HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.01 Draft Minutes 04-27-1993
,
.
.
.
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - April 27, 1993
An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin
was held on Tuesday, April 27, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the
Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m., by
Mayor Snyder.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Houston, Howard, Moffatt, and Mayor
Snyder
ABSENT:
None
* * * *
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (610-20)
The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of
allegiance to the flag.
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & SPECIFIC PLAN (420-30)
Mayor Snyder announced that the meeting would be adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
He requested that anyone wishing to speak, complete one of the Speaker
Request Cards and return it to the Recording Secretary. Everyone who
wishes to speak will be given an opportunity, but if someone has already
spoken at previous meetings, their comments are already part of the
record and it would not be productive to reiterate what has already been
said. He requested that comments be limited to 3 minutes as directed on
the Speaker Request Card.
Planning Consultant Brenda Gillarde reviewed the tasks to be
accomplished at this evening's meeting. First, Staff would provide
response to the Council's requests from the February 23 and March 30,
1993 meetings. Next, additional comments would be received from the
public. The public hearing would then be closed. The Council would
discuss and give Staff straw vote direction on each item individually.
A Resolution referring the General plan Amendment and Specific Plan back
to the Planning Commission would need to be adopted. Finally, the Mayor
would need to continue the item to May 10, 1993 to hold a separate
hearing on the Planning Commission recommendations to the General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan.
Ms. Gillarde stated that at the February 23 and March 30, 1993 meetings,
the City Council directed Staff to proceed with the following changes to
the Draft Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Specific Plan
(SP): 1) revise the Eastern Dublin project to reflect the development
concept in Alternative 2 in the Eastern Dublin Draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) dated August 28, 1992 with modifications; 2)
designate the area outside the City's current Sphere of Influence (SOl)
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
eM - VOL 12 - 173
April 27, 1993
Adjourned Regular Meeting
::::-::~-~~:if-----------~~~~~;-;~~------------------------------
"1-' ;"J
~
.
.
as "Future study Area;" 3) modify certain Specific Plan grading
policies as suggested by Staff in the January 21, 1993 Staff Report; 4)
modify the Specific Plan language requiring a grid-type street pattern;
5) modify the lane configuration of the Transit Spine; 6) modify the
Specific Plan language regarding flexibility in the design guidelines;
7) eliminate residential uses within the Airport Protection Area; and
8) allow some General Commercial in certain areas designated Campus
Office.
Staff included the following additional issues for Council
consideration: 1) additional language to the Specific Plan regarding
average intersection level of service; 2) clarification of the Specific
Plan policy regarding school availability; 3) discuss fiscal viability
of the modified project; 4) discuss project phasing; 5) preparation of
an Addendum to the EIR to determine potential environmental impacts of
the above modifications and the need for additional environmental
documentation; and 6) identify necessary steps to process the revised
GPA and SP.
steve Hammond, of WRT, identified how to maintain the pedestrian
orientation within the town center retail area with the change from a
two lane configuration in the Draft Specific Plan to a four lane road on
the Transit Spine per the Council direction. Staff recommended in order
to preserve some semblance of pedestrian orientation to the retail
center and also to create an active and profitable retail center, that
the length of the blocks within the town center retail area should be
limited to 500 feet or less in length. Restriction on the 500 foot
length in the residential area had been removed. Research was done into
street patterns and block lengths in other commercial districts in
cities of all sizes in suburban and urban areas. There is a desire to
create a thriving retail center that is attractive to not only
businesses, but also to the shoppers themselves. Most retail streets in
downtown areas have blocks much shorter than the 500 feet limit and are
within a range of 225 feet and 450 feet. Short block lengths provide a
number of benefits such as allowing for more left turns from the main
street which allows shoppers to turn around and come back, encourages
the pedestrian to walk within the district and gives retailers the
benefit of pass by traffic, and prevents excessive build up of traffic
speed along the roadway.
Cm. Houston asked for more information on the threshold of issuance of
bonds and what it means.
Ms. Gillarde responded in the Specific plan in Chapter 10 there is
language that specifies a certain ratio of value that should be met
before the City would engage in the issuance of bonds. It determines
whether issuing of bonds makes fiscal sense.
Mr. Tong, Planning Director, stated that Policies 10-9 on page 147 of
the Draft Specific Plan indicates "issue bonds such as Mello-Roos and/or
assessment districts bond only so long as the security for those bonds
equals 300% or more of the bond value...developers shall be required to
finance privately any infrastructure costs that would cause bond issues
to fail to meet the above stated criteria." Policy 10-10 on page 147 of
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
CM - VOL 12 - 174
April 27, 1993
Adjourned Regular Meeting
.
.
the Draft Specific Plan states "issue bonds such as Mello-Roos and/or
Assessment District bonds only so long as the annual special assessment
or special tax and 1% regular property tax and the existing bond
indebtedness does not exceed 2% of the property value."
Cm. Houston asked if this was to ensure maximum protection to the City.
Mr. Tong responded yes.
Ms. Gillarde indicated these were general industry standards that are
followed in this kind of situation.
Ms. Gillarde indicated because the transit spine will now be shown as
four lanes, there will be some additional language added to the Specific
Plan regarding its design and the street improvements and the language
will be taken to the Planning Commission and then brought back to the
Council for its review.
Cm. Burton wanted to clarify whether it is designated a "future study
~" or a "future study area".
Ms. Gillarde responded it was a "future study area."
Mayor Snyder stated additional public testimony on the General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan would be taken at this time. Then the City
Council would have an opportunity to ask questions of Staff and the
public. The Council's goal was to adjourn the meeting by 11:00 p.m.
Tom Reitter, Councilmember from Livermore, thanked the Council for
removing the residential from the Airport Protection Area. He felt the
airport benefited the entire valley. His main interest was the Doolan
Canyon area. He thought of that area as the future buffer area between
the two cities. He wanted to encourage the Council not to include
Doolan Canyon as part of Dublin's Sphere of Influence and wanted to
assure Dublin that the City of Livermore would not seek Sphere of
Influence over Doolan Canyon as long as Dublin does not. It would be to
everyone's benefit to leave that area as agricultural and part of the
County. It would help to preserve the separate identities of the two
cities.
Sergio Meza, 7465 Hansen Drive, Dublin and current President of the
Dublin Chamber of Commerce, indicated a letter had been sent to Mayor
Snyder on April 15th on behalf of the Chamber Board. The Dublin Chamber
of Commerce Board of Directors representing a majority of the business
community in Dublin wished to commend the City Council in terms of their
effort to provide the citizens and business people with a well
considered plan for future development. He wanted to encourage the
Council to continue the good work and get to a decision so the City can
move on with the future of Dublin.
Doug Abbott, 8206 Rhoda Avenue, Dublin, felt progress was being made,
but he still had some questions. Who would pick up the tab if the
project failed? In regard to the financial analysis in the EIR and the
housing absorption assumptions, it did not assess what might happen if
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
eM - VOL 12 - 175
Adjourned Regular Meeting
April 27, 1993
.
.
the absorption was lower? He realized there was always some risk to
existing residents, but what was the degree of risk and how could the
degree of risk be assessed? The Dublin Citizens' Coalition has
emphasized the importance of a strict phasing pOlicies which encouraged
orderly contiguous development proceeding from west to east and south to
north. The whole point of phasing is to make sure the City would not be
left holding the bag for a lot of infrastructure that is not needed. If
a developer got in trouble, he will declare bankruptcy and walk away.
Then the City has two choices, either pay off the bonds or have its
credit rating ruined. He was glad to see the word "agricultural" in
relation to Doolan Canyon. He felt it was a step in the right
direction, and future study area, well maybe. The Specific Plan area
contains more than enough potential for twenty years of growth. It
would double the population of the City, which in twenty years is a
growth rate of almost 4% a year compounded. To designate Doolan Canyon
as anything other than agricultural subjects the land to speculation.
If someone buys the land at speculative prices, development will not be
far behind. The surest way to create development pressure is to create
the expectation of development. Leave Doolan Canyon alone for now. In
conclusion, he has been accused of being a rebel rousing no growther,
but the evidence shows clearly he has tried hard to put forward creative
proposals addressing the problems in the Plan.
Mitzi Christopher, 7814 Alto Way, Dublin, is a Dublin resident and
Dublin business owner at Premiere Physical Therapy and a member of the
Dublin Coalition for Local Planning. The Dublin Coalition for Local
Planning is a coalition of community residents, business people and
organizations who are concerned about the future of Dublin. They agree
that moderate, well planned growth is essential for the economic
prosperity and to protect our quality of life. They believe Eastern
Dublin is the place for growth and the City Council should take action
to place and control our future growth. They want long term planning
for Dublin in order to be a full partner in the Tri-valley community.
They are concerned that special interest attempts to reduce housing and
put unreasonable restrictions on growth would result in piecemeal
development, potentially creating sprawl and traffic chaos. They
support the Plan for Dublin's future that will increase our tax base and
bring in needed additional revenues. They agree with the Council that
development over the 'next twenty years should 1) preserve visual and
environmental quality; 2) provide a wide range of housing types thereby
creating a jobs/housing balance; 3) provide for short and long term
community needs for housing, employment, and leisure activities; 4) be
comparable with mass transit; 5) build a community that is economically
viable and self-supporting in terms of service costs versus revenues
generated. She stated the Dublin Coalition for Local Planning
represented the majority view of the concerned citizens of Dublin who
want to see our community prosper and grow into the next century.
Economic vitality is needed. It is time for the City Council to decide
and begin the process of building our hopes and dreams. She asked all
those who supported the dreams of the City of Dublin to stand up and
raise their hands in support of this view. (About 50 people stood.)
David Nesmith, 5237 College Avenue, Oakland, Sierra Club Representative
of San Francisco Bay Chapter, indicated that he did not disagree with
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
CM - VOL 12 - 176
Adjourned Regular Meeting
April 27, 1993
.
.
anything the previous speaker had said except about the remark on
special interest groups. He appreciated the care the City Council has
given the issue and the proposed changes the Council has made in the
Plan. There was one place he was still concerned with and that was
Tassajara Village. He felt Tassajara village provided a gateway to the
development in Contra Costa County. It also was an rugged area with a
large amount of unstable soils. He felt it could not be transit
oriented in its position. He would like to see a transfer of density to
the southern area. He did not have a problem with the number of units
but rather with where the units were placed. He felt that phasing had
not been adequately addressed in the current EIR. He would like to see
one simple sentence added to the EIR that the developer would pay all
costs that are associated with the development and reasonably
attributive to the development. He felt the absorption rate studies
should be updated to reflect the current economic times. He wanted to
see development in Camp Parks. He still felt this development area was
the best area for new development in Alameda County.
Mayor Snyder clarified that the City was directly involved with working
with the military in regards to Camp Parks and what the future use of
that area might be.
Milton Righetti, 4900 Hopyard Road, Suite 220, Pleasanton, indicated he
was one of the landowners near the airport. He stated that the Airport
Protection Area was not final. There was litigation and he felt it was
far from over. The APA line if adopted only restricts residential
development within the APA. It does not restrict commercial,
industrial, office park, or other types of development. At this point
by changing an area that had been designated medium or low density
residential to agricultural/future study area does great economic damage
to him. He requested that the area to the north of the APA be modified
to medium density residential from low density residential. It would
help in terms of value of the land and help them fund infrastructure in
that area. They would not be able to get the financing if it is
designated agricultural. He would also like to work with Staff to
define a PD type district to commercial, industrial, or office park in
this area and that would be consistent with the APA.
Steven Christopher, 7814 Alto Way, Dublin, indicated he was a Dublin
resident and a member of the Dublin Coalition for Local Planning. His
group agreed that moderate well-planned growth in Dublin is essential
for our economic prosperity and to protect the quality of life. As such
they urged the City Council members to approve the Alternative #2 Plan
Amendment for Dublin. They supported the Plan as presented by the
Dublin Planning Commission. His group strongly felt that Dublin should
not relinquish a portion of its planning area especially Doolan Canyon.
To do so would be giving up the right to any voice or control of this
land. They were extremely concerned that a small group of non-growth
extremists who were not professional city planners have been allowed to
hold up approval of the General Plan Amendment with their non-negotiable
plans. They urged the City Council to vote for the Alternative #2 Plan
which was what businesses and residents would like to have.
