Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-05-2004 Adopted CC Min REGULAR MEETING - OCTOBER 5. 2004 A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, October 5,2004, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart. .. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmembers McCormick, Sbranti, Zika and Mayor Lockhart. Councilmember Oravetz .. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the Council, Staff and those present. .. PROCLAMATION DECLARING OCTOBER 2004, CRIME PREVENTION MONTII 7:06 p.m. 3.1 (610-50) Mayor Lockhart read a proclamation declaring October 2004 "Crime Prevention Month" in the City of Dublin and urged all citizens, government agencies, public and private institutions, and businesses to invest in the power of prevention and work together to make the City of Dublin a safer, stronger, more caring community. Chief Gary Thuman received the proclamation. .. PROCLAMATION TO THE TRI-VALLEY BABE RUTH 13-YEAR OLD ALL-STAR TEAM FOR THEIR 1 ST PLACE FINISH AT THE 2004 BABE RUTH WORLD SERIES 7:07 p.m. 3.2 (610-50) Mayor Lockhart read a proclamation recognizing the Tri-Valley Babe Ruth 13-Year Old All-Star Team for their 1 st Place finish at the 2004 Babe Ruth World Series and presented it to Team Manager Randy Moore. Certificates of Recognition were distributed to all team members. .. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 458 1:) 3.3 7:12 p.m. Ellen Silky, Dublin resident, asked for the Council's help to solve a safety issue in her neighborhood by installing a stop sign on Antone Road at North Bridgepointe and South Bridgepointe Lanes. Something needed to be done to slow down traffic and make the area pedestrian - friendly. 7:14 p.m. Ira Leitner, Mayoral candidate, stated his opposition to IKEA coming to Dublin and the resulting traffic. Many of his supporters continued to be opposed to IKEA coming to Dublin. .. 7:18 p.m. Mayor Lockhart announced that limited public comments on Item 8.1 (Dublin Ranch West) would be heard prior to the Consent Calendar in order to allow Randy Shumway, School Board President, to make comments. The rest of the presentation, and additional comments, would be heard at the appropriate time. Randy Shumway, President of the DUSD Board of Directors, briefly outlined the District's successful experience with developer-built schools in Eastern Dublin. The District recently relinquished its rights to the Wallis Ranch (now Dublin Ranch West) property because a school on that site no longer fit into the School District Master Plan. The Developer has agreed to build Fallon Middle School and Green Elementary School. He appreciated that the City Council respected the School Board's authority and responsibilities, and that respect was mutual. He was not telling the City Council what to do regarding the land use issue, but wanted to educate the Council as to the negotiation process and the land's ultimate relinquishment, which would allow the Developer to build homes and make a sufficient margin which would go toward their financial model in terms of whether or not it would be fiscally prudent for them to negotiate with the School District to build the schools. Vm. Zika asked about the optimum size of a K-5 school. Mr. Shumway advised that it depended on the definition of "optimum." Dublin has committed to building schools at 540. Cm. Sbranti asked how many residential units would produce 540 elementary students. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 459 Mr. Shumway indicated that he did not have that information in front of him, but could get the information to the Council later. The agreement between the School District and the Developer would not be as lucrative for the Developer as first thought. He was coming before Council to say the Developer continued to demonstrate good faith, and the School District would like to do the same to help them out. Mayor Lockhart continued Item 8.1 to its appropriate spot on the agenda. .. CONSENT CALENDAR 7:26 p.m Items 4.1 through 4.10 Cm. Sbranti pulled Item 4.8 for discussion. On motion of Vm. Zika, seconded by Cm. McCormick and by majority vote (Cm. Oravetz absent), the Council took the following actions: Approved (4.1) Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 21, 2004; Approved (4.2 600-35) Contract Change Orders Nos. 2, 3 and 4; approved Budget Change in the amount of $6,001; and accepted improvements under Contract No. 02-10, Traffic Signal Upgrade - Village Parkway/Amador Valley Boulevard, and authorized release of retention after 35 dates if there are no subcontractor claims; Adopted (4.3 600-60) RESOLUTION NO. 198 - 04 APPROVING FINAL MAP AND IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 7524, DUBLIN RANCH, NEIGHBORHOOD H-2 THE TERRACES, PHASE 2 (TOLL-DUBLIN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 460 Adopted (4.4 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 199 - 04 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH S&C ENGINEERS., INC., FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE I-580/FALLON ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Adopted (4.5 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 200 - 04 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH PRECISION PLANNING UTILITY CONSULTANTS FOR CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN AND COORDINATION OF THE DOUGHERTY ROAD UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT 2003-01 Adopted (4.6 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 201 - 04 APPROVING CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH WAN LAN SOLUTIONS FOR NETWORK DATA SWITCH INSTALLATION Approved (4.7 600-35) Contract Change Order No.2; and accepted improvements under Contract No. 04-06, 2003-2004 Annual Street Overlay Program and authorized the release of retention after 35 days if there are no subcontractor claims; Adopted (4.9 600-40) RESOLUTION NO. 202 - 04 AUTHORIZING A FIVE- YEAR (JULY 1, 2004 ~ JUNE 30, 2009) FIRST RESPONDER ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT (FRALS) AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Approved (4.10 300-40) the Warrant Register in the amount of $993,586.54. Cm. Sbranti pulled Item 4.87 Annual Report on the Status of the Dublin General Plan7 to commend Staff for completing 30 pages worth of projects during a single year. This CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 461 status report should be promoted to the citizens and should be posted on the website, if appropriate, as well as copies made avaIlable in other locations. Great strides are being made on the City's vision. Mayor Lockhart agreed that it would be appropriate to put the document on the City's website and copies made avaIlable in other locations. Staff was to be commended. On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by