HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-03-2002 Adopted CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING - September 3, 2002
CLOSED SESSION
A closed session was held at 6:37 p.m., regarding:
THREAT TO PUBLIC SERVICES OR FACILITIES- Government Code Section 54957 Consultation
with Alameda County Sheriff's Department, Sheriff, Under Sheriff, Captains or other designated
representatives of the Sheriff
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION- Government Code Section
54956.9(a) Name of Case: Goodland Landscape v. City of Dublin, Alameda Superior Court No.
2002042262
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION- Government Code Section
54956.9(a) Name of Case: Dubray v, City of Dublin, Alameda Superior Court No. 2002057128
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXiSTING LITIGATION- Government Code Section
54956.9 subdivision(a) Name of Case: City of Dublin v. Dublin Land Co., Alameda Superior
Court No. V-018100.2
A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, September 3, 2002,
in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at
7:16 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers McCormick, Oravetz, Sbranti, Zika and Mayor Lockhart.
None.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Lockhart led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the
flag.
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTION
Mayor Lockhart advised that there was no reportable action for item 1.
CiTY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
Sepfember 3, 2002
PAGE 392
INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES
7:17 p.m. 3.2 (700-10)
Public Works Director Lee Thompson introduced new Public Works contract employees:
Bob Cantrell, Maintenance Superintendent and John Smither, Building Maintenance
Foreman.
Bob Cantrell stated it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to work for two fine
organizations, the City of Dublin and MCE Corporation.
John Smither stated he is very excited to be here and wants to keep things going and
keep these buildings operational. He looks forward to helping everyone often and as
efficiently as he can.
7:20 p.m.
Jim Bone, Clayton, California, plugged the Cowboy Gathering and recited a humorous
poem about old time Dublin. The Cowboy Gathering event will be held at the Rowell
Ranch, September 13-15, 2002. Tickets were presented to the City Council.
7:25 p.m.
Charlie Peters, New Jersey, provided a packet of information concerning a bill that is
sitting on the Governor's desk requiring smog check II, which particularly impacts the
Bay Area. He believed something a little better can happen. He proposed that the
current system is a complaint based system. The system demands fraud and cheating,
falsely passing cars instead of what should be done. They propose changing the process
to a performance based system. People deserve a better plan than what they've gotten.
Cm. Sbranti asked what organization he represents.
Mr. Peters responded, Clean Air Performance Professionals (CAD'). They publish
materials worldwide.
Cm. Zika asked if this is the law that requires people to go to Smog Check II, and also if
this is the law that stops farmers in the Central Valley from burning?
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
Sepfember 3, 2002
PAGE 393
Mr. Peters stated yes. He advised that Stockton and Vacaville have never been out of
compliance in $ years.
CONSENT CALENDAR
7:30 p.m. items 4.1 through 4.14
On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Sbranti, and by unanimous vote, the Council
took the following actions:
Approved (4.1) Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 6, 2002;
Adopted (4.2 700~20)
RESOLUTION NO. 151 -02
and
AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN
(GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM COORDINATOR)
RESOLUTION NO. 152- 02
AMENDING THE SALARY PLAN
(GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM COORDINATOR)
Authorized (4.3 600~30) the Mayor to execute the second Amendment to the
Agreement with Artist Roger Berry for the temporary display of sculpture "Sisyphus" at
the Civic Center;
Authorized (4.4 200~30/600~30) Staff to advertise for bids for the Dublin Council
Chambers Broadcast Lighting and Electrical Modifications;
Adopted (4.5 600~60)
RESOLUTION NO. 153- 02
APPROVING FINAL MAP AND PRIVATE STREET NAMES FOR
TRACT 7325 DUBLIN RANCH AREA G, NEIGHBORHOOD MH-2
(TOLL-DUBLIN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY)