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
CM - VOL 12 - 177
Adjourned Regular Meeting
April 27, 1993
.
.
Janet Lockhart, 11751 Betlen Drive, Dublin, stated she was a member of
the Steering Committee for the Dublin Coalition for Local Planning. She
indicated a flyer had been passed out in the community this past week
which truly disturbed her. It was not signed or attributed to any
organization or individual. She felt there had been an obvious attempt
to blatantly misrepresent the East Dublin Plan to the community. 1)
Regarding freeway gridlock, the opposition claimed Dublin's General Plan
Amendment Alternative #2 does not provide for protection from freeway
gridlock. She felt the hiring of professional planners to develop
alternatives for the Dublin Planning Commission to study was for the
purpose of securing information that will offer the best alternatives to
freeway gridlock. The professionals who have developed jobs/housing
ratio for Eastern Dublin that will promote reasonable housing to
correspond with the available work force. The emphasis is on providing
homes in balance with jobs so workers do not feel the necessary to buy
in Tracy and work in Dublin. 2) In regard to no guarantee for school
funding, she felt the opposition was trying to provide scare tactics
which left one questioning the integrity of our City Councilmembers.
The Plans for Eastern Dublin do include adequate schools for the
community. The School District has taken all the responsible steps to
secure developer fees for school costs. She felt our City Officials
would not fail the community or sellout on the issue of schooling.
There are at least three current City Councilmembers that have served on
the Board of Trustees for the School District. There is specific
language in the Plan that would ensure adequate school facilities. 3)
No protection from water rationing. She felt using buzz words such as
rationing to encourage no growth mentality regarding water resources was
just not reasonable. Only mother nature could confirm or deny the
necessity for water rationing in California. DSRSD indicated there were
water resources available for purchase when needed. Zone 7 declares a
lack of water for Dublin's Plans, but at the same time approves two new
contracts with Pleasanton to provide fresh water, not reclaimed, for a
new golf course, as well as a housing development. 4) No consideration
of BART station. She stated to say the City Officials have not given
consideration to BART stations is ridiculous. BART has not only been on
the minds of residents and officials, but also in their pocketbooks for
more than twenty-five years. The General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan are a blueprint for growth, not a specific development. 5) No
protection for City finances. Once again, she felt this was an example
of baiting the public with distortions and less than truths to weaken
public trust in the officials we have elected. Chapter 10 of the
Specific Plan contains sound policies to ensure the fiscal viability of
this project. New development must pay the cost of infrastructure,
encourage pay as you go financing, and establish thresholds for the
issuance of bonds by the City. Why are we constantly being asked by
special interest groups to doubt the credibility of our own elected
officials and paid professionals and accept the ideas of these special
interest groups who have no intention of living, working, or providing
for the future of our community. We are a community of intelligent,
thriving members of the City of Dublin who have a right to our own
leadership, namely our City Council.
Adolph Martinelli, Alameda County Planning, indicated that the Santa
Rita property was distinguished from the rest of the Eastern Dublin
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
CM - VOL 12 - 178
April 27, 1993
Adjourned Regular Meeting
.
.
Planning area in that it is already in the City of Dublin. 1) It has
been planned and zoned for commercial uses, business uses, and it is
subject to an agreement with the City of Dublin. A revision of that
annexation agreement has in good faith been negotiated with the City and
subject to modification of this General Plan Amendment. The County has
invested millions of dollars in infrastructure through roadway
improvements and extensions and land exchanges so that Dublin Boulevard
could be extended from Dougherty Road to Eastern Dublin. They are in
the process of funding infrastructure studies so that a master sewer and
water plan can be put in place across their property. 2) They are
proposing a commercial use on a portion of their property. The County
strongly requested that the language be modified not to delay
development on the County property subject to annexation of other
portions of the Eastern Dublin plan area. Time was very important in
creating some development that create the funds necessary to allow the
rest of this area to open up for future development. 3) In regard to
traffic and level of service, Staff was recommending the inclusion of
the following underlined sentence in the Specific Plan: "Plan
development in eastern Dublin to maintain Level of Service D or better
as the average intersection level of service at all intersections within
the Specific Plan area during AM, PM, and midday peak periods. The
averaqe intersection level of service is defined as the hourly averaqe
usinq reasonable proiections for a year 2010 time frame." He felt the
City was creating a requirement in the General Plan over which the City
had no control. If Contra Costa County approves Tassajara Valley
development or if the Dougherty Valley development goes forward, it will
be very difficult at the year 2010 to avoid level of service D on
Tassajara Road. He felt that would create a General Plan condition that
would stop development today in eastern Dublin. He felt that was an
extreme condition on considering development in the study area. He felt
the impacts identified in the EIR was truly the worst case impacts
because the conversion between the gross acreage figures used and the
actual net developable acreages is a substantial reduction in
development area. On the County property, the diagram says 85 acres
with the net acreage being 61 acres. You could reduce total impacts in
this study area by as much as 20% or 25%. The EIR clearly identifies
the worst case scenario for what is possible. He felt the actual
absorption and density and intensity of uses in the Eastern Dublin area
will be substantially less than what is projected through the EIR. 4) A
modification has been made for a portion of the general office areas in
the eastern Dublin planning area. Subject to demonstration that traffic
impacts would not be worsened and subject to planned development
application, some commercial uses could be allowed in that area. He
felt that flexibility was good. The privilege had not been extended to
the portion of the Santa Rita property that is adjacent to Tassajara
Road. The County asked that the condition be made such that it remains
office but with the recognition that some general commercial uses might
to permitted subjected to a planned development zoning process. That
would be discretionary by the City of Dublin, but it would not require a
General Plan Amendment if it were in the best interest of both the City
and the County.
Mayor Snyder asked if Mr. Martinelli viewed his request as a
modification to the agreement between the City and the County or that a
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
eM - VOL 12 - 179
Adjourned Regular Meeting
April 27, 1993
.
.
modification would be necessary to the agreement in order to allow it to
happen.
Mr. Martinelli indicated the revised agreement had not been signed as
yet although the County has approved it. It may require a modification,
but the agreement also talked about acreages which would be absorbed and
there is a great disparity between the gross acreage and the net
acreage, particularly along the corridor. It was questionable whether
the County could accomplish the square footage of the buildings or the
number of dwelling units or the square footage of commercial uses on the
property in any event whether it was subject to zoning change or not.
He felt there would not be that much commercial absorbed, but the County
would like the ability to ask without a general plan amendment. Part of
the revised agreement addresses the first hundred acres absorbed in the
eastern Dublin area wherever it occurs.
Cm. Burton asked if Mr. Martinelli felt the coordination of development
with utility service would affect the County in their area.
Mr. Martinelli felt the City was proposing to adopt language that had
some comprehensive actions in it and the County wants to make sure there
were no time penalties for coordination with other land owners or
annexations required and compromised what the County was trying to
accomplish.
Marjorie LaBar, 11707 Juarez Lane, Dublin, indicated she was one who is
trained as a planner and is currently engaged in upgrading her skills in
planning. She asked for stronger phasing language that favors growth
going from west to east and from south to north. She felt it would be
an advantage to the City to not allow an open invitation into the
Tassajara area of Contra Costa County and help leap frog that growth for
which the City would have to pay for the traffic as it comes back out.
She advised the City to develop well and to develop slowly building out
from the very good center. She encouraged the City to go to at least
80% development along Fallon Road and south of the Santa Rita property
first. Get the 80% residential in place and then start building up
above that. She felt the infrastructure would then be easier to pay
for. She felt the assessment districts would then be smaller and easier
to payoff. She urged the City Council to talk to the folks who sign
the Colonel's pay check in Washington where the plans are being made for
Camp Parks so that the City could get the 200 southerly acres. She
advised the City to delay on the housing densities next to Camp Parks
for a couple of years and see what Camp Parks was going to do. In
regards to water consideration, she stated we keep hearing water is
available, but no one names the source. She suggested the City ask as
part of the conditions for granting building permits that a sure source
of water for fifty years is available. Ask for the name of the water
source and verify that water source was available. She felt this would
be protecting your own residents. She indicated that we hear about
facilities, but we don't hear about the water to go in the facilities.
She urged the Council to take the extra step to protect itself and
protect the people it represents.
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
CM - VOL 12 - 180
Adjourned Regular Meeting
April 27, 1993
.
.
Eloise Hamann, extremist, 7065 Inclined Place, Dublin, assumed phasing
meant contiguous development and not all of the list of 14 items
involving police and fire being available. She felt if things were done
slowly, we will see what is happening. She indicated part of phasing
should include review as we go. She applauded the goals, but she did
not see specific ways the goals would be reached. She thought
affordable housing was supposed to be available, but she did not
understand how it would be paid for. She asked if there was a special
way to handle the taxes. She suggested language be included that if the
developer developed out of sequence, that the developer would be
responsible for paying for all the infrastructure and later be repaid by
the City. She agreed with seeing Tassajara village being moved south.
She felt an area could be studied without a label as a study area. She
wanted to see Doolan Canyon left as a buffer between Dublin and
Livermore. Open space between communities made sense. She stated that
one thing that would not be mitigated according to the EIR was air
quality, but she felt open space helped.
Mayor Snyder indicated that as time goes on and there is the great
expense in the development of infrastructure, even though there is talk
about affordable housing, it is affordable relative to issue at the time
it is placed. It may not be affordable to the way you and 1 live today,
but based on the circumstances on which it is placed in a development at
that time. He felt her question was too specific and could not be
answered because it is relative to a time and place and how it applies
to that particular development.
Martin Inderbitzen, 5000 Hopyard Rd, Suite 400, Pleasanton, indicated he
represented the Jennifer Lin family and other interests in the Doolan
area. He thanked the Council and expressed a sigh of relief after six
or seven years of planning effort and discussions. Although his clients
are not yet in your community, he felt they had been treated very well
as guests and provided an opportunity to help move this planning effort
forward. Although there had been goals and objectives of his clients,
City Staff had made it very clear that the policies and goals and
objectives of the entire community were paramount. Being realists, his
clients recognized they had to be flexible and go back and try to
conform their goals and objectives to meet the ones set for your
community. He would like to clarify the continued reference to this
effort as a "project". While it was a project in the sense of the
California Environmental Quality Act, he felt it was not a project in
the developer's sense that they were proposing to build houses, file
final maps, or put in sewer and water lines. This was in the future.
This is a plan. The City is mandated by California Planning & zoning
Law to create a plan. He felt the Council was setting forth a guideline
for property owners who would subsequently meet those guidelines. He
felt the plan was now a compromise plan. 4,600 dwelling units had been
eliminated, as well as over 700,000 square feet of commercial and office
space and the corresponding jobs and housing relative to that. His
clients would have preferred that the original plan had been adopted,
but they were realists and were flexible and realized the Council had to
meet the objectives of the community and the citizens. He felt the plan
was not perfect. He felt there were lots of modifications that will
likely occur in the future, but there was a point when the process must
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
CM - VOL 12 - 181
April 27, 1993
Adjourned Regular Meeting
.
.
be brought to a close. He stated it was a reasonable compromise and he
encouraged the Council to adopt it after it was referred to the Planning
Commission. In regard to the Doolan area, he felt it was important to
recognize that the City should not foreclose the opportunity to say yes
to some future opportunity that no one had thought of as yet.
