhart discussed Green Building measures and asked if they take these into consideration with the design? The response was once the project gets to the next level, they will choose materials which are green. Mayor Lockhart asked that they consider a recycle system for high density dwellers, such as garbage chutes, which could be built in at the beginning. Mr. Belmonte stated as an individual, he builds low income housing. He is interested in anything Staff can tell them about our requirements. They will implement this. Mr. Grechi stated it is important where the trash bins are located and they will make it easy for residents to adhere to these programs. Ms. Harbin pointed out that Condition # 15 relates to recycling. Cm. McCormick asked about benches and stated she hopes they will work with Staff to buy materials made from recyclable materials. She stated she also hopes they will do less with palm trees and more with local native varieties. She asked about public art. The response was they have the space, but a specific artist is not yet lined up. Mr. Belmonte stated they will be happy to work with the City and the City's public art consultant on the placement of public art. Vm. Zika referenced Page 2 of the drawings and the 263 shared spaces. He asked if these are at ground level or underneath? Mr. Belmonte stated they are underneath and they will control the access. They will have card key access. Vm. Zika.questioned the 11 tandem spaces and asked ff this is actually 22 spaces? The response was these are designated for the large units and yes, this is 22 spaces. Cm. Oravetz aske. d if this will 1~. a gated community? . CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 219 Mr. Belmonte stated they will control access to the parking inside the building. Tanya Gulesserian Attorney on behalf of IBW requested that the minutes incorporate the comments they made on the previous item and further urged denial of the project. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. Cm. Oravetz stated he feR this is a good project and the economic vitality is very good. Cm. Sbranti stated he also supports this based on the economic vitality and beyond that, this is a real lynch pin for continued investment in that part of town. Having seen what it has done for Pleasant Hill, it can happen here too. We will really stand out with 2 transit villages. This one really is in the heart of our city. Cm. McCormick made a motion which was seconded by Vm. Zika, to adopt the Resolution and introduce the Ordinances. Ms. Silver asked if this included the change to the ?D Ordinance related to the change in affordable units to be constructed and also suggested that the City Council should incorporate all the comments from the previous item into the record for this item. Ms. Harbin stated with reference to public art it could be added as Item 14 in the development plan. This will be incorporated and brought back with the second reading of the Ordinance. Cm. McCormick and Vm. Zika agreed to include these in their motion and second. On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Vm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 67 - 04 ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE AMB PROPERTIES TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT PA 02-003 and waived the reading and introduced Ordinances: 1) approving the PD Rezoning and Stage 2 Development Plan, and 2) approving a Development Agreement between the City and AM13 Properties. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 220 RECESS 10:31 p.m. Mayor Lockhart called for a short recess. At 10:57 p.m., the meetin$ reconvened with all Councilmembers present. PUBLIC HEARING - DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER SITE A~2 (EAH, INC.) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE PROJECT AREA PA 03-061 10:37 p.m. 6.3 (600-60) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Assistant Planner Marnic Waffle presented the Staff Report. This is the second reading of two Ordinances. The proposed project is a Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning and Development Agreement for the construction of a 112-unit affordable apartment community located on a portion of Dublin Transit Center Site A at thc southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and DcMarcus Boulevard. Thc project is proposed to be 3 stories of residential over one level of parking. All units will be affordable to very low and low income households. Thc property is zoned PD, Planned Development and is located within thc Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Thc General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation for thc property is High Density Residential. No testimony was entered by any member of thc public relative to this issue. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. On motion of Vm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by unanimous vote, thc Council waived' thc reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 13 - 04 APPROVING A STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER SITE A'-2 (EAH, INC.) PA 03-061 and CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 221 ORDINANCE NO. 14 - 04 APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PA 03-061 DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER SITE A-2 (EAH, INC.) PUBLIC HEARING - TASSAJARA CREEK PHASE III (GREENBRIAR HOMES COMMUNITIES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (GHC ROXBURY, LLC~TRACT 7414) PA 02-045 10:39 p.m. (;.4 (600-60) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Planning Manager Jeri Ram presented the Staff Report. This is the second reading of an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement for the Tassajara Creek Phase III (Greenbriar Homes Communities Residential Development). The proposed Tassajara Creek Phase III project is part of a larger 5~phase project for the Tassajara Creek~Greenbriar project that has been approved in phases since March 2000. This phase of the project consists of an approximate 20.3~acre site divided into 100 single-family detached and 8 attached residential lots on 20.3 acres with eight open space parcels that total approximately 11.5 acres. Approval of this Development Agreement will implement provisions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Permit for the project. The proposal is consistent with both the General Plan and the Specific Plan. No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by