Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-01-2005 Adopted CC Min REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 1. 2005 CLOSED SESSION A closed session was held at 6:30 p.m., regarding: Conference with Legal Counsel CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -- ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9, subdivision (b)(1) [One potential case] Facts and Circumstances: Government Code section 54956.9, subdivision (b)(3)(B) [possible adoption of condominium conversion ordinance] A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, March 1,2005, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was caIled to order at 7:04 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart. · ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hildenbrand, McCormick, Oravetz, Zika and Mayor Lockhart. ABSENT: None. · PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of aIlegiance to the flag was recited by the Council, Staff and those present. · REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTION Mayor Lockhart advised that no reportable action was taken during Closed Session. · CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING March I, 2005 PAGE 77 .f", ,,< RECOGNITION AND CONGRATULATIONS TO DUStiN'S 2004 CITIZEN OF TIlE YEAR AND ORGANIZATION OF TIlE YEAR 7:05 p.m. 3.1 (File #610-50) Mayor Lockhart read proclamations recognizing Shari Jackman as the 2004 Citizen of the Year, and the GFWC Dublin/San Ramon Women's Club as the 2004 Organization of the Year. The winners were previously announced and recognized at the Volunteer Recognition Dinner hosted by the City on February 24, 2005. Congratulations to the winners and nominees; their service to the community is invaluable and much appreciated. . CONSENT C.4J.F.NDAR 7:12 p.m. Items 4.1 through 4.8 On motion of Vm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Oravetz and by unanimous vote, the Council took the foIlowing actions: Approved (4.1) Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 15, 2005; Approved (4.2 600-30) First Amendment to Agreement between the City of Dublin, Dublin Fine Arts foundation and Artist Ned Kahn related to Provisions of Artistic Services for a Public Art Project. (During "Other Business," Cm. McCormick stated that she would abstain {/'Om this vote.); Adopted (4.3 540·50) RESOLUTION NO. 26 ~ 05 DECLARING WEEDS AND COMBUSTIBLE REFUSE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE ABATEMENT THEREOf and directed Staff to notify the public; and schedule a public hearing for April 5, 2005, to hear an consider objections to abatement order; CITY COlJNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING Marcb 1, 2005 PAGE 78 Adopted (4.4 600-35) RESOLUTION NO. 27 - 05 AWARDING CONTRACT NO. 05-01 2004-2005 ANNUAL SIDEWALK SAfE1Y REPAIR PROGRAM TO RANSOME COMPANY Adopted (4.5 600-60) RESOLUTION NO. 28 - 05 ACCEPTANCE Of IMPROVEMENTS FOR STORM DRAIN LINE D ~ fALLON ROAD & CENTRAL PARKWAY DUBLIN RANCH, AREA B Adopted (4.6 600-60) RESOLUTION NO. 29 - 05 APPROVING THE FINAL MAP AND IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH TRACT 7441, PHASE I ...... SILVERA RANCH (PFEIFFER RANCH INVESTORS II, INC.) RESOLUTION NO. 30 - 05 ACCEPTING OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR OPEN SPACE AND CONVERSATION EASEMENT, PARCELS A, C, D, AND F, TRACT 7441, PHASE I - SILVERA RANCH (PFEIFFER RANCH INVESTORS II, INC.) RESOLUTION NO. 31 - 05 ACCEPTANCE OF PARKLAND DEDICATION IN LIEU FEE FOR TRACT 7441 Received (4.7 310-30) reports and confirmed reservations of Fund Balances for Fiscal Year 2003-2004; CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING Marcb 1, 2005 PAGE 79 Approved (4.8 300-40) the Warrant Register in the amount of $1,244,230.71. . PUBLIC HEARING ENEA PROPERTIES STARW ARD ROW RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 2ND READING - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REWNING AND STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PA 04-006 7:13 p.m. 6.1 (450-30/420-30) Mayor Lockhart opened the pu blic hearing. Senior Planner Janet Harbin presented the Staff Report and advised that this was the second reading of an Ordinance approving a Planned Development Rezoning Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development plan for a 10-lot single-family residential subdivision in the primary planning area on a .77 -acre site located at 7475 Starward Drive, and owned by Enea Properties. The Applicant proposes two-story homes on individual rectangular lots ranging in size from 2,143 to 2,652 square feet, with garages to the rear of the lots accessed by a shared private street. No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the second reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO.6 - 05 AivlENDING TIlE ZONING MAP TO REZONE PROPER1Y TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PO) DISTRICT AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE 1 & Z DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY .77 ACRES LOCATED AT 7475 STARWARD DRIVE, PA 04.-006 . PUBLIC HEARING - WNING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CHAFfER 8.76 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS, AS IT PERTAINS TO RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING ON RESIDENTIAL LOTS. PA 03-028 7:15 p.m. 6.2 (450-20) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING March I, 2005 PAGE 80 Associate Planner Mamie Nuccio presented the Staff Report and advised that this was the second reading of an Ordinance which would create greater flexibility with respect to the size of a recreational vehicle parked in the area between the residential driveway and nearest side lot line. It would also establish a Conditional Use Permit process by which residents could ask for deviations to the sizes of a recreational vehicle parked in this area, as well as deviations from the permitted locations for off-street recreational vehicle parking. 