John DiManto, 1991 Leigh Ann Place, San Jose, representing the Dublin
Land Company, felt there were some very significant impacts on his
property. He stated he had requested in the past, but they had not been
indicated on this plan and felt it had been inadvertently overlooked by
Staff or the Consultant. If an onion skin overlay was done on his
property and showed the four lanes of the Transit Spine plus the
auxiliary lanes, he felt he was ending up with tiny little parcels. He
indicated that on three occasions he had asked that a portion of his
property be shown as retail commercial with permitted uses in our text
to allow for multi-family high density so that in the event the market
driven retailer wanted to locate a larger store in a certain section,
they will have the depth to do so. He did not want neighboring property
owners to be impacting traffic at such levels that all of his
intersections are diminished. He felt good planning used curvilinear
lines, but he felt it was now very off balanced. He wanted the County
to trade some of its property to create a beautiful entrance so it made
a statement when you drive into the community. He asked Staff to
consider showing a certain portion of his property as retail commercial
even though the market may not be there today, he needed the
flexibility. He did not want to have to come back with retailers before
a new council and be told he was piercing the EIR. He would rather have
the Council say he was protected if he came in with a user that needed
some flexibility. In terms of the Spine, he stated he was a builder of
commercial and had been building since 1952 and he understood the
ability to finance the plan. He indicated a lot of emphasis was dreamed
when you talk about a little core of pedestrians spine which was fine if
it was owned by the City. Today you could not finance any commercial on
a pedestrian spine. People are going to the malls. He felt these were
dream features and nodes. He encouraged the Council if they adopted
this plan, to please adopt a special incentive area with special
financing area where the City becomes the partner with the landowners
and backs their bonds and the financing. He stated no bank will finance
that kind of center on the spine. He urged the Council to consult with
four or five major banks before the Council adopts that. He felt the
Council was creating inverse condemnation by labeling a property before
they had tenant commitment that he could not take to the bank. He asked
that Staff do an overlay with all the widths of road profiles that have
been described to see what he was left with. He felt he would end up
with bacon strip commercial. He asked that a portion be increased in
depth to accommodate any future potential large retail that would need
that flexibility. He heard that all major infrastructure should be
borne by developer. Because his was a corner property, he felt he was
overburdened and financially impacted more so than interiorwise. He
thought he had a higher land base than the County. If his clients were
asked to do the roadway widening and spine widening with all the
interior properties benefitting, he wanted the Council to consider an
engineering firm such as Mark Thomas so that everyone pays for the
wishes of the community. He indicated he would certainly pay his share.
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
CM - VOL 12 - 182
Adjourned Regular Meeting
April 27, 1993
.
.
But if his clients were to bear the bulk of the infrastructure costs, it
won't get built because they could not afford to build it. They would
have to go through condemnation processing and since the City owns the
spine, the City will have to finance it and his clients will cooperate
with the City. He expressed his concern with what his clients were left
with after all the road width takes so his financial adviser could
present to his major tenants what makes good sense. He requested they
be protected under a valid EIR.
Jim Stedman, 29 Eckley Place, Walnut Creek, representing the Pao-Lin
property, indicated his concern was flexibility in the Plan. He felt
the Staff report did reflect increased flexibility and he appreciated
that. He indicated he had the same concern as John DiManto that
commercial area has to be financable and marketable. In the Specific
Plan, on Page 18, second column, third paragraph, third sentence...he
requested the word "traditional" be eliminated. He wanted the Plan to
encourage a very marketable modern project that was workable. He felt
it should be a pedestrian oriented town center, but it should also cater
to others in the eastern Dublin area and to those who drive cars. He
wanted "...and all others in the City" added. On Figure 7.1 Town Center
Concept Plan, he requested the word "street" be included to read "only
and is not intended to restrict, in any way, street and development
patterns that are consistent with the objectives of this Specific Plan."
He indicated a concern about the grid pattern and the Council had
instructed the Staff to delete the requirement for grid pattern for
streets, but he felt the three paragraphs took away the grid and
reintroduced it in another way. He requested all three paragraphs be
deleted. He wanted flexibility in the design of the streets. At the
end of the introductory paragraph on page 79 of the Draft Specific Plan,
he requested that "with two exceptions" be deleted and change the first
sentence to say "The guidelines in this chapter are advisory only." He
wanted a new sentence to say "The City will seek and consider equivalent
or superior methods to achieve the objectives of the Specific Plan." He
also wanted the last sentence that says "Those guidelines relating to
building height (page 80) and street improvements (pages 105-117) are
regulatory in nature and will be required as set forth in this element"
be deleted. He felt this meant the Specific Plan was not flexible in
those areas. A problem he has is that all the sidewalks in the town
center area be 18 feet wide which he felt assumed that everyone was
going to have a sidewalk cafe. He didn't believe that was flexible. He
felt the specific guidelines should be advisory only and the City's
ordinances and standards should form the regulatory basis. He did not
feel a portion of the Specific Plan should be regulatory. His
preference would be that the City Council designate the campus office
areas as general commercial right now. He felt it would be in the best
interest of the City because when competing with Livermore and
Pleasanton, it should be very easy for potential users and developers to
use this land. If it is zoned already, that makes it easier and the
permit process should be as simple as it can be so that the ability to
use that area will appear to be by the users easy. He asked that "a
Planned Development zoning process will be required to determine the
amount, location and development standards for General Commercial uses
that replace the Campus Office uses designated on the Specific Plan land
use map" be deleted. Why should just the areas that are designated
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
CM - VOL 12 - 183
April 27, 1993
Adjourned Regular Meeting
.
.
general commercial/campus offices have to be subjected to the PD
ordinance process? Why impose that on the users if it is not required
in other parts of the City? "state that no users will be permitted to
occur if the established levels of service would be exceeded" felt it
was a redundant statement because it is already stated in Policy 5-3
(page 50) of the Specific Plan. He felt the process was going well.
Marcus Bigelow, 7365 Hansen Drive, Dublin, indicated the City needed to
be careful in regard to the buffer zone because in the ten years he has
lived in the area, Livermore has changed its political climate two or
three times and one man's reference seemed not to be good. He was glad
we were friendly toward business and he wanted to commend that. He
encouraged the Council to do whatever they were going to do quickly. It
added onto costs of projects to go through hearing after hearing.
Having grown up in the sixties, he wanted to encourage his fellow
citizens to remember "Come on people now, smile on your brothers,
everybody get together, try to love one another, right now." He likes a
good political fight, but after it is all said and done, we have to live
with each other. It does no good to have a well planned community if we
don't like each other anymore. He encouraged everybody to turn down
their voices when speaking at a board meeting; stop innuendos because it
only divides and never brings back together; half truths and charges of
half truths, be careful because we have to live in the City together.
It is a good City with a lot going for it. We need to stay here
together.
Jim Stedman had one final comment on a point he did not address earlier.
On page 89, pedestrian/bicycle circulation, introductory sentence, he
requested that the word "squares" be deleted because it refers to the
neighborhood squares that are the small parks shown in the town center
area. He felt those parks were not of great benefit to the City. He
was concerned about that style of park. It is one and a half to two
acres. They are hard and costly to maintain. They are a safety problem
with bad people tending to congregate in those areas. He felt they were
unsafe for children because they are fronted on four sides by the
streets and they interrupt streets. He felt the City would be taking on
quite a liability to encourage the development of these kinds of very
small parks.
Cm. Houston asked for clarification that Mr. Stedman was not advocating
the elimination of any park space.
Mr. Stedman responded that he was not. He felt it was a flexibility
issue because parks should be of a size and design that should fit the
plan being developed for the time and for the place. The City already
had a City Park Master Plan and the park areas would be met.
Carolyn Morgan, 5184 Doolan Road, Livermore, indicated Mr. Stedman may
not want to believe the Livermore City Councilman, but she would
guarantee to this Council here that if Dublin backs off of Doolan, that
the voting majority of the Doolan Canyon residents would vote to go to
neither city. If it is left a buffer zone between the two cities, then
it need not be called anything but open space/agriculture and the
residents will not apply to go to Livermore. If you find yourself
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
CM - VOL 12 - 184
April 27, 1993
Adjourned Regular Meeting
.
.
twenty years down the road needing more room to grow, then that would be
the proper time to look at the area. Until then, it could stay
consistent with the Alameda County Plan with speculation value taken out
of it and put back into the Williamson Act so that the owners of the
property could afford to pay the property taxes. She indicated it was
nice to see this room filled for a change instead of what existed at the
Planning Commission when there was only six people there. If all these
people had showed up at the Planning Commission meeting, all the
problems might have been worked out before it got to the City Council.
She had been coming to these meetings since 1987. She was surprised to
hear she was a special interest and an outside person. She did not
consider herself an outsider and she felt she had as much right to state
her opinion here as a person who lives in Dublin. She felt if the
questions are good, then it doesn't make any difference who asks them.
As long as there are people here who can answer them and there are
people in the audience to hear them because they are the ones who are
going to have to live with what you do when it is done. She reiterated
that phasing would be necessary. She did not want to see what happened
to Hacienda by having all the infrastructure in and the land then sits
idle. Someone has to pay for the infrastructure and she did not want it
to be the existing residents of Dublin. She felt what was being done
here was going to be an asset to the valley because we are all valley
residents no matter whether we live in Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, or
the unincorporated area. It is our valley and she wanted to see it be
the best it can possibly be now and for future generations.
Sid Corrie, 7000 Tassajara and has a business on Dublin Boulevard,
stated he cared about this community and he cared about its future. In
regard to the presentation from the Councilmember from Livermore, he was
sorry the Councilmember left after making the offer he made, but Mr.
Corrie felt the Councilmember was probably laughing before he got to the
parking lot. The way Mr. Corrie heard it, the offer Mr. Reitter made to
the City Council was that if the Dublin City Council would stay out of
Dublin's backyard, Livermore would stay out of Dublin's background. He
felt it made sense to Livermore, but not to Dublin. He indicated that
he did not own any land in that area.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing and indicated that there would be
no more testimony allowed on this issue.
Ms. Gillarde then proceeded through each item to receive Council
discussion and straw vote direction.
1. Revise Eastern Dublin project to reflect the Draft EIR Alternative
2.
2. Designate the area outside the City's current Sphere of Influence
as Future Study Area.
7. Eliminate residential uses within Airport Protection Area.
Cm. Houston did not realize the Airport Protection Zone was designated
agricultural. He thought it was going to be designated "future study
area" and he wondered why there was the "agricultural designation". He
thought there was going to be the opportunity to have commercial and
non-residential uses in that area.
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
CM - VOL 12 - 185
Adjourned Regular Meeting
April 27, 1993
.
.
Ms. Gillarde responded that "future study area" denotes that at some
future point the Council may consider some development there. But if
there was the designation "future study area/commercial," the EIR would
have to assess the environmental impact of commercial use in that area.
But the current EIR does not show that.
Mr. Ambrose explained that there had to be some zoning indicated.
Ms. Gillarde agreed that some type of land use had to be shown and
currently that land area is designated agricultural in the County.
Mr. Hammond clarified that the future study area only applies to that
previously designated residential land whereas the originally designated
industrial land is still industrial. The residential land that is
outside the APA area is still residential. Once the APA is resolved,
Mr. Righetti could then come before the City Council and initiate the
study that would then allow him to do whatever land use he wanted to do
on the property at that point.
Cm. Houston questioned whether part of Mr. Righetti's property was
outside the APA and in regards to the request to switch densities
farther north, why hadn't that been done.
Mr. Hammond explained the designation had been made for low density
housing because the line follows along the foot of the slope and as you
proceed north from that line, the terrain gets quite hilly. It was due
to the topography that the area had been designated low density housing
rather than medium density.
Mayor Snyder indicated that when the APA issue was resolved, then the
APA may in fact be the determining factor as to what that designation
may be.
Mr. Hammond stated if the APA would go away, then Mr. Righetti may
develop it as it is designated in the plan at this point.
em. Burton asked if the APA line had been determined as yet.
Mr. Tong responded the City had the larger scale maps from the Airport
Land Use Commission which had their designated APA and it was scaled off
on our maps.
Ms. Silver indicated the APA line has been determined.
Mr. Hammond responded it had been adopted by the ALUC and was determined
to be 5,000 feet from the airport.
Mayor Snyder indicated Mr. Righetti's suit will dictate what the land
uses will be rather than what the City determines the land uses to be
now.
Mr. Tong clarified that as proposed with the modifications, the land use
designation would be designated future study area with an interim land
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
eM - VOL 12 - 186
April 27, 1993
Adjourned Regular Meeting
.
.
use designation of agricultural. If the modifications are adopted as
proposed, that would remain the land use designation until the City
completed its future study and determined that some different land use
designation should be applied to those areas.
Cm. Houston felt this designation of "future land use/agricultural" was
pretty punitive. He felt even though the APA did not allow housing,
there were other uses that could go in there such as retail, commercial,
anything but residential. So to get it all the way back down to
agricultural seemed punitive.
Mr. Righetti felt the ALUC had nothing to do with land use. It was up
to the City of Dublin or Alameda County to determine. He felt the
designation "agricultural",was a cop out on the part of Staff.