majority vote (Cm. Oravetz absent) the City Council accepted (4.8 420-30) Annual Report on the Status of the Dublin General Plan: July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004, and directed Staff to forward report to the appropriate State agencies. . WRI'ITEN COMMUNICATIONS REQUEST FROM DUBLIN LIONS CLUB TO RESERVE EMERALD GLEN PARK FOR A SPECIAL EVENT, "RIDE FOR THE BLIND" 7:28 p.m. 5.1 (290-10) Parks & Community Services Director Diane Lowart presented the Staff Report and advised that the Dublin Lions Club was requesting the use of Emerald Glen Park on Saturday, June 4,2005, for their "Ride for the Blind" special event. The "Ride for the Blind" is a motorcycle poker run and is the first of what the Dublin Lions Club hopes will become an annual event. The Lions Club would like to have Emerald Glen Park be the ending point where a barbecue for the participants would be held. Additionally, the Lions Club would like to serve beer and utilize a portion of the surrounding streets for motorcycle parking. Cm. McCormick asked how many participates were expected. Parks & Community Services Director Lowart advised that 100-150 participants were expected the first year, and ultimately the event could outgrow the space. Cm. McCormick confirmed that the motorcycle route would not be on City streets. Parks & Community Services Director Lowart outlined the route, which would not be on City streets. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 462 The Council and Staff discussed parking and agreed that the first choice would be to eliminate street parking, if workable, and use the. same area used for overflow parking during the Day-on-the Glen event. Vm. Zika stated that the City did not have a policy for paying for extra police help when commercial establishments have an event which requires extra police help. If the Lions Club was asked to reimburse the City for Police then commercial establishments should be asked to do the same. Some sort of policy needs to be established before anyone is asked to reimburse for Police help. Parks & Community Services Director Lowart advised that Staff was researching policies for uses such as Arlen Ness events, and might be in affect before this event. Cm. Sbranti agreed that, unless that policy was in place, the Lions Club should not be subject to fees. If a policy were in place by the time of the event, the Lions or any other group, commercial or non-profit, should abide by that policy. Cm. McCormick asked if there were alternate plans in place if the event happened on a spare-the-air day, as poker runs contribute to air pollution. Parks & Community Services Director Lowart advised that she would relay the concern to the Lions Club. On motion of Vm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Sbranti and by majority vote (Cm. Oravetz absent), the Council approved the Lions Club request to reserve Emerald Glen Park on June 4,2005, serve beer at the BBQ, use surrounding streets for parking, if necessary, and directed Staff not to charge for Police services unless a policy was in place. . PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENTS TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE {MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.24) 7:39 p.m. 6.1 (640-40) Mayor Lœkhart opened the public hearing. City Attorney Elizabeth Silver presented the Staff Report and advised that the Political Reform Act requires cities to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code that designates the Staff positions within the City making governmental decisions that could foreseeably affect a financial interest of the employee. An additional requirement of the Political Reform Act CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 463 is that Codes be reviewed every two years to incorporate any changes that may have occurred. This is the second reading of an Ordinance that would make changes to Section 2.24.020 of the existing Ordinance related to designated employees. Changes proposed include: 1) splitting the designated position of Public Works Director/City Engineer into two separate positions to reflect personnel classification changes; and 2) adding the position of Assistant City Attorney to the designated filer's list, subject to Disclosure Category 2. No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Sbranti and by majority vote (Cm. Oravetz absent), the Council waived the second reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 24 - 04 AMENDING CHAPTER 2.24.020 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE AND DESIGNATING THREE NEW POSITIONS AS DECISION MAKING POSITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE CALIFORNIA POLITICAL REFORM ACT . PUBUC HEARING VICIOUS DOG HEARING APPEAL 7:40 p.m. 6.2 (500-40) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Senior Administrative Analyst Amy Cunningham presented the Staff Report and advised that, in accordance with Dublin Municipal Code (DMC) §5.36, Animal Control, a vicious dog hearing was conducted on August 11, 2004. Based on substantial evidence presented at the hearing and property inspections conducted at both parties' properties, the Hearing Director determined that the dog, Saake, owned by Morgan King, technically fit the criteria for viciousness as defined in the Municipal Code. Pursuant to DMC §5.36, Mr. King filed an appeal to the Hearing Director's determination on the grounds that he does not feel the evidence supports the determination of viciousness and the statute was not applied in a reasonable manner. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 464 Staff recommended that the Council conduct the public hearing, take testimony and evidence from interested parties, deliberate, and determine whether or not the findings and determination of the August 11, 2004, hearing should be upheld. If the City Council determines that the findings should be upheld, it should adopt the Resolution affirming the decision of the Hearing Officer. If the City Council determines that said findings and determination should not be upheld, the City Council will need to issue alternate findings regarding the merits of the appeal, and Staff will return to the October 19, 2004, Council meeting with a Resolution setting forth the Council's findings. Cm. McCormick asked if the dog, Saake, was completely on the other property. Ms. Cunningham indicated no. Cm. McCormick asked if his feet were on the other property. Ms. Cunningham advised that the witnesses could not specifically answer that question. At the very least, it was determined that the dog's head was on the other property. Both parties were specifically asked how much of the dogs' bodies were on either side. They both said they did not know; there was a lot going on at that moment. They rushed outside and pulled the dogs away. Ms. Cunningham showed a diagram of the primary fence configuration and explained that the Kashima's had constructed a small, secondary fence which was approximately three feet high. The secondary fence prevents their dog, Makaha, from getting right up to the fence line. Vm. Zika asked if the Kashima's dog could get over the three-foot fence. Ms. Cunningham advised that the dog could have; however, in this instance, the witnesses did not indicate that they had to physically pull the dog from between the two fences. Cm. Sbranti asked if the Kashima's secondary fence was in place at the time of the incident. Ms. Cunningham advised yes. Immediately after the incident, the King's erected a heavy- duty wire fence that runs around the perimeter of the fence line. The wire fence prevents their dog from getting through the boards any more. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5,2004 PAGE 465 Cm. Sbranti asked about the distance between the Kashima's secondary fence and the primary fence at the time of the incident. Ms. Cunningham advised that there was approximately 18"-24" between the fences. The distance varied because it was not straight across, and was also on a relatively steep slope with the incline going toward the King's home. Vm. Zika asked if the King's home was higher than the Kashima's home. Ms. Cunningham stated yes. Vm. Zika asked about the punishment, since they had already put up the wire fence and there is a leash law in place that said a dog must be on a leash Ms. Cunningham advised that the declaration was put into place so that the King's would be required to maintain the wire fencing, and the City had a way to ensure that it continued to be kept in place so that the dog could not continue to break through. Cm. McCormick referred to the puncture wounds inside the mouth of the boxer, and confirmed that it meant that its mouth was open and trying to bite the other dog. Ms. Cunningham indicated yes, the testimony of both parties indicated that both dogs were engaged with each other. Cm. McCormick clarified that one dog was declared vicious because its head was over the property line. Ms. Cunningham advised that the determination was made because the bite occurred on the Kashima's property. Morgan King, Appellant and Owner of the dog, Saake, advised that he read the packet and the evidence, which included letters written by the complaining parties to various other parties, including the City and the Homeowners' Association (HOA), in which they described being in fear for the safety of their grandchildren because of their dog, Saake, on the other side of the fence. He apologized to his neighbors and stated that he was not aware that they were living in fear of his dog because they never copied any of those lettèrs to him. He knew that his dog was an annoyance, as are several other dogs in the vicinity, but did not realize that they were so terrified and endangered by his dog, Saake. He advised that he felt badly, but wished they had communicated that to him at some point. The HOA attempted to resolve the situation by recommending that they replace CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 466 the old fence, an 11 ~ 12 year old fence built with unpressurized wood. An inspection indicated that it was still structurally sound, but it was constructed with the boards nailed on one side so that a force being applied from the opposite side could pop that board out, but not vice versa. Saake could knock a board through, which would be scary because he was a big dog. He recommended, in a letter and a phone conversation, to the Kashima's that the fence be rebuilt with the boards being center-grooved so they could not be knocked out on either side. He had constructed such a fence with the neighbors to his left. Mr. King displayed a drawing of his backyard configuration and explained the orientation of his house and the surrounding neighbors and how each of the shared fences were constructed. The Kashima's secondary fence was made of reinforced chicken wire and held up with bamboo sticks, which could not hold back a lunging 100 lb. boxer. There was no question in his mind that it did not stop that dog from getting up to the fence where it was bit by his dog. There was still no real evidence as to whether the bite took place with the boxer sticking his snout through or visa versa. He pointed out that, when looking at the conduct of just the dogs, they were identical. They were both arguing at the fence. The only reason Saake fell anywhere near this Ordinance was the way the fence was constructed, because only Saake could have popped the fence board out. It was unlikely that she could have gotten more than her head through the fence. Saake is not a vicious dog. Their household had a constant stream of visitors, including children, and have never had an incident where Saake snarled, growled, bit, lunged at or otherwise intimidated anyone. There had also never been an incident of Saake threatening anyone or animal, except deer, while out on her leash. He referred to a 1978 California Supreme Court case, which did not involve a dog, but an interpretation of statues. He did not intend to criticize Staff for following a very technical definition of the statue; however, he felt that in this instance the interpretation of the statue was too literal and not the intent of the statue. The intent of the statue must be to identify dogs that were actually vicious and doing hazardous or dangerous things, other than what normal dogs do. The dogs were doing what normal dogs do. The literal interpretation of the statue had led to absurd results. It was the appellant body's duty to take constitutional principals into consideration. David Bewely, Dublin resident and neighbor of the King's, testified that the dog, Saake, had never shown aggressiveness toward him, other people or animals. He noted that, although the neighbors had made numerous complaints about Saake's behavior, when confronted about fixing and securing the fence, did not respond. In his opinion, the families need to work together on this issue. Last evening, he looked over the fence from the King's property to view the barrier that the other dog had. He took a rake and pushed it, and it was flimsy. The other dog could breach the barrier. He felt the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 467 presumption of viciousness could not be applied because there was not enough evidence. No one was arguing that a dog was bitten, but where the dog was bitten was in question. The Council's job was to try to put logic and common sense on the interpretation of the statue. Saake was not a vicious dog. The fence should be fixed and reinforced and that should be the end of it. Myron Kashima, Complainant and Owner of Makaha, stated that he was not sure why they were arguing