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. McCormick and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the second reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO.7· 05 AMENDING TITLE 8 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE), CHAPTER 8.76, OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS RELATING TO RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING . PUBLIC HEARING PFEIFFER RANCH INVESTORS II, INC.! SILVERA RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PA 02-024 7:15 p.m. 6.3 (600-60) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Janet Harbin presented the Staff Report and advised that this was the first reading of an Ordinance, not the second reading as erroneously indicated in the Staff Report. The Ordinance would approve a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and pfeiffer Ranch Investors II, Inc., for the Silvera Ranch residential subdivision, located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area and being developed by Finn Brothers Fine Homes. The Development Agreement proposed for approval would serve to implement the conditions of approval, physical improvements and other requirementsfor the project. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING March 1, 2005 PAGE 81 The Council and Staff briefly discussed the length of the current trail. The Phase I trail was approximately 600-700 feet long, and the Phase 4 trail would be approximately 1 ,000 feet long. Vm. Zika asked if the Homeowners Association would be liable for trail maintenance if it were a private, residents-only trail. Ms. Harbin indicated yes, and advised that the City would be liable for maintenance if it were open to the public. Mayor Lockhart asked about the lifestyle of the Golden Eagle. Ms. Harbin advised that the Golden Eagle had a six-month nesting season, from early- January through the end of June. The fledglings usually leave the nest in late-May to late-June. During the rest of the year, the eagles migrate elsewhere in the Valley. Mayor Lockhart asked if most of Dublin's trails were located next the sensitive habitat. Ms. Harbin advised that they were usually close to open space, but not necessary sensitive habitat. City Manager Ambrose stated that the issue was whether the habitat was protected. Mayor Lockhart asked if there were Tiger Salamanders located on the property. Ms. Harbin advised that Tiger Salamanders had been observed on nearby properties, and were known to travel up to 7 miles. Council and Staff further discussed the lifestyle of Tiger Salamanders and how they might be affected by an open trail. Mayor Lockhart noted that, even if kept private, approximately one thousand people would still have access to the trail. Ms. Harbin agreed, and advised that the residents may have more feeling of ownership and want to protect and preserve it. Mayor Lockhart asked, if privately owned, closing the trail during nesting season had been considered. CITY COllNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING March 1, 2005 PAGE 82 Ms. Harbin indicated that trail closures had not been considered, but there would be a fence around the open space area to protect it. Mayor Lockhart advised that she was not comfortable excluding the trail to the public, if open for residents. Cm. McCormick asked if the Applicant would be willing to close trail altogether and make it completely open space. The unstable slopes in the surrounding area could be a liability. Ms. Harbin advised there had been no discussion as to closing the trail to development residents. The trail needed to be there for secondary access for emergency vehicles. Cm. McCormick asked if there were any penalties or remedies in place if the eagles were disturbed. Ms. Harbin advised that the California Department of Fish & Game and the Fish & Wildlife Service would be the responsible agencies in such a case because it would be a taking of the eagles' habitat. Cm. McCormick expressed concern that not everyone valued trails, and stated that every precaution should be taken to protect this sensitive area. Barton Hechtman, representing pfeiffer Investors, advised that what was being called a trail was what actually had been designed as an Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA), and the hiking trail would be created later. pinn Brothers would be open to talking to Staff about limiting access to the open space to emergency access and maintenance only. The Applicant was not marketing the trail as a selling point. The Golden Eagles actually nested over a ridge so there was no direct visibility from trail. The project was fully in compliance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan's eagle protection zone. The eagle~cam idea would be a great educational opportunity, as well as provided a protection aspect in addition to the required mitigation. The $30,000 that Finn Brothers would provide to the program was designed to cover cost to get it started. If the $30,000 was not enough, the Applicant wanted the record to reflect that they would provide the rest of the money needed. Cm. Oravetz asked if the EVA road linked up with any of the other trail systems on the east side of town. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOl,UME 24 REGUl,AR MEETING March 1,2005 PAGE 83 City Engineer Mark Lander advised that neither the Phase I nor Phase 4 trail connected with a trail outside the subdivision. Mayor Lockhart clarified that the Applicant did not consider the EVA road as the big selling point for the project. Mr. Hechtman advised that the homebuyers would find value in the property next to them would never be built on. They did not anticipate that many residents would use the trail, and reiterated that they would not be marketing to hiking enthusiasts. The road was mainly intended as an EVA. Mayor Lockhart clarified that the Applicant would not be opposed if the EVA road was not open to the public and not open to the residents. It would be unfair for 1,000 people to have access, but not the rest of the community. It should be one way or the other. The Council discussed the location, length and hikeability of the trail, and generally agreed that it should mainly stay as an EVA road. City Attorney Elizabeth Silver advised that if it was the consensus of the Council, and the Applicant was agreeable, to eliminate the private trail, a minor adjustment to the Development Agreement could be made at the second reading of the Ordinance eliminating the words "private trail." The EVA road would have to remain. Cm. McCormick asked if there was a way to control domestic pets from entering the area. Mr. Hechtman advised that the rear yards would be fenced so there would not be free access, but cats would be difficult to control. There would be no encouragement to have domestic animals of any kind, dogs or horses for example, using the open space. Cm. McCormick asked if the open space signage would declare the restriction of pets. Mr. Hechtman advised that they Applicant had not thought that far ahead, but would be agreeable to signage. Mayor Lockhart asked if the trail project was given to the Parks & Community Services Commission for discussion. Ms. Harbin advised that the Commission reviewed the project and did not have any comments other than to acknowledge that it was to be a private trail. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING March 1, 2005 PAGE 84 Richard Guarienti, Dublin resident, advised that Golden Eagles and Tiger Salamanders had special status as a wildlife species, and other trails in the East Bay closed during nesting season. He discussed East Bay Regional Park District policies regarding buffer zones, and stated that any trail open in the City should be a public trail, not just open to neighborhood residents. As a Parks & Community Services Commissioner, he would like to see any type of item related to trails and open spacer for review by the Commission. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. Mayor Lockhart stated that, considering that the trail was only Yz mile long and in light of liability from neighboring unstable grounds and protected properties, it seemed more appropriate to leave it as an EVA road only. Signs should also be installed to let people know that it was not meant to be a trail, and was connected to unstable land. Vm. Zika agreed with the Mayor for the same reasons. If it was opened as a private trail, the residents would be using it at their own risk. Cm. McCormick agreed and commended the Applicant for committing the money for the web-cam and protecting the female Golden Eagle called "Bella." On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. McCormick and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the first reading and INTRODUCED an Ordinance approving the Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and pfeiffer Ranch Investors II, Inc. for the Silvera Ranch Project with a revision showing that the trail was not open to hikers at all. . PUBLIC HEARING REVISIONS TO SPORTS nEW USE POUCY 8:02 p.m. 6.4 (260-10/290-10) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Parks & Recreation Manager Paul McCreary presented the Staff Report and advised that it had been two years since the Sports Field Use Policy fees were last considered by the City Council. Staff proposed increasing the Sports Field rental fees to help partially offset increases in park maintenance costs. The proposed increase would be effective July 1, Z005. Mayor Lockhart asked if all local sports groups were present at meeting. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING March 1,2005 PAGE 85 Mr. McCreary advised yes, aU groups were present and had no comments or feedback. The Council discussed the issue and noted that they had not received any comments or feedback either. 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. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESoumON NO. 32- 05 ESTABLISHING A FACILI1Y USE POLICY AND RENTAL FEES fOR USE OF THE SPORTS FIELDS AT DUBLIN SPORTS GROUNDS, EMERALD GLEN AND TED fAIRFIELD PARKS .. PUBUC HEARING AMENDMENT TO TIlE INCLUSIONARY WNING REGULATIONS RELATED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING 8:06 p.m. 6.5 (420-30) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Housing Specialist Julia Abdala presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would consider amending the IncIusionary Zoning Ordinance Regulations to clarify the sales price for very low income units, add additional priorities for selection of occupants of Inclusionary Affordable Units and other clarifying amendments, and to a authorize changing the "Layperson's Guide to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Regulations" to reflect the changes in the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. 