Mayor Snyder asked Cm. Houston if he had a suggestion.
Cm. Houston asked what was the problem with the designing "future study
area/commercial/whatever." He felt going down to the lowest common
denomination was a kind of cop out.
Mr. Tong explained that if that 90 acre area was designated commercial
or industrial, there would need to be a reevaluation of the
environmental impacts and possibly recirculation of the EIR. He
suggested an option to go with what was originally designated in
Alternative #2 for this area subject to it being resolved through the
APA. Designate the area medium density and low density without the
Airport Protection Area, but then have a caveat that would be subject to
the APA being revised.
Cm. Burton asked if there had been classifications of what would be
allowed with the APA. Couldn't the Council do what was in the APA
classifications?
Mr. Tong explained that if the Council did that, that would change what
was analyzed in the EIR for those 90 acres.
Cm. Houston felt the APA was good and that residential should not be in
there, but down zoning all the way to agricultural was a little bit
much. But he did not know how to resolve it.
Ms. Silver, City Attorney, indicated that if the original designation of
multi-family, single family on that property was kept with the caveat
that it would have the land use designation only if the Airport
Protection Area is changed, that would be permissible. Because right
now, there is an Airport Protection Area that has been adopted and
although a lawsuit has been filed, the lawsuit is merely challenging the
adoption of a negative declaration. If the lawsuit is successful, that
would mandate the Airport Land Use Commission to prepare an
environmental impact report. But it does not mean they would change the
Plan. The lawsuit could be successful, but the plan will remain.
Continue the residential uses only in the event that the APA is removed
from that area or somehow changed to permit residential uses. If it
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
eM - VOL 12 - 187
April 27, 1993
Adjourned Regular Meeting
.
.
doesn't occur, then the Council would designate it as a study area with
the underlaying existing agricultural designation.
Cm. Houston understood the Council had to retain the integrity of the
EIR. He realized the best that could be done at this time was to
designate the area as future study area/agricultural.
Ms. Silver indicated that if the Council was to provide that the
residential designation in the areas of the Specific Plan subject to the
Airport Protection Areas would remain as indicated in the Specific Plan,
medium density and low density residential, provided that at the time of
prezoning, and pre zoning is prior to annexation, the APA has been
modified to allow residential uses. If that did not occur, the
designation would be future study area with the underlying agricultural
designation. This would permit a future study to be determined later.
Mayor Snyder indicated Mr. Righetti could apply for a redesignation.
Cm. Houston felt that was about as fair as they could get right now.
By straw vote, all councilmembers agreed to revise the project per
Alternative #2 and designate the future study area/agricultural and
eliminate residential uses within Airport Protection Area.
3. Modify certain grading policies
There were no comments from the Council in regard to the grading
policies.
By straw vote, all councilmembers agreed to modify certain grading
policies.
4. Modify the language requiring a grid-type street pattern.
5. Modify the transit spine.
Cm. Houston in keeping with the spirit of flexibility felt the Council
should look at all the suggestions Mr. Stedman had made.
Mr. Ambrose indicated some of Mr. Stedman's suggestions unknowingly
provide more restrictions because they fall back on current City zoning
ordinances and sign ordinances. He explained that was the advantage of
the PD type of zoning, that there is a better position to customize the
zoning and sign ordinance to a particular piece of property. He
recommended it be referred to the Planning Commission to flush out.
Cm. Houston requested that the Council flush it out.
Mr. Ambrose responded that the current zoning ordinance does not have a
general commercial zoning designation and that is what Mr. Stedman by
saying to eliminate PD ordinance provisions forces the City to fall back
on.
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
CM - VOL 12 - 188
Adjourned Regular Meeting
April 27, 1993
.
.
Cm. Houston suggested that his comment #5 in regard to general
commercial be passed on to the Planning Commission and all the other
comments be reviewed by the Council.
Detailed text changes to the Specific Plan are as follows:
Page 18, second column, third paragraph, third
sentence: ...In the commercial area, the goal is to
establish the character of a traaitieRal town
center, with a walkable ~ria-system of streets well-
defined by buildings and a lively, interesting
shopping street catering to pedestrians and transit
users and others.
Mr. Ambrose asked if it was the Council's intent to eliminate the town
center.
Council responded no.
By concensus of the Council, the word "traditional" was eliminated and
"and others" was added.
Page 79, second column, top of page: ...on
establishing the character of a traaitieRal town
center, with a walkable ~ria system of streets well-
defined by buildings and a lively, interesting
shopping street catering to pedestrian and transit
users and others.
Page 79, Form, first bullet: ArraR~e-streets-iR-a
~ria-patterRT-EermiR~-small-aleeks-Re-mere-tRaR-5gg
Eeet-iR-tRe-leR~est-aimeRsieR.--;R-tRe-eemmHRity
eemmereial-area-aleR~-~assa1ara-ReaaT-aleeks-may-ae
eemaiRea-te-Eerm-lar~er-sites-Eer-eemmHRity-sReppiR~
eeRter-aevelepmeRt. Develop a street system in the
Town Center commercial area that provides at least
one parallel street on either side of the Transit
Spine.
Page 79, Form, add a second bullet: In order to
preserve the pedestrian scale in the commercial
area, cross streets to the Transit Spine should be
spaced no more than 500 feet apart.
Figure 7.1 Town Center Concept Plan: Note: This
fiqure illustrates one possible interpretation of
the street and development pattern that could result
from implementation of the Specific Plan community
desiqn quidelines. The Concept plan in this fiqure
is illustrative only and is not intended to
restrict, in any way development patterns that are
consistent with the obiectives of this Specific
Plan.
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
eM - VOL 12 - 189
April 27, 1993
Adjourned Regular Meeting
.
.
By consensus of the Council, "...street and..." was added to Figure 7.1
Town Center Concept Plan note.
Page 88, Form: ~he-traaitieaal-eitY-~ria-has
fle*ibility-te-aeeemmeaate-a-wiae-raa~e-ef-types-aaa
aeasities-ef-resiaeatial-aevelepmeatT-withia-aa
easilY-Haaersteea-aaa-aeeessible-framewerk-ef-pablie
streets.
Arraa~e-streets-ia-a-~ria-pattera-fermia~-relatively
smallT-walkable-bleeks-ae-mere-thaa-5QQ-feet-ia-the
lea~est-aimeasiea-altheH~h-seme-~ria-streets-may-be
elesea-at-the-ea~es-ef-the-resiaeatial-area-te
reaHee-aei~hberheea-threH~h-traffieT-the-pattera-ef
aevelepmeat-sheHla-eeatiaHe-te-fellew-the-everall
~ria-pattera.
~he-traaitieaal-~ria-ef-eity-streets-has-the
fle*ibility-te-aeeemmeaate-a-wiae-raa~e-ef-types-aaa
aeasities-ef-resiaeatial-aevelepmeatT-with-aa-easily
Haaersteea-aaa-aeeessible-framewe~k-ef-pHblie
streets. However, a qrid system of streets is not
the only acceptable means of providinq an efficient
and pedestrian friendly circulation system. (This
would be attached to the note on the map per Mr.
Ambrose's suggestion.)
Provide a hiqhly interconnected pattern of streets
that accommodates the movement of vehicles while
enhancinq opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle
circulation. Aveia-the-ereatiea-ef-e*eessively-lea~
bleeks-fsealea-te-meter-vehieles-rather-thaa
peaestriaas+-er-aHmereHs-eals-ae-sae-aaa-aeaa-eaa
streets.
Cm. Burton suggested the above changes.
Cm. Moffatt felt the grid system was the most efficient way of moving
people and automobiles around. He would hate to see the area tied up in
gridlock. He wanted to see some flexibility there but not eliminate the
grid system completely.
Mayor Snyder stated by eliminating the grid system, it would allow for
anything.
Cm. Burton indicated when a specific project came through the planning
process, then at that time it would be determined the type of street
pattern.
Mr. Hammond clarified that the language had been chosen so it did not
restrict any proposal that Mr. Stedman has made before the Planning
Commission or the City Council. The language does represent the feeling
of many planning professionals and traffic consultants and it was to
give future Commissions and Councils some direction in what the thought
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
eM - VOL 12 - 190
Adjourned Regular Meeting
April 27, 1993
.
.
behind the Plan was, but it does not prevent what Mr. Stedman has
requested.
Page 89, Auto Circulation introductory sentence:
~he-~ria-street-system-eaa-aeeemmeaate-lar~e-velHmes
eE-traEEie-~eaeratea-by-hi~her-aeasity-aease
aevelepmeatT-bHt-aisperses-by-aispersia~-it-amea~
maay-lew-lewer-velHme-streets-threH~heHt-the
aevelepmeat.
Cm. Burton suggested the above sentence be deleted. By consensus of
Council, it was eliminated.
Mr. Tong indicated in terms of the introductory sentences being deleted,
Council may want to examine the total context where it occurs in the
Specific Plan because without the introductory sentences or some
replacement of introductory sentences, there is an immediate jump into
the policies and he cautioned that it should make sense for
implementation purposes. If the introductory sentences are deleted,
then there is an immediate jump into the bulleted items. He felt it was
advisable to have some sort of introduction. Staff would revise the
language in keeping with Council direction.
Page 89, Pedestrian/bicycle circulation introductory
sentence: The sidewalks along the ~ria-eE
neighborhood streets should provide an active,
friendly pedestrian environment connecting
residences to neighborhood parks, squares, and the
larger open space system.
Cm. Burton indicated Mr. Stedman made a good point about "squares" in
regard to policing them with four open spaces in a small park and
maintenance. He was not sure it was important to remove the word
"squares," but he acknowledged that squares were hang out spots.
Mr. Hammond clarified that the neighborhood squares were defined as one
of the categories of the parks in the Plan. If it was deleted, then
that park space would have to be put in some other category. The word
"squares" could be deleted from one sentence, but there was a whole
broader category of whether the concept of squares was deleted.
Cm. Houston indicated the intent was not to reduce parks in general, but
just the "squares."
By consensus of the Council, the word "squares" was left in the
sentence.
6. Modify the Specific Plan language regarding flexibility in the
design guidelines.
The following paragraph will be inserted at the end
of the introductory paragraph on page 79 of the
Draft Specific Plan: With-twe-eHeeptieas, The
quidelines in this chapter are advisory only. ia
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
eM - VOL 12 - 191
Adjourned Regular Meeting
April 27, 1993
.
.
aatHre aaa The City may seek-aaa consider an
equivalent or superior method availaale-te achieve
the obiectives of the Specific Plan. The quidelines
are intended to be used by developers and planninq
staff, in coniunction with the City's Zoninq
Ordinance, to formulate and approve plans that meet
the obiectives for quality development envisioned by
this Specific Plan. ~hese-~aiaeliaes-relatia~-te
aHilaia~-hei~ht-fpa~e-8g+-aaa-street-imprevemeats
fpa~es-~g5-~~~+-are-re~Hlatery-ia-aatHre-aaa-will-ae
re~Hirea-as-set-Eerth-ia-this-elemeat.
Mr. Ambrose asked if Council wanted a maximum height on buildings in the
downtown center.
Cm. Burton indicated that he did not want a maximum height. He felt it
would be dealt with at the time the plans were submitted.
8. Allow some General Commercial in certain areas designated Campus
Office.
Mr. Gillarde indicated Mr. Stedman requested the area be designated
General Commercial now.
Mayor Snyder stated if the modification was made, then the traffic
counts would be upset and that process would have to be done again. He
felt it was inadvisable for the Council to do that at this time.
Mr. Tong indicated the same would hold true with the request from
Alameda County.
Mr. Ambrose asked for more background in regard to General Campus versus
General Commercial.
Mr. Tong explained that the critical time period would be the afternoon
peak hour. The typical Campus Office Use would generate 20 trips per
1,000 square feet, whereas the General Commercial Use would generate 40
trips per 1,000 square feet. With that potential increase in peak hour
trips, there would be the potential for exceeding the levels of service
at the intersections at Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road and Dublin
Boulevard and Fallon Road. So it was critical for the City to examine
any requests to change to General Commercial Uses so the various levels
of service may be maintained, otherwise the City would be getting into
an environmental problem.