about a fence. The issue was about a dog, and he believed the code was to protect public safety. He had erected a fence on the other side of the fence because of communications with the King's, and the King's had been invited over to view the fence to show what they had done to prevent the dogs from getting at each other. The issue was the behavior of the dog. Whether a fence of concrete had been erected or not, the dog was still an aggressive dog. In this case, it was found to be vicious. His family got Makaha because they were robbed in the City of Dublin. Makaha was kept in the house because they have constant problems with the neighbor's dog trying to get into their yard. Otherwise, they would have not have erected the secondary fence. He has seen the dog in his yard and has yelled to the King's to pull it out. This has gone on for about a year and a half. The issue of the fence that the HOA said to replace, in his opinion, he was not afforded due diligence. No one came to inspect or ask their opinion. In his opinion, the inspection officer and Ms. Cunningham did the right thing in inspecting both properties. He objected to people coming over and pushing his fence from somebody else's property. His family was terrorized every day they go out into the yard. They erected the fence for two reasons: 1) as additional protection from the King's dog coming into their yard; and 2) from preventing Makaha from getting to that fence to engage in battle. The secondary fence was approximately 18"-24" away from the primary fence with reinforcing bars that go into the ground in back of the bamboo supports and guy wires for preventing Makaha from pushing it. It might not completely stop Makaha from pushing it, but it had been their intent to prevent it from happening. For a year and a half, they have been asking for someone to intervene so they could protect their family and their property. At this point in time, he felt that they would protect their property. To have the threat of a dog in their yard every day was an act of terror, and the King's have repeatedly refused to act upon it. The King's reinforcing fence went up only after this incident, not before. Each family had the right to protect their property, but there were mutual responsibilities to prevent this from happening. His young grandchildren could not enjoy their backyard without being harassed. The King's dog barked every time the sliding glass door opened, and the dog still bumped against the fence, even with the wire reinforcement. This dog is vicious. The code was intended for public safety, including his family's safety. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 468 Pam Kashima, Complainant and Co-owner of Makaha, stated that she was glad that their letters were included in the packet for Council review. They have been terrorized by the King's dog for several years. They had only started documenting a year ago because of the constant breaking through of the fencing. The secondary fence on their side had been inspected by City Staff and determined to be secure. They were trying to be responsible neighbors by erecting the secondary fence so that Makaha could not damage the fence either and antagonize the other dog. They were also trying to be as responsible as possible by sharing with the King's the same solution to this problem. As they were going through the hearing, she was stunned and horrified to hear that this was the second incident of one of the King's dogs biting another dog. The King's had another dog that broke through the same fence, when the house belonged a previous owner, and went through and bit one of the other neighbor's dogs. Why did they not put up the wire fencing to contain their dog? Why did they allow them to be terrorized by their other dog? This was negligence on King's part. She requested that the City Council help to allow them to live without fear of this dog. The actions of the dog require the Ordinance to remain in affect. The negligence of the King's required the Council to keep it. She requested that the Council consider the previous dog biting incident in their consideration of this incident. Mr. King advised that he had no idea to what incident Mrs. Kashima was referring. They made no such statement at the hearing, and he was not aware of a previous incident. Ms. Cunningham advised that she did not recall a previous incident. Both parties referred to several incidents in which the dog, Saake, broke through the fence; however, no other dog bite or attack was refereed to during the hearing. Mrs. Kashima stated the other incident was documented in the hearing minutes. Mr. King reiterated that he knew of no such incident. He apologized that this situation had developed between he and his neighbors. He had tried to suggest that the fence be reconstructed. The letter that the Kashimas' wrote to the HOA discounted the suggestion, indicating that it would not change the behavior of his dog. The compromise both families have come to was erecting the reinforced chicken wire fences. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. Vm. Zika asked if the Council could still require the heavy-gauge chicken wire be put on the fence if the dog was not declared vicious. Ms. Cunningham advised no. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 469 Cm. Sbranti asked why the Council could not making findings of that nature. Ms. Cunningham advised that, according to the code, there would need to be a declaration of viciousness in order to place any restrictions on the dog. City Attorney Elizabeth Silver agreed and advised that there was no provision in the Ordinance which required that every owner of a dog have a fenced yard with a fence that was supported in this manner. Therefore, the Council would have to make an individual determination based on the determination that the dog was vicious. Vm. Zika indicated that some method of requiring the wire fencing to be maintained was necessary, even if it meant declaring the dog vicious. He needed some sort of assurance that the fence would remain. Mayor Lockhart stated that this was not a problem with dogs, but with neighbors not communicating. Dogs do what dogs do when they come together, especially when they feel that they were in their own territory. There was a technicality as to whose head was on what property. There were responsibilities on both sides of the fence, and both families should be responsible in making sure that their animals cannot get through. Both families have learned that the erected barricades will prevent this from happening again, as well as learned the consequences of their dogs coming together. She trusted that they would maintain a distance between their dogs' snouts. She did not see any evidence to lead her to believe that the dog Saake was any more vicious than a boxer