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. Oravetz and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the first reading and INTRODUCED an Ordinance amending Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code related to amendments to the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations and authorize changing the "Layperson's Guide to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Regulations" to reflect the amendment Ordinance. . CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING March 1, 2005 PAGE 86 RECESS 8:11 p.m. Mayor Lockhart called for a short recess. At 8:18 p.m. the meeting reconvened with all Councilmembers present. . CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION ORDINANCE POUCY ALTERNATIVES FOR REGULATING TIlE CONVERSION OF EXISTING APARTMENTS IN THE CI1Y TO CONDOMINIUMS 8:18 p.m. 7.1 (430-20) Associate Planner Jeff Baker presented the Staff Report and advised that on February 1, 2005, the City Council held a public hearing and reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation regarding condominium conversion. At that meeting, the Council raised concerns about the proposed Ordinance and directed Staff to do further analysis. The Council would consider policy alternatives to regulate the conversion of existing residential apartment units held in single ownership to for-sale condominiums and provide direction to Staff on policies that should be considered as part of the Condominium Conversion Ordinance. The three key decision points for the Council to consider in reviewing this Staff Report included: 1) Is there a need to adopt a Condominium Conversion Ordinance; 2) Should the Ordinance apply to projects with existing Condominium Maps; and 3) Should the City establish housing ratio and limit conversions if the ratio is not met. Cm. Oravetz asked if the apartment build-out ratio included the Camp Parks scenario. Mr. Baker advised that it did not. Vm. Zika asked if the City could require all that other medium and high density properties within Dublin be converted to apartments only if the City found out that it would not meet an appropriate balance between rental and ownership units if the units with an existing condo map were exempted from the proposed Ordinance. City Attorney Silver advised that she would need to research whether the Council could adopt a policy that allowed only the construction of apartments in the medium-high, high density land use areas, but in general, yes the Council had the authority to require a mix or a ratio of the remaining lands available for multi-family housing, as between CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGVLAR MEETING March 1, 2005 PAGE 87 apartment and condos, rental vs. ownership. The Council had the authority pursuant to the police power to regulate land use, and the Council was required by state law to adopt a general plan and a housing element. The housing element law says that the Council is supposed to provide for different types of units, including apartments. Therefore, the Council had the authority to regulate future units as they are built as to whether or not they are ownership units or apartment units. She would want to do further research to be able to specifically answer that question, and to provide more guidance to the Council if it were interested in that approach. Vm. Zika asked if the City, under existing laws and Ordinance regulations, could legally deny any apartment complex the right to convert, whether it had a condo map or not. City Attorney Silver advised that the City could not deny the right to convert. The Council could enact a Condominium Conversion Ordinance that regulated the conversion. It may require the provision of affordable units to ensure that there were, as part of the conversion process, some units affordable to persons of moderate, low, or very-low income. The Council could place a limit on when the conversions could occur. The Council could regulate, but not prohibit completely, the conversions. Vm. Zika asked if a Contractor who did not have the foresight to get a condo map, but built to the same standards as a Contractor with a condo map, would be able to presume that they would be able to convert. City Attorney Silver advised that they would not be in the same category. There were some projects in the City that were approved and built as condominium projects that do not have public reports. In her opinion, the Council could, if it wished, apply the Condominium Conversion Ordinance to those projects. Projects' that were approved as apartments that happened to have been built to condo standards would be subject to the ordinance, if adopted, just like a project that was built to apartment standards. Cm. McCormick referred to the statement in the Staff Report which said that the City of Laguna Hills adopted a Condominium Conversion Ordinance that applied expressly to mapped projects that did not have a public report and asked if that ordinance had been challenged. City Attorney Silver advised that the Laguna Hills ordinance had been adopted within the last couple of months and had not been challenged to her or Staff's knowledge. CITY COUNCIL MINlITES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING March 1, 2005 PAGE 88 Cm. McCormick asked if it was possible to have an ordinance for projects that were built as apartments and did not have a condo map, and a separate set of conditions for those that were mapped. City Attorney Silver advised yes, the Council could adopt an ordinance that applied to projects that were un-built, projects that were already built as apartments and wished to convert in the future, and projects that were built as condos and are operated as apartments but do not have public reports. Different standards could be applied to each to tailor it to those different categories. Joseph Au, Fremont resident, submitted a speaker slip which indicated that he did not wish to speak, but wanted the following comment entered into the public record: "In the public hearings 1 requested that the ordinance apply to projects with 21 or more units. There were no negative remarks regarding this request f/'Om the public and staff. I wish the City Council to take notice that the Planning Commission directed staff to modifY the p/'Oposed ordinance to make the prqjects with 21 or more units suly"ect to the ordinance." Shaym Taggarsi, representing Archstone-Smith, owners of Iron Horse Trail and Emerald Park Apartments, advised that they fall into the category of apartments that were currently operated as apartments. They would like to have a condo map and the option of convert, but do not necessarily have an immediate