Cm. Burton felt it was not a smart idea to lock the City into what level
of service exists at intersections and foreclose helping some
development. The City will not be able to control what happens at
of the City's intersections if Tassajara or Dougherty gets built.
supported a Planned Unit Development that would allow them to come
and study the circumstances at the time. The future traffic count
cannot be foreseen. The problems should be solved when they come.
some
He
in
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
eM - VOL 12 - 192
Adjourned Regular Meeting
April 27, 1993
.
.
Mayor Snyder indicated the City would have to do it because of the CMA.
It was not a question of whether the City wanted to do it, the City
would have to do it. He felt there was the need to have the flexibility
to look at it as the City does it. Mr. Stedman wanted the City to
change it so it would become specific and would then upsets the EIR
situation. Mr. Stedman wanted it all to be General Commercial.
Mr. Ambrose indicated several years ago when the City was viewing the
concept plans, there was a lot more General Commercial as one of the
alternatives in that Specific Plan area, but when the traffic model was
run, most of the major intersections failed. Then the General
Commercial area had to be pared down.
Cm. Burton questioned whether "no uses will be permitted if the
established traffic levels of service are exceeded" must be put in
because he felt it was a dangerous thing because the City would be
putting our whole program in the hands of someone else the City had no
control over.
Mr. Ambrose indicated the intent was that there was so much traffic
being generated on this parcel if some of the land use was changed to
General Commercial, it could increase the traffic level of service above
and beyond what was plugged into the model at that particular parcel.
If the Council wanted more General Commercial, it would affect the rest
of the land uses.
Mr. Tong clarified the intent is that there is a stipulation regarding
the traffic level of service being established in the Specific Plan will
be maintained. The text will reflect that language.
Cm. Burton felt that one sentence ("...state that no uses will be
permitted to occur if the established traffic levels of service would be
exceeded.") would put all the City's commercial development under
someone else's control. !This would be traffic created by someone else.
Cm. Houston felt "indicatie that this shift to allow either Campus Office
or General Commercial wi~l create greater flexibility to respond to
changing market conditiorts that may occur in the future;" was a good
statement.
Mayor Snyder suggested that Staff redraft the language.
Mr. Ambrose indicated the concept was to keep the amount of traffic
coming out of that parcel under control so it fits with the EIR.
Cm. Burton wanted to make certain development was not stopped cold
because of circumstances the City had no control over.
Ms. Gillarde suggested "no shift from
commercial uses would be permitted to
levels of service would be exceeded."
to the above change in language.
campus office to general
occur if the established traffic
By consensus, the Council agreed
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
CM - VOL 12 - 193
Adjourned Regular Meeting
April 27, 1993
.
.
Ms. Gillarde indicated Alameda County also requested a similar kind of
flexibility on their Campus Office Land Use to General Commercial.
Mr. Ambrose cautioned that the Tax Exchange Agreement with Alameda
County should be reviewed before the Council made a determination of a
change. He indicated there was a 15% threshold of modifying the land
use. He thought it might be OK if the County was the one to make the
request, but the document should be checked to make sure.
By consensus of Council, request of land use change to General
Commercial was fine with the Council with the same stipulation "no shift
from campus office to general commercial uses would be permitted to
occur if the established traffic levels of service would be exceeded"
depending upon the Tax Exchange Agreement between the City and Alameda
County.
Mr. Martinelli indicated that the County did not want to have to go
through a General Plan Amendment to make the land use change.
Mr. Tong stated that implementation-wise it would raise a question down
the road in terms of what happens if one property asks for the rezoning
prior to the other. Would the analysis be based on just the one
property going General Commercial as opposed to both properties going
General Commercial.
Mayor Snyder responded if there was no application, how could the City
do an analysis.
Mr. Ambrose expressed a concern about the Tax Exchange Agreement with
the County. He suggested the City talk with the County about the impact
of that kind of change on the agreement. Currently, if the City reduces
the yield in essence by land use type by more than 15%, which could be
potentially done by eliminating a lot of campus office, that would
constitute a breech.
Ms. Silver indicated the agreement would not become effective.
Cm. Houston asked when Staff could clarify the changes with the County.
Mr. Ambrose stated his concern about changing what the Board of
Supervisors had already adopted the Tax Exchange Agreement so that means
the City would run the risk of going back through the Board of
Supervisors with the change.
Mr. Martinelli indicated the County was asking for the flexibility only
on the southeast corner of their property, not in the west. He had
reservations of whether the yield that is in the annexation agreement
can be met on the property after analyzing net land area because the
floor area ratios are high and the net is significantly below the growth
by 25%. The County is just requesting for the right to ask for a land
use change.
Mr. Ambrose stated the City had to be very careful in the sequencing of
events with respect to the Tax Exchange Agreement. Once the Council
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
eM - VOL 12 - 194
Adjourned Regular Meeting
April 27, 1993
.
.
gets to the point of certifying the EIR, the next step is to approve the
Tax Exchange Agreement before the Council changes the General Plan.
There are problems with the 1986 Tax Exchange Agreement and the City
does not want to be in the position of breeching that agreement before
another agreement is in place.
Mayor Snyder indicated if the City modified the land use, it would have
to go back before the Board of Supervisors. He suggested the Council
continue the agreement as is and have the two staffs work out the
differences.
Cm. Burton agreed the Council did not want to open a can of worms.
Ms. Gillarde indicated there had been a request from Mr. DiManto about
extending his retail area. According to the Appendix of the Specific
Plan now, Mr. DiManto would have 846,000 square feet of development
potential of General Commercial.
Cm. Burton asked how deep the lot would be after the streets are widened
with the sidewalks.
Mr. DiManto indicated he had submitted a site plan to Planning from
WalMart and Sam's and that site took the whole depth with parking and
landscape buffers and street widening and took it back to their fence
line. They may want to go north on Dublin Boulevard with the Sam's
portion. They would need the next block zoned for business and site
permit uses of the multi-family residential.
Mr. Hammond stated the depth of the block for commercial is 500 feet
deep, which he felt was fairly substantial, although he did not know
what WalMart's standards were. Again, if the amount of retail
commercial was increased, the traffic would be increased and would
triggered more EIR analysis.
Ms. Gillarde also indicated that housing would be reduced which has
already been reduced in the Plan.
Cm. Burton felt people will walk away if the land is not made available
to them for commercial development.
Mr. Ambrose indicated there was currently plenty of land available in
that area to accommodate them.
Mr. DiManto stated he had asked for this request for two years and
nothing had been changed. He felt it did not work commercially. He
felt the Planners and Consultants did not understand commercial.
Cm. Burton felt the discussion should be how to get major tenants on
that street and if the land was not available, they would not come.
Mayor Snyder stated he had been through this process for a long time and
this was the first time he had heard there was an inadequate depth on
the property. In order to change things now would change the housing
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
eM - VOL 12 - 195
Adjourned Regular Meeting
April 27, 1993
.
.
situation and there could be major modifications which is what the
Council was trying to avoid.
Cm. Burton felt it was important to recognize there was a standard the
industry used for parking and size.
Mr. Ambrose indicated the City has met with many major retailers such as
Costco, Price Club, and WalMart. When they were looking for a site in
Dublin, they were looking for 15 acres with a reasonable configuration.
Mr. DiManto's property is 80 acres. If Council would like Staff to do
an analysis in terms to depth, Staff will do it.
Ms. Gillarde asked the City Attorney to speak to the requirement for
additional environmental analysis.
Ms. Silver indicated the more changes the Council made, the more likely
it was that a supplement to the EIR would be required.
Cm. Burton asked Staff to open the property as deep as it can without
setting off an EIR.
Cm. Moffatt indicated Council was not interested in going through a
supplemental EIR.
Ms. Gillarde stated Staff's recommendation was to add language to the
Specific Plan regarding average intersection level of service. Mr.
Martinelli indicated a concern about using 2010 as a benchmark.
Mr. Martinelli indicated this statement applied to every intersection in
the City, not just the major network intersections. He felt it was more
rigorous than the CMA requirements. He felt the City would be allowing
the decision on this Plan and what would be built next week to be based
on the regional expectation of what will occur by 2010 including what
Contra Costa County might do. He felt Contra Costa County could shut
the City down. Under this language, he felt the City could not approve
any project in the study area.
Cm. Houston asked what could be changed in the verbage to address this
problem.
Ms. Gillarde indicated this was the City's current policy in regard to
streets. It is in the City's current General Plan.
Mr. Martinelli felt the last sentence ("...The average intersection
level of service is defined as the hourly average using reasonable
projections for a year 2010 time frame") was the problem.
Mr. Tong indicated the EIR Traffic work was based on the year 2010 as a
design year; however, the intent of this last sentence was to define
hourly average rather than the year 2010. He suggested the last phrase
"using reasonable projections for a year 2010 time frame"...be deleted
and it would still meet the intent of Staff that the average
intersection level be defined as the hourly coverage.
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
eM - VOL 12 - 196
Adjourned Regular Meeting
April 27, 1993
.
.
By consensus, the Council agreed to delete the last phrase.
Cm. Burton asked if the County would be constrained in development by
having to wait for something to happen to the east of Tassajara.
Mr. Ambrose responded that it would depend upon the scale of the
proposal. Right now the City was working with the County on processing
a Planned Development Commercial.
Ms. Silver indicated it was possible to have an assessment district that
is both within the City and within the County if the Board of
Supervisors agreed to it. It would be in the County's interest to agree
to that situation.
Cm. Burton stated the County would put up the money to pay for the
project and they would be paid back as the others came on line.
Mr. Ambrose indicated there are some protections in the Tax Exchange
Agreement that gives the County some protection in being able to proceed
at a reasonable pace with development of their property.
By consensus of the Council, "Ensure that adequate school facilities are
available prior to development in eastern Dublin to the extent permitted
by law" was added to Policy 8-3, page 119. .
Mayor Snyder indicated the City did not dictate where the students go to
school. The School District dictates where students go to school.
Ms. Silver explained she suggested the addition of language "to the
extent permitted by law" because there was an amendment made to the
provisions in the Code that authorize School Districts to charge
developers a fee. It is now $2.65 per square foot for residential
development. The law became effective January 1, 1993. Before that,
the City could deny a General Plan Amendment or rezoning if it was found
school facilities were not available. The Legislature has taken that
ability away. There is a constitutional amendment on the June 1994
ballot which would change the requirement for general obligation bonds
for school district financing from a 2/3 vote to a majority vote. If it
does not pass, then the Law goes back the way it was before January 1,
1993, which means the City could deny development if school facilities
were not available. By adding this language, it allows flexibility.
Ms. Silver indicated there should be a change to the resolution
referring Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan back
to the Planning Commission for consideration. .
3. The City Council proposes to disapprove of the
recommendation of the Planning Commission and, instead,
adopt Alternative 2: Reduced Planning Area ("Alternative
2") as described in the Draft EIR, with the modifications
to Alternative 2 described in the staff report for the
April 27, 1993 Council meeting, as such modifications
were chanqed by the Council at its April 27 meetinq.
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
CM - VOL 12 - 197
Adjourned Regular Meeting
April 27, 1993
.
.
A. The Planning Commission is directed to hold a public
hearing on May 3, 1993, to consider the following
modifications to Alternative 2, all as more fully set
forth in the staff report for the April 27, 1993 City
Council meeting and as chanqed by the Council at its
April 27 meetinq:
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote,
the Council adopted as amended above
RESOLUTION NO. 45 - 93
REFERRING EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN
BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION
The item was continued until May 10, 1993 where the Council will hold a
separate public hearing on Planning Commission recommendations on the
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and consider actions on the
EIR, General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and related items.
* * * *
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting
was adjourned at 11:27 p.m.
* * * *
Minutes prepared by Sandie Hart.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%
eM - VOL 12 - 198
April 27, 1993
Adjourned Regular Meeting
.
.
REGULAR MEETING - Mav 10, 1993
A regular meeting of the City council of the City of Dublin was held
on Monday, May 10, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin civic
Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m., by Mayor
Snyder.
* * * *
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Houston, Howard, Moffatt and Mayor
Snyder.
ABSENT: None.
* * * *
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C610-20)
Mayor Snyder led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of
allegiance to the flag.