that was guarding someone's house. Cm. Sbranti stated that, although it was unfortunate that the situation had to come before the Council, remedies had already taken place on both sides. Given all of the trouble that had taken place, it would be hard to imagine that either party would not want the fences to stay in place. Vm. Zika asked what kind liability the City would face, if the dog was not declared vicious, and something happened in the future. City Attorney Silver advised that, if the Council granted the appeal and found that the dog was not vicious, then, in the eyes of the law, the dog was not vicious. If the Council found that the dog was vicious, then it would provide a remedy to address that. Cm. McCormick stated that either both or neither dog should be declared vicious. According to the Animal Control Officer's report, both types of dogs are very aggressive and territorial dogs. Both dogs were doing what they felt they should do, and she could CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 470 not go along with declaring one dog vicious under these circumstances. The dog owners should have communicated with each other better. Cm. Sbranti stated that the remedy was already in place. Vm. Zika advised that he would go along with the majority as long as the City was not s not subject to any liability. City Attorney Silver advised that, if the consensus of Council was to grant the appeal, then under the code, if the Council concluded that there was not substantial evidence to determine that Saake was on the property of the Kashima's, then the Council could grant the appeal and find Saake not to be a vicious dog because the code required that Saake be on the neighbor's property. Since there had been testimony to question whether or not Saake's feet were on the Kashima property, the Council could interpret its Ordinance to determine that being on the property of someone required that feet to be on the property and not just a nose in the air. If the Council wanted to grant the appeal, Staff would need to return to the next Council meeting with a Resolution for the Council to make findings to grant the appeal. Mayor Lockhart and Councilmembers McCormick, Sbranti and Zika (Cm. Oravetz absent) agreed by straw vote that there was sufficient evidence to grant the appeal based on the fact that there was no evidence that the dog's feet were on neighboring property. A Resolution granting the appeal will be placed on the Consent Calendar of the October 19, 2004 Council meeting agenda .. PUBUC HEARING City of Dublin, Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing Regulations, Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Amendment to Chapter 8.08, Definitions; Chapter 8.12, Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land; Chapter 8.20, Residential Zoning Districts; Chapter 8.24, Commercial Zoning Districts; Chapter 8.28, Industrial Zoning Districts; and Chapter 8.64, Home Occupations Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, PA 04-029 8:37 p.m. 6.3 (450-20) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Janet Harbin presented the Staff Report and advised that this was the first reading of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment which would regulate the use and CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 471 development of emergency shelters and transitional housing for homeless persons in Dublin, and other matters, to comply with the requirements of California State Government Code Section 65863(a), Article 2, Planning and Zoning Law, and Goal F, Policy 1, and Program F.1.1 of the Housing Element of the Dublin General Plan. Cm. McCormick asked if the item was presented in order to comply with State law. Ms. Harbin indicated yes. Cm. McCormick asked if it included residential areas, as well as commercial and industrial areas. Ms. Harbin indicated yes, transitional living facilities would be allowed in residential areas, and emergency shelters would be allowed in commercial and industrial areas with a Conditional Use Permit. Cm. McCormick noted that there were safety issues with shelters and asked if the City assumed extra protection for that kind of shelter. Ms. Harbin advised that the nonprofit organization running the shelter would provide safety and security, and must present a security plan to the Planning Commission at time of Conditional Use Permit application. Cm. Sbranti asked if the Ordinance would prevent "queuing," lines of people spilling out into the streets. Ms. Harbin advised yes. Cm. Sbranti asked about the number of beds that would be permitted. Ms. Harbin advised that it would be on a case by case basis. When an organization applied for a Conditional Use Permit, the number of beds, rooms, etc., would be specified. Based on that information, Staff would determine whether the numbers were appropriate for that location and size of facility. No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. On motion of Vm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Sbranti and by majority vote (Cm. Oravetz absent), the Council waived the first reading and INTRODUCED the Ordinance. .. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 472 RECESS 8:45 p.m. Mayor Lockhart called for a short recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:54 p.m. with all attending Councilmembers (Cm. Oravetz absent) present. .. DONLON WAY HISTORIC AREA SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE 8:54 p.m. 7.1 (910-40) Associate Planner Kristi Bascom presented the Staff Report and advised that Staff had completed a land use summary for properties in the proposed Specific Plan area and was seeking direction from the City Council on what potential land use changes should be considered as a part of this study. Discussions regarding Design Guidelines, protection of the historic resources in the area, and the final Specific Plan boundary would happen at a future meeting. With this item, Staff was seeking direction from the Council on land use changes it would like to see studied through the Specific Plan process. Cm. McCormick confirmed that this item was strictly regarding land use and not building uses or preservation. Ms. Bascom confirmed that this item was regarding land uses only. Staff was preparing a separate but concurrent analysis regarding historical preservation and historical resources in the area. Cm. McCormick asked if a land use change would be required if the Green Store, for example, was interested becoming a museum. Ms. Bascom advised that community facilities were permitted in any district with a Conditional Use Permit use; therefore, the zoning would not need to change. Mike Mikulich, representing Berkeley Land Company, advised that the owners did not believe that Dublin Square was historical in nature and wanted to go on record stating that they were adjacent to a historical resource, so they objected to being included in the Donlon Way Historical Preservation Study Area. Mayor Lockhart stated that the existing land uses were not an issue, and she had no desire to request any consideration of land use changes. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5,2004 PAGE 473 Vm. Zika agreed. Cm. Sbranti indicated that the Design Guidelines would be the most important element in the future shaping of that area. Cm. McCormick asked when land use changes would be considered. Ms. Bascom advised that the Council would typically consider land use changes when a private developer made an application for a Rezone or General Plan Amendment. Staff was doing the Specific Plan for this area at the Council's request, and one of the steps in doing a Specific Plan was to look at the currently permitted land uses and provide the Council and the community the opportunity to offer other uses to be studied. City Attorney Silver advised that, by changing the zoning of the property, any existing use would remain a legal non -conforming use, and the owner or operator could continue with that use indefinitely. If they stopped, after a certain amount of time they could no longer resume that use. No one would be forced out of business by a change in the land use. Council and Staff discussed changing the nature of an area in terms of the types of uses that were permitted by adopting a Specific Plan. If there was a piece of property in the area the Council would like to encourage a use for, this would be time to ask Staff to study the proposed use. Cm. Sbranti noted that someone might want to recreate the historic hotel in that area and asked if it would be permitted under the current zoning. Ms. Bascom advised that the old hotel was located on the Dublin Square property, which was currently zoned C-l Retail/Commercial. A hotel on that site would be permitted with a Conditional Use Permit. Cm. Sbranti asked if residential was permitted under the current zoning. Ms. Bascom advised no, not at that particular site. There were other sites in the area that do have a residential zoning designation. On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Cm. McCormick and by majority vote (Cm. Oravetz absent), the Council directed Staff to make no land use changes in the Donlon Way Historic Area Specific Plan at this time. . CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 474 Mayor Lockhart advised that Item 8.2 would be heard next in order to accommodate those in audience to waiting to speak on the issue. PROPOSED OFF-LEASH DOG PARK AT DOUGHERTY HILLS OPEN SPACE 9:12 p.m. 8.2 (920-20) Parks and Community Services Director Diane Lowart began the presentation by advising that one of the FY 2004-05 High Priority City Council Goals was to explore the opportunity to use the Dougherty Hills Open Space on Amador Valley Boulevard between Stagecoach Road and Dougherty Road for a dog park. Staff had evaluated the site and determined that there was space to accommodate a two-acre dog park with areas for both large and small dogs. Parks and Facilities Development Manager Herma Lichtenstein presented the Staff Report and advised that the site at the base of the Dougherty Hills Open Space would accommodate a two-acre dog park with areas for both large and small dogs, as well as 18 off-street parking spaces. In response to comments received in a petition signed by several residents of Quartz Circle expressing concern about proposed parking on Quartz Circle, Staff prepared alternative plans with parking occurring on Amador Valley Boulevard. If the dog park was approved, the Council would need to identify a preference for parking lot entrance location. The two design schemes were prepared, one version with more amenities. Scheme A would cost approximately $478,380; Scheme B would cost approximately $299,470. The Parks and Community Services Commission recommended that the park be funded to the higher design level in the FY 2005-06 update to the Capital Improvement Program. The Commission further recommended that a public process be established as part of the project design. The Council and Staff discussed parking on Amador Valley Boulevard. Staff advised that on-street parking was currently allowed along Amador Valley Boulevard below the Dougherty Hills Open Space. The Council and Staff engaged in a question and answer session regarding the proposed park configurations. Staff advised that the significant amenities in the higher design level included the par course, more shade trees and landscaping, as well as twice as many benches and trash containers. Drinking fountains in both small and large dog areas were included in both design levels. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 475 Jennifer Woolf, Quartz Circle resident, expressed concern about vehicle accidents and speeding on her street if the parking was located on Quartz Circle, and asked the Council to consider having the parking on Amador Valley Boulevard. Tammy Goldstein, Quartz Circle resident, stated that she was against the dog park because of the noise and mess involved. Even with the proposed parking changes, the houses located up against the dog park would be particularly affected, especially those neighbors who are home during the day. Pat Zahn, representing the Rotary Club of Dublin, advised that the Rotary Club would like to participate in the dog park by providing a drinking fountain or participate in the agility course. John Sherwin, Amador Valley Boulevard resident, advised that he lived directly across the street from the proposed dog park and there were already problems with unenforced leash laws and excessive dog mess. These problems would be exacerbated with a dog park. Howard Harte, Quartz Circle resident, advised that he was generally for the dog park, but agreed that the traffic situation would get worse. The parking lot should not exit onto Quartz Circle. He asked if the drinking fountains were for dogs or people. Ms. Lichtenstein advised that the fountains were for both. Mr. Harte suggested having a separate entrance to the walking path at top of hill, as well as a parking lot further east that would allow people to park for the other walking trail further to the east. Edward Floth, Quartz Circle resident, advised that his house was closest to the proposed dog park, and his dogs would be barking every time other dog came near. The parks needed to be as far away from his house as possible. Vijay Patel, Quartz Circle resident, stated that he was against the dog park. In San Ramon, people complain about their dog park because parking and dog feces were a problem. Ester Floth, Quartz Circle resident, advised that her house was directly across from the proposed park. Although she loved animals and had dogs, she did not buy her lovely home to have a dog park across the street and have her property value go down. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 476 Cm. Sbranti asked if the park could be extended farther to the east. Ms. Lichtenstein advised that the property to the east dropped steeply into a basin. The maps also showed a parcel line, and the City may not have the rights to that parcel. Cm. McCormick asked if there would be any other barriers besides trees. Ms. Lichtenstein advised that trees and fences would act as barriers, as well as a grade change varying from 2' to 5'. Cm. McCormick confirmed that there would be a visual and noise barrier for residents who lived across the street. Ms. Lichtenstein indicated yes, and noted that the project was budgeted for vines across fence, as well. Mayor Lockhart stated that the area did not currently have much in the way of landscaping and the project could provide buffers that do not currently exist for residents. She asked if Animal Control officers would monitor the park. Ms. Lichtenstein advised that she would need to check with Animal Control. She had contacted numerous other cities and none reported an increase in problems. City Manager Ambrose explained that Dublin received an allocated portion of Animal Control Staff from Alameda County, and whether additional staffing could be provided would need to be evaluated. From a maintenance standpoint, Dublin Staff would monitor the park. Mayor Lockhart confirmed that the cleanliness issue could be address by the City. The actual monitoring of behavior would depend on how much Animal Control time we get in Dublin. Mr. Ambrose agreed, advising that if the Animal Control Officer was responding to another call, it could take awhile to respond to a situation at the dog park. Cm. McCormick asked about the hours of operation. Parks & Community Services Director Lowart advised that the park would be open from dawn to dusk, seven days a week. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 477 Mayor Lockhart stated that a dog park was a good solution. An incredible amount of people in Dublin are interested in dog parks, and dog parks tend to work in other cities. The tradeoff would be getting landscaping and trees to buffer current noise and dust. Cm. Sbranti stated that the location was ideal because it was near trails and creeks. The Council and Staff discussed the proposed landscaping and park configurations. Vm. Zika expressed concern with the proposed location of the par course because it backed up to 7216 Quartz Circle. Ms. Lichtenstein advised the conceptual plans were open to discussion. Mayor Lockhart stated that most of the activity should be away from the homes and adjacent to the open space. City Manager Ambrose advised that the purpose of this item was to explore the feasibility of the dog park, and the Council must direct Staff to pursue it further. If so, Staff would bring back more precise design options. Vm. Zika expressed concern about the cost, but was not willing to give up the trees on either side. Mayor Lockhart advised that it was a good opportunity to landscape an open space area. On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Cm. McCormick and by majority vote (Cm. Oravetz absent), the Council determined that a Dog Park would be feasible for the Dougherty Hills Open Space; directed Staff to locate the parking off of Amador Valley Boulevard, adjacent to Dublin Meadows, as identified on the map; and directed Staff to finalize the conceptual design and cost estimate for consideration as part of the FY 2004- 2006 Update to the Capital Improvement Program. City Manager Ambrose clarified that the Council's direction was with the understanding that the Dog Park would be included in the Capital Improvement Program, but the Council would have to decide later if it gets funding. The Council agreed with the clarification. .. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 478 DUBLIN RANCH WEST (FORMERLY WAWS RANCH) 9:50 p.m. 8.1 (410-20) Planning Consultant Mike Porto presented the Staff Report and advised that Staff was seeking direction from the City Council regarding land use related to the application of the Village Policy, provisions of parks and neighborhood commercial sites in the northern section of the City, and the application of the Public/Semi-Public Policy on the project site. Since the adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, new policies and other issues have surfaced which also impact the development of Dublin Ranch West, such as the release of the school site, the Village Policy, and the Public/Semi-Public Policy. The Council was also being requested to give direction regarding the release of the elementary school site by either allowing the Developer to use the land for residential development or to create neighborhood commercial, parks, semi-public lands uses or other uses. Note: testimony relative to this issue was heard by /landy ShumwaY7 Dublin SchoolBoard President, at 7:18 p.m. during Oral Communications. Martin Inderbitzen, Attorney representing the Applicant, advised that they had recently submitted a Village Study whitepaper to the Planning Department, which he felt spoke for itself. He reviewed the processing history of the project and advised that the application was actually submitted on July 2, 2001; not July 2002 as indicated in the Staff Report. One year was spent working with Staff and property owners on how to best move forward with the project, before resubmitting the application. In July 2002, the Council authorized the General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment Study. During the application processing time, the Council implemented several new policies which have caused delays. They have also worked extensively with the School District to identify facility needs and impacts that could best be accommodated in conjunction with the development of Dublin Ranch and other properties in Eastern Dublin. They have worked collaboratively with Staff and the Council, attempting to find ways to achieve the maximum number of goals for the City and themselves in a way that leads to a better end product. The Wallis project is part of the overall Dublin Ranch project, and is linked in ownership, as well as in the development of resource plans and management of resource permits. There is a significant mitigation element in this project which links to the rest of the Dublin Ranch project, including parks, affordable housing, and school needs. The application of the Public/Semi-Public Policy is a relevant thing to link to both the Dublin Ranch and Dublin Ranch West projects. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 479 Councilmember McCormick asked what would become of the elementary school site, which the Applicant was asking to be released from its obligation to build. Mr. Inderbitzen explained the process of developer-built schools and advised that the School District's analysis on student generation numbers based on conservative build-out numbers concluded that their Master Plan did not generate a need for an elementary school on the Wallis property and that, even if there was a need, they did not think that it was an appropriate location. The Applicant has advised the School District that, if they were not able to convert the property to residential use in order to offset costs, it would be very difficult for them to commit to the construction of Green Elementary School. The Council, Staff and Applicant discussed the Wallis property school site and the Applicant's request to be released from their obligation to build a school on that site and build residential instead. Mr. Inderbitzen referred to the Village Policy, which the Council had only adopted a few months ago and discussed its potential impact to the project as it relates to parks, Neighborhood Commercial and Public/Semi-Public facilities, and offered a combination of uses that seemed to the Applicant to make sense for the project. The Council and Staff discussed the Applicant's suggestions regarding the proposal as it . related to parks, Neighborhood Commercial and Public/Semi-Public facilities. Jay Edgy, Project Manager for the DeSilva Group representing the Moller Ranch, described possible park opportunities on their property that would serve the east side of Tassajara Road. The Council and Staff continued its discussion on parks as it related to the Applicant's proposal and agreed that it would provide the internal park usage for the Wallis development and also provides an open space buffer and access for development on the east of the Fallon/Tassajara area. City Manager Ambrose advised that the Council had four issues before them tonight and suggested that they make decisions individually: Village Concept The Council discussed Village concept as it related to the Dublin Ranch West project and agreed that it would not be a feasible concept for this project location. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 480 Parks The Council, Staff and the Applicant discussed the several park options available for the Council's consideration. Tracy Anthony, representing Standard Pacific, the developer processing the Mission Peak property, advised he was reluctant to let the Council vote to take a 2-acre chunk out of the Mission Peak property for a park that was not required in the Specific Plan. It seemed to him that they were trying to force park on the east side of Tassajara that could really be accommodated by the released school site. Rather than bonus the Wallis Ranch property with 40 more units or 10 acres of developable land, they should put their park on those 10 acres. Mayor Lockhart advised that the Council was not suggesting that scenario. Mr. Anthony advised that it could become an option and he wanted to be on the record opposed to it. He had submitted a letter to Staff earlier today stating as much. The Council continued its discussion and agreed to accept Park Option 4 because it would serve the different needs of the community. Neig:hborhood Commercial The Council agreed that Neighborhood Commercial was not an option. Public/Semi - Public The Council agreed that the remnant parcel on the southern end of the property should remain flexible for either more park or Public/Semi-Public use. .. RESPONSE TO INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE NORTHBOUND 1-680 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV) AND AUXIUARY LANES PROJECT ALONG SUNOL GRADE 11 :35 p.m. 8.3 (800-30) Traffic Engineer Ray Kuzbari presented the Staff Report and advised that Caltrans was proposing to adopt a Negative Declaration concluding that a proposed project to install an HOV lane and auxiliary lanes on northbound 1-680 between Route 237 in Milpitas and Route 84 in Pleasanton would have no adverse impact on transportation and traffic CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 481 in the area. City Staff have reviewed the Initial Study for this project and determined it to be inadequate as it lacks supporting document and fails to analyze potential project impacts on Dublin Boulevard and other downstream routes along the 1-580 corridor resulting from regional cut-through traffic in the area. Staff was proposing to submit a joint Tri-Valley response to Caltrans with detailed comments from the Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin on the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration for the northbound 1-680 HOV and Auxiliary Lanes project along the Sunol Grade. Vm. Zika stated that he agreed with what Staff was trying to accomplish. Although he had concerns about the motivations of some of our surrounding cities, he would keep an open mind. He specifically agreed with the Staff Report that the traffic study should recognize the current capacity for 1-580 and address those needs first. On motion of Vm. Zika, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by majority vote (Cm. Oravetz absent), the Council approved the proposal to submit a joint Tri-Valley response to Caltrans with detailed comments from the Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton and Dublin on the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration for the northbound 1-680 HOV and Auxiliary Lanes project along the Sunol Grade. +. OTHER BUSINESS 11 :44 p.m. Vm. Zika congratulated Staff for an outstanding Day on the Glen event. Cm. Sbranti commended Staff on a productive Camp Parks charrette workshop. Mayor Lockhart congratulated Staff on the City's kick-off leadership academy. The participants enjoyed it and are looking forward to next meeting. Mayor Lockhart referred to resident Ellen Silky's request for stop signs at Antone Way and asked if it should go to the Traffic Safety Committee. City Manager Ambrose advised that, based on another comment receive, the Traffic Safety Committee was already looking at speeding and traffic issues on South Dublin Ranch Road and Antone Way. Gleason Drive was expected to open next week, which would make a difference in that neighborhood. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 482 Public Works Director Morton added that the Developer doing the work on Gleason Drive was finishing a punch list of items. Staff was hoping to have the signal on Graft turned on next week. Public Works has been working closely with Police on issues related to cut through traffic. . ADJOURNMENT ~ 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11 :50 p.m. Minutes taken and prepared by Fawn Holman, Deputy City Clerk. ATTEST: .,. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 23 REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2004 PAGE 483