plan to convert. Any ordinance that is a defacto moratorium on condo conversions would be detrimental to the community as the City would lose some of the very benefits that it hopes to attract, such as affordable housing. The City would be better served if it reviewed and approved conversions on a case-by-case basis after negotiating mutual beneficial terms between the City and the Developer. He referred the letter that he had submitted to the Council prior to the meeting and advised that it included a matrix showing the positive attributes of conversion under their proposal. Mark Rafanelli, condominium project owner, advised that it was important to note that even a modified threshold of 30% to 25 to 20% would still represent a ban on conversions. If you look at the last 1,873 residential units that have been approved by the City, approximately 11 % have been designated as apartments. Obviously that exacerbates that ratio even more than the assumptions of the Staff in terms of build-out in terms of what has already been approved. Nobody will build apartments in Dublin without making sure that they are legally condominiums unless it is a subsidized project at this point. It will be difficult to improve that ratio unless the City takes some affirmative steps to encourage rentals or require them as part of a rezoning. The other issue is what is the City doing to provide affordable for-sale housing? There is a huge gap in terms of affordable for-sale housing, which conversions would help satisfy. In CITY COlINCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING March 1,2005 PAGE 89 1- terms of the legal issues involved, he strongly disagreed with the City Attorney and would say that the Staffs solution to this problem was basically to go back and take away existing approvals. The Staff Report was not 100% candid or objective. Their projects were processed and approved pursuant to a planned development rezoning process with approved tentative maps and final subdivision maps that were approved by the Dublin Planning Commission and the Dublin City Council. They approved the CC&R's and condominium plan, and they filed those final subdivision maps. They were also required to build, pursuant to a Residential Condominium Guidelines, which required additional parking for condos, additional open space, and additional storage. They were even required to make disclosures regarding Camp Parks conducting exercises in their rental agreements and in their sales documents when they sold the units. The City acknowledged that, not only were they approved condominiums, they acknowledged that they were going to rent them and had the right to sell them. They have operated on that assumption and have represented that condition to partners and lenders over the years and, in his opinion, represented the ultimate in proving vested rights. He is certain that Staffs position in advising the Council that they have the legal right to apply this ordinance to their project was tenuous at best. The City's legal position, if it were correct, would overturn the entire field of vested property rights in the State of California. The attempted application of this ordinance to their existing condominium projects violates every standard of fairness. Michael Foley, San Ramon resident, advised that he addressed them as a concerned citizen and as a professional land surveyor. While he spoke as an individual, he spoke with the voice of over 2,000 survey professionals who were members of the California Land Surveyors Association (CSLA). The Executive Board of the CSLA had reviewed the proposed ordinance and expressed concern that it may not be in concert with state law or the Subdivision Map Act. CSLA Executive Board was concerned about the possible adoption of the portion of the proposed ordinance affecting existing condominium projects as it violated the Subdivision Map Act. The CSLA would maintain a close watch on Council's action related to this ordinance. Mayor Lockhart suggested that the Council separate some of these issues during discussion. The one major decision would be to decide if the ordinance would include maps already in existence or not. In her opinion, in a pure point of fairness, she did not believe it was a good thing for the City to go back and take people that already have condominium maps. Those businesses with the map in place right now should be exempt from any discussion the Council might have about what needed to be regulated in the future, including limits on the number for units for conversion. If the Council chose to tackle this issue, it should be with those who are coming into place and coming online in the future, so everyone comes in knowing what the rules were. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING March 1, 2005 PAGE 90 Cm. Oravetz concurred, stating that if there was a Condo Conversion Ordinance it should start from this day forward. Cm. Hildenbrand agreed. Vm. Zika disagreed and stated that the City had made a commitment to the State and to the City's General Plan Housing Element. Part of that commitment was affordable rental units. If a third of the rental units were taken off the market, it would violate the Housing Element. The residents in the 56 units of Cross Creek Apartments were told they had to move because the owners wanted to convert the condos. Mayor Lockhart advised that the residents received a standard letter that has to be sent. The State had the wording on that letter. Anybody who wants to even apply for a map has to send that Jetter. It did not mean that in 90 days those people had to be gone. The Council discussed separating out the issues and agreed by straw vote to first discuss the issues of 1) if an ordinance should be written and, if so, 2) what elements should be included. The issue of whether or not to include the five existing condominium maps in