* * * *
RECYCLING PROGRAM WINNERS FOR MONTH OF APRIL 1993 C810-60)
Management Assistant Bo Barker announced the five winners in the
recycling program contest for the Month of April, 1993.
Dan Borges, LDD General Manager presented Savings Bonds to: Debbie
Flottman, Doug Abbott and Ken Johnston. John Mangini and Ron Strong
were unable to attend the Council meeting, so Staff will see that they
get their bonds.
Staff advised that five winners will be drawn each month, with Savings
Bonds presented at a Council meeting.
* * * *
CUSTOMER SERVICE AWARD FOR MAY C1S0-90)
City Manager Ambrose presented the May Customer Service Award to
Michelle Wierschem, Recreation Coordinator.
* * * *
State Budget (330-80)
Frank Ruskey stated he was back before the Council on his most
important issue; economics of the State of California. The Council is
a witness that he has been accurate in his predictions in the past.
He recently attended a conference on the economy, and there is talk
that perhaps by the last quarter of 1995, California could hit
bankruptcy. We haven't even seen the base closure yet or what this
will do. There is no growth potential in businesses in the next 3 or
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CM - VOL 12 - 199
Regular Meeting
May 10, 1993
.
.
4 years. It is time that we recognize as a City, that we have more
hard times coming. Cities are going to find that it is going to be
tougher than ever. cities will be asked to pick up more and more of
the burden from the state. Some tough and hard decisions will have to
be made by the City Council. He hasn't seen any 4 or 5 year plan on
the part of the city. We should call in some top people to consult.
He did a survey and when you take 25,000 people you have a certain
fixed cost. Businesses that have been bringing in the most tax
dollars are dwindling away from Dublin. The only real solution is we
have to either grow or die. We have to bring more tax revenue into
Dublin.
Mayor Snyder advised that Staff has been working diligently this
entire fiscal year trying to understand what the State will be doing
to us. He testified last Thursday up in Walnut Creek at a hearing
where everyone is trying to understand what is happening to us as well
as everyone else. He encouraged everyone to attend the budget
hearings which should be completed by the middle of June.
Cm. Burton questioned when he said increase the revenue base, if this
is spelled T A XES?
Mr. Ruskey stated there are other options. We could bring in other
businesses. He discussed the possibility of stores that might close
if the same stores open in neighboring cities. This would certainly
hurt us a lot.
Cm. Moffatt advised that the City had sent out an information letter a
couple of weeks ago. In discussing the cost of government, the City
of Dublin has the lowest number of administrative staff per capita
than any of our neighboring cities.
Mr. Ruskey stated this statement was incorrect. He did his own study.
He compared City Manager's salaries with populations and Dublin pays
more than anyone else.
Mayor Snyder advised that they were talking about two entirely
different things.
* * * *
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous
vote, the Council took the following actions:
Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 26, 1993;
Awarded the bid for 2 police vehicles to Shamrock Ford and authorized
Staff to issue a purchase order in the amount of $33,876.32
($27,116.32 + $6,760 for the 3-year/85,000 mile Premium Extended
Service w/Maintenance Warranty 350-20);
Accepted improvements constructed under Contract 93-04 (Topaz Circle
Water Service) and authorized payment in the amount of $3,690 to
Jardin Pipeline (600-30);
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CM - VOL 12 - 200
Regular Meeting
May 10, 1993
.
.
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 46 - 93
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR
SUPPLEMENT NO. 003 (CYCLE 3)
STATE-LOCAL PARTNERSHIP FUNDS (SB 300) (600-S0 , 1060-90)
Authorized staff to solicit bids for Contract 93-08, Bi-Annual
striping and Marking Contract (600-30);
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 47 - 93
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION, DELIVERY AND SALE OF
REFUNDING CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION, AND AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A TRUST AGREEMENT, A LEASE AGREEMENT, AN
ESCROW AGREEMENT, A PURCHASE CONTRACT AND AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND
CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (340-70 , 600-30)
Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $863,942.40 (300-40).
Cm. Houston requested that the Investment Report be pulled from the
Consent Calendar for discussion. He noted that the yield on the state
Fund is still going down, and also that a sentence had been deleted
about moving the City's portfolio into longer maturities with more
favorable rates as LAIF's yield declines. He questioned if the City's
policy had changed.
Mr. Rankin stated it had not changed. Staff will be bringing back a
policy in the near future. Staff is currently prohibited from
investing longer than 5 years without Council approval.
On motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous
vote, the Council received the City Treasurer's Investment Report as
of April 30, 1993 (320-30).
Cm. Houston requested that the item related to destruction of building
records be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. He was
concerned with records that give environmental history. This couldn't
be done if the records have been destroyed.
Cm. Burton stated he agreed. He questioned why we need to get rid of
these records.
Mr. Ambrose advised that the primary issue is space.
Ms. Silver stated the Building Official is proposing destruction of 6
record categories. The Council could delete #2 (plans for buildings
or structures that have subsequently been demolished) from the list.
On motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted, with the change discussed
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CM - VOL 12 - 201
Regular Meeting
May 10, 1993
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 48 - 93
AUTHORIZING DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN
BUILDING DEPARTMENT RECORDS (160-70)
Cm. Moffatt asked if we could microfilm any of these.
Mr. Ambrose advised that we have not gotten into microfilming any of
our records.
Cm. Houston requested that the item related to the Celebrity's
Restaurant be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. He
stated he understood that they will not have to pay a fee. He asked
the status of their application.
Mr. Tong advised that Staff is in the process of taking the CUP to the
Planning Commission for a public hearing. It will be within the next
month or so.
On motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous
vote, the Council received an informational report related to
Celebrity's Coffee Company Conditional Use Permit (410-30).
Cm. Houston requested that the item related to the assessment district
be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. He questioned
when the 45 day notification period started.
Mr. Thompson advised that Staff would have to come back to the Council
with the Preliminary Engineer's Report and then the 45 day notices
would be sent out. Staff hopes to have it on the agenda of the next
Council meeting.
Cm. Houston questioned how hard or easy it will be for citizens to
protest this.
Mr. Thompson explained the procedure. They must file a written
statement that they protest the assessment. This is a brand new
requirement of the State. Staff will explain what the project is all
about in the notice.
Ms. Silver discussed the information which must be included in the
notice.
Cm. Houston asked if 50% of the citizens have to protest before it can
be voted on.
Mr. Ambrose explained that if there is a 50% protest, we would have to
abandon the district.
Cm. Burton stated he had received several notices in Contra Costa
County and he would be interested in knowing in our case if a 5%
protest would cancel the project or if it would just put it to a vote.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
eM - VOL 12 - 202
Regular Meeting
May 10, 1993
.
.
Mr. Thompson advised that it takes a 51% protest to overturn it.
Ms. Silver clarified that it would take 50% + one. The notices Cm.
Burton received were probably under a different statute.
Cm. Houston stated he is against this. If 5% protest it, he would
want it put to a vote. He would like the 5% protest provision added.
Mayor Snyder stated he felt it should be done according to the
requirements of the statute.
Cm. Houston stated he did not agree with the statute.
Mr. Ambrose advised that the notice wouldn't go out until after the
next meeting when the Preliminary Engineer's Report is acted upon. At
that time, the Council could discuss any special provisions.
Cm. Moffatt stated he would rather see the protest percentage the same
as for a recall.
Mayor Snyder pointed out that the City Council has a right at any time
to withdraw from this process. It is ultimately a Council decision.
Mr. Thompson reminded the Council that the city has 3 assessment
districts that have gone on for years and years.
Mr. Ambrose advised that an advisory measure could be placed on the
ballot. The City may be better off abandoning this than having an
election, however. The Registrar of Voters has indicated they will be
increasing their election costs considerably. We spent close to
$24,000 on the last election.
Ms. Silver stated the discussion on this item was not what was noticed
on the agenda, and it would therefore not be proper for the Council to
go forward with different action at this time unless by a 4/5 vote the
Council determined that there was reason to add this as an urgency
item to the agenda. The reason for the urgency would have to be
stated.
Cm. Houston made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Burton to add
this as Item 4.9(a), and discuss the requirement that a 5% protest
would make it go on the ballot or else abandon it. Following
discussion, the motion and second were withdrawn. The Council agreed
that it would be more appropriate to discuss this when the Preliminary
Engineer's Report is presented to the Council at the next meeting.
On motion of Cm. Howard, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 49 - 93
INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR CITY OF DUBLIN
LANDSCAPING , LIGHTING MAINTENANCE
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1993-1 (360-20)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CM - VOL 12 - 203
Regular Meeting
May 10, 1993
.
.
~
Cm.'s Burton and Moffatt requested that the item related to the
Heritage Center water testing be pulled from the Consent Calendar for
discussion. Cm. Burton stated he was surprised at the amount of work
Staff is able to make out of the heritage site. None of the things
are necessary. This is just a stalling tactic and there is no
justification for it.
Mr. Thompson stated Staff's only recommendation was to test the water
in the well because everything that we have done thus far has just
been a record/paper check. This test would also indicate whether or
not the water is usable on the site. BSK recommended 3 things, but
City Staff was only recommending that we have the one test done.
Cm. Burton stated he did not see any need to go through this exercise.
If we wanted a well, this would be a different situation.
Ms. Silver advised that the purchase agreement between the city and
Dublin Cemetery provides for the city to have a report such as this
prepared. When the City purchases property, the City is liable for
any contamination. If it is contaminated, the City would have
liability for the clean up costs.
Mr. Rankin stated it would be wise to proceed with this from a risk
management standpoint. One of the members of the risk management pool
of which we participate acquired a former school site and later
learned they inherited a $1 million liability. This would be wise,
particularly since there are leaks within the vicinity of the site.
Cm. Burton questioned what happens if we do find something. He felt
we should just seal the well and leave it alone.
Mr. Rankin pointed out that the amount for the testing is included in
the park grant funding.
Cm. Burton felt Staff was just trying to delay things.
Mr. Ambrose advised that as long as the City Council goes on record as
accepting the liability, Staff can move forward with this.
Ms. Silver advised that whether the well is sealed or not, if the
water is contaminated, the City could be required to clean it up.
Cm. Moffatt stated he had learned in talking with one of the past
presidents of the DHPA, they abandoned the well because it sits right
over iron pyrite. It has never been used as potable water.
Cm. Moffatt made a motion to not even go in and test the well, but
rather just cap it off properly. We could take a sample and test it
and we would protect ourselves from any liability. While we are
sealing it up, we could test it.
Cm. Burton made a motion to cancel the inspection of the well and
proceed with the purchase of the Heritage Center. We should abandon
the well and seal it.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
eM - VOL 12 - 204
Regular Meeting
May 10, 1993
.
.
Cm. Moffatt made a motion to seal the well and take samples to see if
there is any potential liability and if there is, bring it back to the
City Council for further discussion. Don't test for potable or
irrigation water.
Mayor Snyder felt this would be opening a Pandora's Box.
Cm. Houston asked if we test for hydrocarbons and find iron, if this
is a bad thing if we find it.
Mr. Thompson stated no, but it doesn't taste very good. We are more
concerned about hydrocarbons rather than minerals.
Mayor Snyder stated anytime you have a well situation in close
proximity to a service station, once it gets into the well water, it
is contaminated and someone is responsible for it. You have to go
back to find out who is responsible. The older service stations cause
the problems. The Regional Water Quality Board just dealt with one in
Contra Costa County where they went back 30 years and found Phillips
Petroleum responsible and the station has not even been there for 20
years.
On motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by majority
vote, the Council agreed to accept Staff's recommendation and
authorized Staff to direct BSK to proceed with testing of on-site well
water at the Heritage Center at an estimated fee of $3,400 (600-30).
We should investigate sealing this up. Cm. Burton voted against this
motion, stating he felt it was a waste of time.
Cm. Moffatt added that we should keep costs down to a minimum. He
questioned if these were firm bids.
Mr. Thompson advised that Staff can write the contract on a not-to-
exceed basis.
Cm. Burton requested that the item dealing with recreation program
fees be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. The action
would allow Staff to set the prices on the recreation fees and he did
not feel this was appropriate. It should come back to the Council.
Some of the fees are increasing so much we are disqualifying some
people from being able to participate. Staff is proposing to go from
$45 to $125 on the playgrounds program. We should have some provision
for a scholarship program.