majority vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 15- 04 APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PA 02-048 TASSAJARA CREEK PHASE III GREENBRIAR HOMES COMMUNITIES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRACT 7414 (GHC ROXBURY, LLC) Vm. Zika voted in opposition to the motion. CITY CouNcIL M' ES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 222 PUBLIC HEARING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) AND MASTER SIGN PROGRAM (MSP) FOR THE TRUMARK COMMERCIAL RETAIL CENTER PA 05~068 10:41 p.m. 6.5 (410~30/400-30) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Kristi Bascom presented the Staff Report. This proposed project consists of a SDR permit and MSP for the development of a 46,200 square foot retail shopping center on a 4.55~acre site on the southwest comer of Dublin Boulevard and Myrtle Drive, immediately east of the Hacienda Crossings Shopping Center, north of Ford of Dublin and west of the Extended Stay America hotel. The project site is a part of the original Santa Rita Commercial Center (Hacienda Crossings) PD zoning District and, as such, requires the City Council to consider the Site Development Review permit for the project. In 2000, the subject site was approved for a 214~room hotel development that was never constructed. The property owner and developer, Springhill Suites, decided not to move forward with the construction of the facility and instead, put the property on the market. Trumark Commercial has now submitted a SDR with the intent of building a shopping center on the property. Ms. Bascom reviewed the Site Plan; Building Elevations; Building Materials and Colors; Master Sign Program; Landscaping Plan; Compatibility with Surrounding Uses; and Traffic and Circulation. This project is within the scope of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, for which a Program EIR was certified. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been approved for the Santa Rita Specific PLan Amendment, of which this project is a part. That MND, together with the Program EIR, adequately describes the total project for the purposes of CEQA. This application has been reviewed by the applicable City departments and agencies, and their comments have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the project. Ron Winter discussed recent projects by Tmmark Commercial. He talked about the development process and commended Staff for working with them. He showed a site plan of their proposed project featuring Craftsman style architecture. They feel this is a very good project. He thanked Staff for working with them. ' ' ' COUN'~ 'M' '' CITY IL INUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 223 Vm. Zika suggested some kind of a crosswalk between them and Hacienda Crossings. Mayor Lockhart complimented them on the let~ers they sent to the neishborhood. She commen~ed on location of recycle bins and sarbase and stated she hopes they will have enough space to set the trucks in and out and do both. Ms. Bascom stated we have a condition related to food waste as well as regular sarbase. Mayor Lockha~ expressed concern about the size of the sidewalks that run from Dublin Boulevard back into Hacienda Crossinss. A lot of people cross at Myrtle with children with bicycles and strollers. Can we do somethin$ about the narrowness of the sidewalk? Mr. Winter stated they could widen flais to a 7' walkway and lower the landscapin$ down to 5'. Cm. McCormick asked about the plaza area and if this is a common area? The response was that the patio would be a leased area. They've talked about putting some ar~ in the project. Cm. Sbranti stated he really likes the project and the idea of providing for some smaller uses and supporting small independent businesses. Mayor Lockhar~ closed the public hearing. Cm. McCormick stated she likes the project and this will answer the need for the small business person. This is really needed out there. Cm. Orave~z stated this is an economic boost for the City and he also likes the project. Ms. Bascom asked if the Council wished to add a condition regarding the 7' sidewalk? On motion of Vm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Sbranti, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted (with the addition of the 7' sidewalk requirement on Myrtle Drive) RESOLUTION NO. 68- 04 APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (SDR) AND MASTER SIGN PROGRAM (MSP) TO CONSTRUCT A 46,200 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL CENTER ON 4.55 ACRES ON THE CORNER OF MYRTLE DRIVE AND DUBLIN BOULEVARD PA 03-068 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 224 PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENTS TO THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) PA 04~004 AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 8, CHAFFER 8. I2, ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITI'ED USES OF LAND AND CHAPTER 8.108, TEMPORARY USE PERMIT REGARDING AUTOMOBILE/VEHICLE STORAGE LOTS 11:04 p.m. 6.6 (450-20) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Assistant Planner Marnie Waffle presented the Staff Report. This is the second reading of an Ordinance which would make the establishment of automobile/vehicle storage lots in C-2, General Commercial zoning districts, subject to a Temporary Use Permit and which would establish development review standards for more effective regulation of automobile/vehicle storage lots. Development standards proposed include: * Vehicle storage would be limited to a maximum of 6 consecutive months. One S- month extension could be granted upon written request, submitted at least 14 calendar days prior to the expiration of the permit, to the Director of Community Development. · The storage of vehicles would be limited to those vehicles belonging to an established Dublin based business. · The vehicle storage lot would not be permitted to be open to the public nor would any sales transactions be allowed to take place at the storage lot location. · A Temporary Use Permit granted for a vehicle storage lot could ~tot be renewed once it had expired. · A maximum of one Temporary Use Permit could be granted per location. A location would be defined as an address, a parcel, or a shopping center, whichever is larger, as determined by the Director of Community Development. · A Temporary Use Permit would be denied if it was determined that the temporary vehicle storage would eliminate parking required for another use. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 225 · A vehicle storage lot could not be located within 100 feet of a heavily traveled roadway. · The establishment and operation of the use must comply with all standards developed by the Director of Community Development. Mayor Lockhart asked ff Staff received any feedback from the car dealers. Ms. Waffle advised that we didn't get any comments. No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor lx~ckhart closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 16 - 04 AMENDING TITLE 8 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) CHAPTER 8.12, ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USES OF LAND AND CHAPTER 8.108 TEMPORARY USE PERMIT RELATING TO AUTOMOBILE/VEHICLE STORAGE LOTS PA 04-004 PROGRESS REPORT ON REMEDIATION WORK AND REQUEST FOR ADDmONAL FUNDS FOR REMEDIATION AT DUBLIN CIVIC CENTER 11:06 p.m. 7.1 (530-10/600-30) Public Works Director Melissa Morton presented the Staff Report. The Civic Center incurred water damage from rain in early March. At the March 16th City Council meeting, the Council approved a declaration of emergency in order to allow a waiver of competitive bid to obtain a contractor for environmental remediation work related to the water intrusion and authorized a budget of up to $220,000 for the work. This item would approve a continuation of the declaration of emergency and increase necessary funding to complete the remediation worlc CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 226 The cost of remediation to date is $92,200 for construction and testing (original budget allocation was $220,000 for remediation and restoration.) The water intrusion analysis found several faults in major building sy~stems responsible for the water intrusion to date. Budget allocation for remediation and restoration needs to be increased to $591,200. Cm. McCormick asked about insurance. Ms. Morton stated Staff is reviewing the work to date as well as the timeframes and what our legal remedies are and discussing leaks with our insurance carrier to find potential relief with regard to these costs. Assistant City Manager Joni Pattillo stated we have engaged our insurance carrier and Staff has been diligent on this from the very beginning. Cm. Sbranti stated hopefully, the final bill won't be this high. Remediation is important. Mayor Lockhart stated this is a big facility and it is 15 years old. She agreed that remediation is most important. On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 69- 04 APPROVING CONTINUATION OF EMERGENCY ALLOWING WAIVER OF COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS AND EMERGENCY CONTRACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION IN DUBLIN CIVIC CENTER, AND INCREASING BUDGET ALLOCATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT and approved the Budget Change. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 227 AGREEMENT AMENDMENT WITH THE ZAHN GROUP FOR DESIGN OF BUILDING REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION FOR WATER INTRUSION AND MANAGEMENT OF BUll.DING REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION PRQJE.CT 11:11 p.m. 7.2 (600-30) Public Works Director Melissa Morton presented the Staff Report. On March 16, 2004, the City Council approved a contract with the Zahn Group, Inc., for Water Intrusion Investigation and Management of the Environmental Remediafion Project. Preliminary investigation of the water intrusion to date indicates that additional funds for consultant services will be necessary to complete the remediation. This amendment increases the total not-to-exceed amount from $60,000 to $ I06,760. On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Sbranfi, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved a Budget Change in the amount of $46,760 and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 70 - 04 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT WITH THE ZAHN GROUP, INC. FOR DESIGN OF BUILDING REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION FOR WATER INTRUSION AND MANAGEMENT OF BUILDING REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION PROJECT OTHER BUSINESS 11:14 p.m. City Manager Ambrose requested that the City Council determine ff a workshop one hour before the City Council meeting on May 4t~ would work in order for the Council to provide input to Staff related to the garbage RFP. The City Council indicated this timeline would work. Mr. Ambrose advised that the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency will be holding a workshop in the Regional Meeting Room on April 286 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. to discuss the various types of transportation projects which the countywide plan includes. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 228 Vm. Zika reported that he will be at a CMA meeting on Thursday to discuss the bill to take another $338,000 out of the transportation fund. Cm. Sbranti stated he had been very busy the last couple of weeks. The "Every 15 Minutes" program went very well at Dublin High School with the anti drinking and driving message. Students took it seriously. Supervisor Nate Miley has violence prevention task force which he has been serving on. One of the directions the County is going is to having an office of violence prevention and the coordinator would report to the County CAO. It will reach across the various departments focusing on violence prevention. There is a lot of momentum behind this. There will be a series of town hall meetings in July and they will have a meeting in the Tri~Valley and it will probably be here in Dublin on July 15th to present the preliminary findings of the task force. This would include domestic violence and drug abuse that leads to violence. Cm. Sbranti advised that he had a meeting with Burr Cain and some of Parks & Community Services staff about a Stepping Out For Seniors event on May 15t~. One suggestion was to incorporate some type of senior event and he stated he will bring this up at the Tri~Valley Council meeting in May. It could be a senior Olympics event such as golf, bowling or bocce ball to promote seniors. Looking ahead to 2006, each city might sponsor some type of event to promote active and healthy lifestyles among seniors. He stated Anna Hudson was in on the meeting. 11.I There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:23 p.m. COUNCIL' CITY MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2004 PAGE 229