the ordinance would be set aside until later in the discussion. Cm. McCormick stated that a Conversion Ordinance was necessary to regulate the process in which future developments converted to conversion. Cm. Oravetz stated that a Conversion Ordinance was not needed. Converting apartments to condos would be the best way to provide affordable homeownership. An option would be to come back in one year to evaluate the issue. Mayor Lockhart stated that the ordinance could limit the number of future conversions per year instead of trying to gage a percentage. Cm. Hildenbrand stated that an ordinance should be created because she was concerned about getting the Inclusionary units. Limiting the amount of conversions would be a good idea, as well, excluding the existing condo maps. The Council and Staff discussed various scenarios regarding the housing ratio. City Attorney Silver stated that it sounded like some of the Council members were discussing the option to include a requirement for conversion, regardless of whether or not there was a number of units of per year that could convert or a percentage, that when a project was able to convert it would require compliance with the Inclusionary CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING March 1, 2005 PAGE 91 Zoning Ordinance. If the Condominium Conversion Ordinance required compliance with the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance was required, the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance currently included some flexibility in that it allowed an applicant to propose an alternate method of complying with the requirements, if the Council found that it met the objectives of the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. It might need to be tweaked if the Council wanted to do that in a Condominium Conversion Ordinance, but a standard would need to be set and then allow variations from that standard with certain findings. Notice to people would have to be provided as to what the standard was, so they knew going in. Changes proposed by the Applicant could be possible if the Council made findings. Mayor Lockhart stated that this scenario provided the flexibility that she was looking for. Cm. McCormick suggested that the proposed ordinance contain three elements: limit conversion; have Inclusionary units in the housing element; and have the protection for tenants which Council decided upon in an earlier Council meeting. Cm. Oravetz agreed. Mayor Lockhart agreed and suggested more extended notice than the 90 days, such as a year. The Council discussed the notification requirements and agreed that all residents needed a one-year notification, except those who move in after the year notice had been given. Those tenants needed to be told at the time of lease. Vm. Zika asked when the one-year notification time period would begin. Cm. McCormick asked if the applicants would have a conversion permit from the City of Dublin. City Attorney Silver advised that part of the draft ordinance was set up to provide for the process of applying for a condo map for those projects that do not have it. If the Council decided that the ordinance would not include those who already had condo maps, it would have a two-step process: 1) apply for and get a condo map approved, and 2) apply for and get a Condominium Conversion Permit from the City. Mayor Lockhart asked when "day one" would start if the Applicants were required to give a one-year notice to tenants. CITY COlJNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING March 1, 2005 PAGE 92 Vm. Zika noted that, if an Applicant was limited to the number of condo conversions per year, some sort of mechanism would need to be set up to notify the appropriate tenants at the appropriate time. Mr. Baker noted that there were several opportunities to provide notification: 1) when the Applicant submitted for their map application, as the Map Act required them to notify tenants 60 days before they file a map with the City; Z) when the map was approved; 3) when the public report was issued by the Department of Real Estate; ör 4) at the approval of the Condo Conversion Permit. Mayor Lockhart advised that it seemed best at the approval of the Condo Conversion Permit. Mr. Baker advised that there were several provisions in the proposed ordinance that were recommended by the Planning Commission, and asked the Council to direct Staff as to which provisions it wanted to include. The Commission recommended a Site Development Review permit to allow Staff to evaluate the maintenance and upkeep of the building and require and refurbishing or restoration. Vm. Zika stated that this issue was approved in principal by the Council already. City Manager Ambrose advised that the Council had previous discussed this; however, it sounded as if the Council wanted to revisit the issue. Although he was not certain that there was consensus, it sounded as if the Council would like to look at an ordinance that limited the number of conversions, required some level of Inclusionary units, and provided some level of tenant protection. If those were the three areas that the Council would like to see covered in the ordinance, the Council could attempt to go through them tonight, or Staff could reorganize the staff report to relate to those three issues and bring it back to the Council. Mayor Lockhart agreed that it was a good idea to bring back the three elements, and expressed concern about the Site Development Review being required. These would be homes going onto the market, and would have to be in good shape for someone to buy it. The City does not require SDRs for all houses going on the market. The Council and Staff discussed requiring SDRs for condo conversion. City Manager Ambrose indicated that there might be areas to look at as a result of converting something from one use to another use. Another reason might be to make certain that the Applicant was stilI in compliance with the existing SDR. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING March 1, 2005 PAGE 93 The Council discussed and agreed by consensus that it would be important for the project to be brought back into compliance before it was converted. Mr. Baker advised that the section regarding the tenant's right to purchase included a provision which required that tenants living in affordable units be offered the right to purchase at the affordable price. In other words, make it one of the Inclusionary units. The Council discussed this issue and agreed that it was a good idea. Mayor Lockhart asked the Council's opinion on limitations on rent increases pending conversion. The Council discussed the issue and agreed that 12 months was reasonable. Mayor Lockhart asked the Council's opinion on tenant relocation. In her opinion, a year's notice and a rent freeze constitutes tenant relocation. Vm. Zika concurred. Cm. McCormick agreed, except for those who needed special help, such as disabled, elderly and families with children. Mayor Lockhart stated that it should be limited to the disabled. There were enough other existing programs for seniors and families. The Council discussed the suggestion to limit financial relocation assistance to disabled tenants. Mr. Baker advised that the proposed ordinance included a definition of "disabled tenant," which could be further refined. The Council discussed the issue and agreed to bring it back for further discussion, and directed Staff to bring back a range of what the units were being rented for. Mr. Baker clarified that the Council was directing that all tenants would get a one-year notification, and only disabled tenants would receive financial assistance as well. The Council concurred. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING March 1,2005 PAGE 94 Mr. Baker advised that the Planning Commission asked that Council look at whether units should be brought up to current ADA standards. It is not currently included in the ordinance, but in was in the staff report. City Manager Ambrose advised that the issue that may be of considerable expense. Mayor Lockhart stated that was something a homeowner could do if they needed to. The Council concurred that the units did not need to be brought up to current ADA standards. City Manager Ambrose asked if the Council wanted Staff to bring back the issue about the number of units per year, and include some options for discussion. Vm. Zika indicated that a decision could not be made on that until they knew what the ratio should be. City Manager Ambrose advised that one of issues if the number of units were limited, is would it be done citywide or a percentage of a particular project. Mayor Lockhart stated that it should be citywide because the whole goal was to start developing a history of how many of those do get built each year or being able to have some control over looking at Dublin's needs for the future based on how it would work. It is a control element if there was a known number every year. If those numbers were getting converted every year, it would be easy to tell where we were. Cm. Oravetz agreed that it should be citywide. City Manager Ambrose advised that it could be both. Vm. Zika questioned whether limiting the number of conversions per year per project would negatively impact the bigger projects that wanted to convert. The Council discussed the issue and directed Staff to return with different scenarios of limiting conversions, as well as talk to some of the project owners regarding the potential impacts. Mr. Baker agreed that Staff would do some additional analysis. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING March 1, 2005 PAGE 95 Mayor Lockhart noted that the Council needed to return to the first question and decide about the five properties that already had their condo maps. Mayor Lockhart made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand, to exclude the five properties that had existing condo maps from the proposed Condo Conversion Ordinance. Cm. McCormick advised that she agreed in principal with the fairness issue, but expressed disappointment that the Inclusionary units would be lost. It is a huge project and would add significantly to the for-sale affordable units. The City had been too committed to affordable housing to let this go away. Perhaps the City should negotiate with those who have maps. City Manager Ambrose advised that those property owners felt that the fairness issue still applied. They thought they went through all of the entitlements that the City required of them at the time that they had their development approved, and built their project. From their perspective, they feel that requirements were being added that should not be added. Mayor Lockhart stated that the five properties should be excluded because they do have a map and were playing by one set of rules, and those were the rules that they would like us to honor and allow them to stay in business or change their business by the word we gave them at the time they developed their project. Even by excluding the properties with existing condo maps, there would still be the positive affect of having putting more affordable for-sale units on the market that were not previously anticipated. On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by majority vote (Vm. Zika and Cm. McCormick opposed) the Council excluded the five properties with existing condo maps from the proposed Condominium Conversion Ordinance. . DOLAN PARK PLAY EQUIPMENT PROPOSALS 10:00 p.m. 8.1 (600-35) Parks & Facilities Development Coordinator Rosemary Alex presented the Staff Report and advised that, in January 2005, Staff distributed a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Dolan Park Play Equipment Replacement Project. Proposals were submitted from Playgrounds by Design, California Sports and Recreation, David O'Keefe Company, and Kompan ranging in price from $40,288 to $48,921. At its February 14, 2005 meeting, the Parks & Community Services Commission recommended the play equipment proposed by California Sports and Recreation. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING March 1, 2005 PAGE 96 On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Vm. Zika and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the play equipment design, adopted RESOLUTION NO. 33 - 05 APPROVING A PURCHASE ORDER WITH CALIFORNIA SPORTS AND RECREATION FOR PLAY EQUIPMENT AND WOOD fIBER FOR DOLAN PARK and authorized Staff to seek bids for installation. . CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT - MURRAY SCHOOLHOUSE EXHIBIT DESIGN 10:05 p.m. 8.2 (600-30) Heritage & Cultural Arts Supervisor John Hartnett presented the Staff Report and advised that, in 2003~2004, the Dublin City Council rated as a high priority goal: "to refurbish exhibit space within the Murray Schoolhouse to provide a fresh setting that will optimally highlight Dublin's history." In order to proceed with the Murray Schoolhouse Exhibit Design project, consultant services are necessary. The Council will consider Consultant Services Agreement with Exhibit Designer John Vieira. Cm. McCormick asked when the project would be completed. Mr. Hartnett advised that it would be completed in approximately one year. Mayor Lockhart expressed approval of the project and commended Staff for an excellent job in preparing the design components. On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 34 - 05 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH JOHN VIEIRA FOR EXHIBIT DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE DUBLIN HERITAGE CENTER . CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING March I, 2005 PAGE 97 DUBUN HISTORIC PARK DESIGN 10:08 p.m. 8.3 (600-110/110-30) Parks & Community Services Director Diane Lowart presented the Staff Report and advised that one of the City Council Strategic Goals for 2004-2005 was to "Expand and enhance the Dublin Historic Park." In order to move forward with development of a master plan for the Dublin Historic Park, a Request for proposals (RFp) for design consultants has been prepared for review and approval by the City Council. It is recommended that a Selection Committee be convened to interview the design consultants. Mayor Lockhart asked what Staff felt they could accomplish a small 1.2-acre park. Ms. Lowart clarified that Staff was not looking at that as the only park; it was being looked at as an extension of the Heritage Center. The acreage of the Dublin Square Shopping Center would be added to the acreage of the current Heritage Center, and potentially the acreage on the other side. In looking at the three options, Staff was hoping to provide variety and look at what could be done with the whole site, half the site, or just opening up visually into the Heritage Center. Mr. Ambrose advised that these were options that the Council had given tentative direction to Staff on at the Strategic Plan Workshop. The smaller site provided not only a view corridor, but an opportunity to do something on the end-cap parcel with another structure. This was a feasibly study to help solve the park deficit. Cm. McCormick suggested that the composition of the committee include a representative from the Dublin Fine Arts foundation since there would probably be art elements included in the master plan. The Council agreed with the suggestion. On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm. McCormick and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to circulate a Request for Proposals; and approved the proposed composition of the Selection Committee with the addition of a representative from the Dublin fine Arts foundation. .. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING March 1, 2005 PAGE 98 OTHER BUSINESS 10:14 p.m. City Manager Ambrose announced information regarding the St. Patrick's Day festivities beginning on Friday, March 11th through Sunday, March 13th. City Manager Ambrose invited the Council to the City's first Leadership Academy graduation on the evening of Thursday, March 10th. City Manager Ambrose polled the Council on its availability for a Joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting on April 5th at 5:00 p.m., prior to the œgular Council meeting. The topic would be Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment. The Council advised that it would be available at that day and time. City Manager Ambrose polled the Council on its availability for a Joint Parks & Community Services Commission/City Council meeting during the week of March 28. The Council advised that it would be unavailable that week, and directed Staff to provide them with alternate meeting dates and times. Cm. McCormick asked that the record reflect that she needed to abstain from the vote regarding Item 4.2, relating to amending an agreement with Artist Ned Kahn and Dublin Fine Arts Foundation. Mayor Lockhart commended Assistant to the City Manager Julie Carter and her Staff for coordinating the Volunteer Recognition Dinner, which was held on February 24th. The event was very well done. Mayor Lockhart thanked the Dublin Ranch Golf Course Club House for their hospitality during the Tri-Valley Council meeting, which was held at their facility on february 23rd. Thanks to Erik Bertelson, David Lee and the Wells Middle School Drum Line for an excellent performance at that event. . CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING March I, 2005 PAGE 99 @JOURNMENT 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m. Minutes taken and prepared by Fawn Holman, Deputy City Clerk. ATTEST: ~ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING March 1, 2005 PAGE 100