Ms. Lowart stated there is currently a resolution on file that states
recreation programs and fees are adopted through the budget process.
Admissions and rental of facility fees are the only fees currently
adopted by the Council. It would be quite cumbersome to come before
the City Council for all programs. Staff is asking that the Park &
Recreation Commission be given authorization to approve the fees as
long as they don't exceed the cost of the service.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
eM - VOL 12 - 205
Regular Meeting
May 10, 1993
.
.
Cm. Moffatt felt that disadvantages families cannot pay the fees. He
asked if we have any type of revenue source to adjust the prices.
Ms. Lowart advised that we do not currently have anything like this in
place. The direction of the Council has been to recover the costs.
Mr. Ambrose advised that it is very difficult to set a fee for some of
the classes when instructors pretty much set the fee and we negotiate
the split. It is a cumbersome process and would be functionally very
difficult to bring each one before the Council.
Ms. Lowart stated when you review the benefit compared to the price,
it works out to be a very reasonable $ .50 per hour.
Cm. Burton asked if it would be possible for the city to find
sponsors; i.e., a service club that could give the city $1,000 toward
the program.
Ms. Lowart advised that she had had a student work on a mock
scholarship program. If the Council is interested, staff could have
the Park & Recreation Commission review the policy that has been
developed.
On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 50 - 93
ESTABLISHING A POLley FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
REeREATION PROGRAM FEES AND eHARGES (950-20)
The Council also directed Staff to find a method for sponsoring a
scholarship program.
* * * *
PUBLle HEARING-EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPEeIFle PLAN,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAeT REPORT & RELATED PROJEeT IMPLEMENTATION (420-30)
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
Planning Consultant Brenda Gillarde presented the Staff Report and
explained that what was before the Council at this meeting is the
Planning Commission's recommendations for approval of the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan - Alternative 2 with
Modifications. The Planning Commission agreed with all of the
modifications previously recommended by the City Council except for
the transit spine, which they felt should remain two lanes through the
Town Center. The commission also made minor additions to two policies
on schools that were not previously considered by the Council. These
pOlicies were included under the Specific Plan section.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
eM - VOL 12 - 206
Regular Meeting May 10, 1993
.
.
Ms. Gillarde discussed the items requlrlng council action. 1)
certification of the Addendum and the Final EIR. The California
Environmental Quality Act requires the City Council to consider the
Addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project.
2) Approving the Agreement with the County of Alameda. Staff
recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution approving the
agreement with the County of Alameda and the Surplus Property
Authority.
3) Adopting the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, Making
Findings, Adopting a statement of Overriding considerations, and
Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Planning Commission
concurred with the Council's recommendation to change the GPA to
reflect the Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternative 2 with
certain modifications. Ms. Gillarde discussed the 8 modifications to
the GPA contained in the staff Report. with regard to the SP, the
Planning Commission concurred with all of the proposed Council
modifications except one, and had added two other minor modifications,
also discussed in the Staff Report. The Planning Commission concurred
with the other modifications to the SP, which were: 1) Modify certain
grading policies to create greater flexibility; 2) Modify the language
requiring a grid-type street pattern; 3) Add language to create
greater flexibility in the design guidelines; 4) Modify the text
regarding residential uses within the Livermore APA; 5) Consider some
General Commercial uses in select Campus Office areas; 6) Add language
clarifying average intersection level of service; and 7) Modify the SP
map to extend the General Commercial area between Dublin Boulevard and
the Transit Spine and redesignate the area north of Gleason Road from
General Commercial to Medium Density Residential.
CEQA stipulates that a public agency cannot approve a project for
which an EIR has been prepared which identifies one or more signifi-
cant environmental effect unless the public agency makes one or more
written finding for each of those significant effects. Each finding
must be accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for the
finding. There are three possible findings: 1) Changes have been
incorporated into the project which substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effect. 2) Such changes are within the
responsiblity and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the
agency making the finding. Such changes have been, or can be, adopted
by such other agency. 3) Specific economic, social, or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the final EIR.
state Law requires a City to adopt a reporting or monitoring program
to ensure that the changes or conditions imposed to mitigate or avoid
significant environmental effects of a project are enforced and
implemented. The mechanism by which this is achieved is called a
Mitigation Monitoring Program.
In summary, Ms. Gillarde explained that the Council was requested to
consider the following items and take the appropriate action:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
eM - VOL 12 - 207
Regular Meeting
May 10, 1993
.
.
1) Planning Commission recommendations for the GPA and Specific Plan.
The Commission recommended minor changes to a policy and program on
school availability and also recommended that the Transit Spine remain
two lanes in the Town Center. Council Action Required: Determine
whether these changes should be incorporated into the GPA and SP
documents.
2) Addendum and Final EIR. The Addendum describes the potential
environmental effects of the modified GPA and SP. The Addendum
concludes that the revised project does not create any environmental
impacts that are not already discussed in the Draft EIR. The final
EIR consists of the Draft EIR (Part I and Part II), a letter from DKS
Associates, and Responses to Comments. Staff finds that the Final EIR
has been prepared consistent with all CEQA requirements. Council
Action Required: Consider the Addendum and the Final EIR, and adopt
the resolution certifying the Addendum and the Final EIR for the
Eastern Dublin GPA and SP.
3) Agreement with the County of Alameda. The County and City Staffs
have modified the draft property tax exchange agreement to accommodate
consideration of allowing some General Commercial uses on certain
County owned area designated Campus Office. Mr. Ambrose stated the
modified draft agreement would be beneficial to both agencies.
Paragraph 15(b), page 19 wording was changed. There is now
flexibility in the revised agreement. Council Action Required:
Review and adopt the agreement.
4) Adoption of the Eastern Dublin GPA and SP. The resolution adopting
the Eastern Dublin GPA and SP contains 4 parts: a) adoption of the
GPA and SP; b) adoption of findings; c) adoption of a statement of
Overriding Considerations; and d) adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring
Program. Council Action Required: Review the resolution and
exhibits. Adopt the resolution adopting the GPA and SP, making
findings, adopting a statement of Overriding Considerations, and
adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Ms. Gillarde discussed various minor typographical corrections which
needed to be made.
Cm. Houston discussed the small parcel near Gleason Road which has
been relocated across to Dublin Boulevard to allow adequate acreage
after setbacks and road takeaway, etc. This will leave sufficient
acreage for large type retailers.
Cm. Moffatt questioned if the APA is deemed unconstitutional, if the
land will revert back to residential or agricultural.
Ms. Gillarde advised that text will be added to the plan stating if
the APA is deemed to be invalid, the land will remain residential. If
it remains valid, the land will revert to agricultural.
Planning Director Tong discussed page 160 of the Specific Plan. The
County is concerned with the first sentence of the City requiring a
development agreement for individual projects in order to implement
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
eM - VOL 12 - 208
Regular Meeting
May 10, 1993
.
.
the Specific Plan. The County suggested we add language which allows
for other appropriate agreements. staff has no problem adding such
language to allow for other appropriate agreements.
Cm. Burton discussed the transit spine, the size of the median strip
and what happens to the traffic if we allow no left turns. He
questioned the width of the sidewalks, and also discussed the setback
requirements.
Planning Director Tong stated building 10' back from the public right-
of-way would be the guideline.
Cm. Burton questioned why not have the buildings up to the property
line. He was nervous about having the property owner being set back
10' unless someone fixes their property up and does something
positive. Otherwise, we'll end up with the same situation as
currently exists on Village Parkway.
Ms. Gillarde stated all the setback language is contained in the
guidelines which are advisory. None of the guidelines are mandatory.
Mayor Snyder opened the meeting to public comments and stated comments
would be limited to 3 minutes. The only areas of discussion should be
relative to what Staff just presented.
Bill Foster, 8171 Brittany Drive stated he had lived in Dublin for
about 25 years. Dublin is really the emerald of this valley.
Actually, his name should be Mr. complacency. About 30 or so years
ago, Dublin's sphere of influence was recognized to be all the way to
Bernal to the south and a very large amount of land to the east. The
northern boundary was Alcosta. Dublin was, at that time, seeking
incorporation, but Mr. and Mrs. complacency didn't pay attention.
Pleasanton took it all for themselves and we all know the rest. West
Dublin development was approved by the City, but some people didn't
like it. Mr. and Mrs. complacency didn't get involved because they
thought the referendum would be defeated. We now have another
expansion proposal opportunity. There is only one way to go. People
shouldn't blame the City Council for being cautious. This time, Mr.
and Mrs. complacency are now awake. Our neighbors will develop the
land if we don't. He is a part of a special interest group; the APA.
The Sierra Club is a special interest group, as are residents of
Doolan Canyon. All these groups need to be listened to and responded
to. We need, however, to keep the goal in mind. He urged the Council
to pass the East Dublin plan.
Carolyn Morgan, 5184 Doolan Road stated all the Council has done is
take an eraser and erase the density. Why would Williamson Act
contracts be cancelled early. She doesn't see the canyon waiting 20
or 30 years to develop. When this plan started in 1987, they dealt
with Alison Massa and Rod Barger, who have now disappeared. She was
assured by Cm. Moffatt that later in the process they would be able to
speak. Staff has said they could have input if they pay. Tassajara
is all chopped up, and it will look like village Parkway between
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
eM - VOL 12 - 209
Regular Meeting
May 10, 1993
.
.
Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard. People will not blame
the property owners, but rather they will blame the city and WRT. We
need to put transit orientation back into the plan. She is a NIMBY
and quite proud of the fact. The Livermore Valley is her back yard.
Doug Abbott stated he thought it had all been said. Whatever is said
tonight is academic anyway. The City Council plays a mean game of
politics. He and others don't play the game that well. They assumed
the Council was really interested in their concerns. It appears they
are only trying to avoid a referendum threat. There have been a few
cosmetic changes, but the landowners will be back in a few months to a
year, so nothing has been accomplished. Their concerns, which they
have had for 8 years have not been addressed.
Frank Ruskey stated he had been in favor of growth on the west side.
The plan that is being discussed for the east side, he doesn't like,
but it is a plan and it is something to start with. We have got to
make a move one way or another. He agreed that the City Council has
been elected by the people to make the best judgement they can, tying
in everything that they have to deal with. The economy requires that
we move in one direction; we cannot stay and constantly decline and
expect to survive. The Council has studied the plan far more than
anyone in the City, so if they say go, go. If people want to go to
another referendum, let them, because this is the people's right. He
objected very strongly to the fact that government's minds are made
up. He knew there is some rift going on between the Council and
environmentalists. The City Council has already rendered its
decision. He did not think the Council was open to the comments
people have. The Council has already made the decision before even
hearing from the people.
Cm. Burton reminded Mr. Ruskey that the City Council had sat through
hundreds of people comments. This is fine-tuning time.
Mitzi Christopher stated she had lived in Dublin since 1989.
are a lot of complaisant members of the community. The West
defeat pushed her to get involved. She supports East Dublin
it is a good move for the future of the City. She urged the
Council to go forward with the plan.
Marjorie Labar questioned the City's intention regarding Doolan Road
and LAFCO this year. She asked that the Council also please pay
attention to the Planning Commission regarding the transit spine.
This is the only part of the plan that makes good sense. If you can't
walk downtown easily, people won't do it. She currently does a lot of
walking around town. Dublin Boulevard signals make it extremely
difficult to get across the street; particularly if you are pushing a
shopping cart or a baby stroller. We should keep the grid patterns.
She discussed the viability of the City of Davis' downtown and also
College Avenue in Berkeley as an idea that can work. Curves look
lovely on a map, but not when you are on foot.
There
Dublin
and feels
city
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
eM - VOL 12 - 210
Regular Meeting
May 10, 1993
.
.
Mark Evanoff with Greenbelt Alliance discussed the need for wastewater
capacity and infrastructure. The Tri-Valley Wastewater group probably
won't be getting off the ground. LAVWMA is putting land use
agreements up against waste capacity. We should incorporate these
policies into our plan. We should work with other jurisdictions; this
is a wise fiscal stand to take. Special assessments should not exceed
1% of the assessed value once improvements are in place. with regard
to justifying overriding considerations, there is no documentation
that this project will fly financially. If you go with phasing the
project, and need to cut back, you can.
Zach Cowan spoke on behalf of the Doolan Road residents. The major
sponsoring property owner has essentially been calling the shots for
the last several years. He felt the City will be facing another
General Plan Amendment within 6 months. He lives in a grid
neighborhood and it works. He wondered how much time and money had
been wasted. The Council should be clear that the APA is valid. It
will be valid until overturned by a court. They cannot live with the
project and cannot live with the EIR. If the City certifies the EIR,
they offered several suggestions which were discussed in a letter
presented to the City Clerk. They suspected that the findings were
not the City's findings, but rather the sponsoring property owner's
findings. Mitigation measures which rely on permissive policies are
useless. According to the EIR, this project provides more jobs than
housing. This finding is not supported by anything.
Donna Ogelvie stated she helped co-found the John Knox nursery school.
She lived in Dublin for years. When they went to Doolan Canyon to
live, they were seeking a rural lifestyle. She felt there is a place
in the valley for all the things to happen. Development should be
close to the City. In 30 years, if we say we need to put people in
Doolan Canyon, we still have the space available. In the meantime, it
is now quiet and peaceful and the air quality is wonderful. She felt
very pained about the process that has gone on in the last 10 years.
It has cost them hours and hours of their time and lots of money. It
doesn't have to be done now. She urged the Council to please slow
down.
Janet Lockhart stated what she had heard from previous speakers was
that efforts that the community has made so far have been
unmeaningful. This is not true. If nothing else, getting people
involved has been a real benefit for all. Referendum threats were
made early in the process. Residents are not interested in a
referendum. Those outside need to realize that just because the city
Council does not agree doesn't mean they haven't been heard. It is
not fair to say they haven't been heard simply because they don't
agree. Our community is most important and they support the City
Council's efforts.
Ed Diemer said he came to Dublin in 1988. This has been quite an
educational process. A lot of people viewed as special interest
groups are actually specialists. Landowners are not necessarily
looking out for Dublin's best interest. It seems there has been some
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
eM - VOL 12 - 211
Regular Meeting
May 10, 1993
.
.
regression on the APA. He felt the Council has been mislead that it
is about to fall. This is not true. Those trying to protect the
airport have tried to make things simple. It has gone through due
process of law. The real issue should be tackled; what to do with the
land. The main issue seems to be an attitude of don't rock the boat.
John DiManto questioned with regard to the trade off if this leaves
them with parallel land or if there is a void in their own property.
He was concerned that they will be introducing some major tenants very
soon. He asked about the trade off dimensions. They will be filling
out that northeast corner.
Mr. Tong responded that the switch would result in approximately 15
acres immediately north of Dublin Boulevard, east of Tassajara Road
and which would facilitate a large retail use.
Mr. DiManto urged a favorable Council vote.
George Butler stated an area he would like to see changed is the
future study area. He would like this to be designated as permanent
open space. Some people think small is not good. Size has nothing to
do with quality of life. One could look at Oakland and Piedmont as
examples of this. Over the weekend he walked between Dublin
Boulevard, Amador Valley Boulevard, San Ramon Road and Amador Plaza
Road just to see how well we are doing now in our existing boundaries.
He saw over 20 signs indicating space available. We should better
manage what we have now before we grow. There should be a definite
greenbelt between Dublin and Livermore.
Eloise Hamann, a resident of Inclined Place stated it ain't over yet,
no matter what happens tonight. She felt they will have to trust the
City Council, and the Council should be aware that their work is just
beginning. Growth should not take place too rapidly.
Bobbie Foscalina stated she disagreed with Staff and what they call
phasing. She considered it to be growing in a contiguous manner and
as infill occurs. The way the plan is worded, someone on the
outskirts could fund and encumber the whole eastern Dublin area with
roads and infrastructure. Then, if the project doesn't work, the
whole area is in trouble.
Jim Stedman, representing the Pao Lin property, stated they had said
before that the town center area is a good idea. However, the transit
spine street needs to be 4 lanes. He strongly recommended 4 lanes.
With regard to setbacks on the transit spine, the guidelines now
suggest that building be 18' back from the curb. This is not the best
plan for the city. He requested that wording be changed to say
minimum setback of zero, but allow greater setback. with regard to a
comment made about flexibility, page 79 states the guidelines are
advisory only. They agree with this. He asked that the GPA and SP be
approved.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
eM - VOL 12 - 212
Regular Meeting
May 10, 1993
.
.
Cm. Burton stated the Council had been both praised and criticized
tonight, which points out the fact that you can't satisfy everybody.
This has indeed been a long process. The APA will have certain uses
that are allowed and he questioned if the Council could establish a
zoning. Instead of reverting to agricultural, can they allow uses
approved by the APA?
Mr. Tong stated the APA has been adopted by the ALUC. They have
designated the uses that they would not allow (residential), but they
have not said you should have some other types of uses. In our draft
plan, we are asking that it be designated residential. If it is found
inconsistent with the APA, we need to have some designation in that
area. Agricultural would accomplish this.
Cm. Burton stated he did not understand why we are putting in
residential when we know it doesn't qualify in the APA. He stated he
was also concerned at the last meeting regarding commercial on Mr.
DiManto's parcel. He also asked about the development agreement
language on page 160 of the Specific Plan.
Mr. Tong advised that Staff suggested a phrase be added, "or other
appropriate agreements".
Cm. Burton stated he did not feel it would be possible to have light
rail passing on 14' medians in the transit spine. He felt it is a
mistake to have 10' setbacks from the sidewalk. He felt it should be
8' and then leave it up to the property owner.
Mayor Snyder reminded Cm. Burton that the wording is advisory.
Mr. Tong agreed that the language has been modified so that the
guidelines are strictly advisory.
Cm. Burton stated 2 lanes don't make sense. Someone making a left
hand turn will stop traffic. He hoped the City Council would agree to
go with 4 lanes and leave a 14' median strip.
Mr. Tong stated the resolutions had been prepared and drafted as 4
lanes.
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Houston, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 51 - 93
eERTIFYING THE ADDENDUM AND THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAeT REPORT FOR THE
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPEeIFle PLAN
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
eM - VOL 12 - 213
Regular Meeting
May 10, 1993
.
.
On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 52 - 93
APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH eOUNTY OF ALAMEDA AND SURPLUS PROPERTY
AUTHORITY (WITH MODIFIED AGREEMENT ATTAeHED)
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted, with amendments discussed
RESOLUTION NO. 53 - 93
ADOPTING THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPEeIFle PLAN; MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
THE eALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AeT AND
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING eONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPEeIFle PLAN;
AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE
EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPEeIFle PLAN
* * * *
PUBLle HEARING - ORDINANeE ESTABLISHING
PROeEDURE FOR DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY (670-80)
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
Public Works Director Thompson advised that the city has received
inquiries and letters of interest from several parties related to the
sale of 3 remnant parcels from the Dublin Boulevard Extension property
acquisitions. As no provisions exist in the City'S statutes for the
disposal of real property, the City Attorney felt that specific
procedures should be adopted.
Mr. Thompson gave a recap of the specific details of the proposed
procedures and advised that they are in conformance with general
provisions of the Government Code.
Cm. Burton asked if his understanding was correct that it would always
come back to the Council for a final decision.
Mr. Ambrose advised that the only case where it would not is if it is
less than $5,000. In that case, it would not come back to the
Council.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous
vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance
amending Title 2 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code procedure for
disposal of surplus real property.
* * * *
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
eM - VOL 12 - 214
Regular Meeting
May 10, 1993
.
.
PUBLle HEARING
REVISION TO FEE seHEDULE FOR ENeROAeHMENT PERMITS (820-55)
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
Public Works Director Thompson presented the staff Report and advised
that the annual revenue from encroachment permits is approximately
$7,000. This revenue does not cover the city's cost to issue the
permits and inspect the work. Based on the proposed fee schedule, the
estimated revenue from encroachment permits would become approximately
$17,500.
Mr. Thompson stated Staff had had conversations with representatives
of PG&E and Pacific Bell regarding their concerns raised at the April
26th public hearing, and these concerns were addressed in the Staff
Report. Staff was also directed to contact other agencies for permit
fee information as a comparison. The cities of Pleasanton, Livermore
and San Ramon and the County of Alameda were asked for their fee
schedules. Staff felt that the proposed Dublin fees are comparable to
those of the three other cities. Alameda County's current fees are
significantly higher.
Mr. Thompson stated the existing encroachment permit fees were adopted
in 1984. In 1990, revisions were made to the fees for oversize
vehicle permits in accordance with a newly adopted State Law, and a
fee for the use of the San Ramon Road banner poles was added. No
other changes have been made, and the existing fees for encroachment
permits do not cover the City's actual cost for issuance or
inspection.
The new fee schedule addresses: Basic Permit Fee; Plan Checking Fee;
Resurfacing Surcharge; Inspection Fees; Oversize Vehicle Permits; San
Ramon Road Banner Poles; Possibility of Fee Reduction or Waiver; and
Bond Schedule.
Cm. Burton questioned with regard to residential driveway
construction, what about a subdivision with a lot of driveways.
Mr. Thompson stated this would be covered under the subdivision
agreement rather than the encroachment fee schedule.
Cm. Moffatt stated he was concerned about sidewalk repairs. Under
this fee schedule, the owner of a house who needs repairs would have
to get a permit. He asked if it would be possible to consider any
City-mandated repair to have no fee attached.
Mr. Thompson advised that when we start this up next year, Staff will
come to the Council with a policy and the Council can decide at that
time. For people who go along with the program, the Council could
consider a minimal fee or no fee.
Cm. Moffatt felt we should not encumber an added fee just because the
sidewalk is starting to crack or split.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
eM - VOL 12 - 215
Regular Meeting
May 10, 1993
.
.
Mr. Ambrose stated Staff could look at what some of the other
communities are doing in this regard.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
The Council agreed to look at some type of policy to review City-
mandated sidewalk repairs for adjustment on the fee schedule.
On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Houston, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 54 - 93
APPROVING REVISIONS TO THE FEE AND BOND SeHEDULES FOR
ENeROAeHMENT PERMITS AND OVERSIZE VEHleLE PERMITS
* * * *
OTHER BUSINESS
Eastern Dublin Impacts on Pleasanton (420-30)
Mr. Ambrose referenced a letter just received from the City of
Pleasanton related to traffic impacts of the Eastern Dublin GPA & SP.
The City Manager indicated they would be interested in meeting within
the next 30 days. Mr. Ambrose asked if the Council was interested in
designating someone to attend discussions.
Cm. Burton felt there was no way to solve all the traffic problems.
Dublin's plan is not the only contributor.
Cm. Moffatt suggested that the Tri-Valley Transportation Council work
on this particular problem. Actually, they are working on this
already and trying to come up with some solutions.
Mayor Snyder suggested that Mr. Ambrose talk to Ms. Acosta to obtain
more information.
* * * *
Correspondence Addressed to Council (610-80)
Cm. Howard referenced a letter received from a San Francisco resident
related to recognizing Mitzi Christopher and her physical therapy
business. She questioned if the City Council as a whole would answer
the letter, or if each individual should respond.
* * * *
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
eM - VOL 12 - 216
Regular Meeting
May 10, 1993
.
.
Buildinq Permit Fee Schedule Increase (440-20)
Cm. Houston questioned what had been worked out for Mr. Wallen related
to his building permit fee in light of the new fee schedule recently
adopted.
Mr. Ambrose stated Staff had discussed this with the City Attorney and
the only thing he can do is ask for a fee waiver or come in and ask
for the effective date to be changed. The question is when does the
fee become effective.
Cm. Houston stated he did not like this interpretation; this is
unfair.
Ms. Silver suggested that Staff be directed to bring back a revised
resolution stating the fees are effective on the date the application
is made rather than when the permit is issued.
Mayor Snyder stated he was not aware of and questioned the situation
being discussed.
Ms. Silver advised that it was not appropriate for the Council to
discuss this issue at this time.
Cm. Houston asked Staff to get a copy of the correspondence to the
other Councilmembers and they could then discuss it at the next
meeting.
* * * *
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
* * * *
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
* * * *
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
eM - VOL 12 - 217
Regular Meeting
May 10, 1993