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 394
and
RESOLUTION NO. 154- 02
ACCEPTANCE OF IN-LIEU PARKLAND AND DEDICATION FEES
FOR FINAL TRACT MAP 7325
Adopted (4.6 600-60)
RESOLUTION NO. 155- 02
APPROVING FINAL MAP AND PRIVATE STREET NAMES FOR
TRACT 7324 DUBLIN RANCH AREA G, NEIGHBORHOOD MH-1
(TOLL-DUBLIN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY)
and
RESOLUTION NO. 156- 02
ACCEPTANCE OF PARKLAND DEDICATION
FOR FINAL TRACT MAP 7324
Adopted (4.7 600~60)
RESOLUTION NO. 157- 02
APPROVING FINAL MAP AND PRIVATE STREET NAMES FOR
TRACT 7326 DUBLIN RANCH AREA G, NEIGHBORHOOD H-1
(TOLL-DUBLIN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY)
and
RESOLUTION NO. 158- 02
ACCEPTANCE OF PARKLAND DEDICATION
FOR FINAL TRACT MAP 7326
Received (4.8 330-50) Preliminary Financial Reports for the Month of July 2002;
Clty CO6 ]i]'M NUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 395
Adopted (4.9 $50~40)
RESOLUTION NO. 159- 02
DECLARING CERTAIN ITEMS AS
UNCLAIMED AND SURPLUS PROPERTY
and authorized Staff to proceed with transfer of property to Nationwide Auction Systems
pursuant to the current agreement with the City;
Adopted (4.10 600~30)
RESOLUTION NO. 160- 02
APPROVING AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
WiTH FEHR & PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR FY 2002-03
and approved a Budget Change;
Adopted (4.11 600~ 35)
RESOLUTION NO. 161 -02
CONSENTING TO WITHDRAWAL OF BID BY
WESTERN ROOFING SERVICES FOR CONTRACT 02-13
DUBLIN SWIM CENTER ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT
and
RESOLUTION NO. 162- 02
REJECTING THE BID FROM J. D. GENERAL FOR CONTRACT 02-13
DUBLIN SWIM CENTER ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT
AND DIRECTING STAFF TO REBID THE PROJECT
Adopted (4.12 580~40)
RESOLUTION NO. 163- 02
EXTENDING THE ABANDONED VEHICLE ABATEMENT PROGRAM
UNTIL MAY 2013
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
Sepfember 3, 2002
PAGE 396
Accepted (4.13 600-35) improvements under Contract 02-03, 2001-02 Annual Street
Overlay Project, and to release retention in the amount of $41,288.48 after 35 days if
there are no subcontractor claims;
Approved (4.14 300- 4 O) the Warrant Register in the amount of $ 7,371,128.24.
RECOGNITION OF PARTICIPATION IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LIFEGUARD GAMES
This item was moved to follow Consent Calendar.
7:31 p.m. 3.1 (610-50)
Parks & Community Services Manager Paul McCreary advised that in july, several
employees from the Dublin Swim Center participated in the 2002 Northern California
Lifeguard Games. Thirty-four teams from throughout Northern California attended the
competition. The City of Dublin sent two teams that placed 11th and 22na in the overall
competition. The employees who participated on the teams included: Vincent Garcia,
Alejandra Hernandez, Blake Kuiper, Kaitlin Laird, Jessica Leafy, Olek Pawlowski, Kerry
Pereira, Daniel Scheppler, Justin Schmidt, Keri Smith, John Wafting and Christopher
Young. It was noted that Dublin Lifeguards Vincent Garcia and Kerry Pereira finished in
first place for the CPR event.
Mr. McCreary stated Jim Vance, owner of East Bay Pool Service, should also be
recognized for providing a $300 sponsorship to pay the entry fees for each team.
Mayor Lockhart presented each with Certificates of Appreciation.
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 5.08, 7.:32, 7.36, 7.40
AND 7.44 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE (DMC) WHICH ADOPTS BY REFERENCE
AND AMENDS THE 2000 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE (UFC),
THE 1997 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (UBC)~
THE 1999 EDITION OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE (NEC),
THE 2000 EDITIONS OF THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE (UPC) AND
THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE (UMC), AND AMEND CHAPTER 7.28
OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE (BUILDING REGULATION ADMINISTRATION),.
7:36 p.m. 6.1 (440-10)
Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing.
Building Official Gregory Shreeve presented the Staff Report and advised that Uniform Codes
are adopted and published by the California State Building Standards and by the California
, !
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 397
Department of Housing and Community Development on a 3~year cycle. The provisions
of the Ordinance must take effect on November 1, 2002 pursuant to State Law.
These new Codes will benefit the City by: 1) ensuring consistency with neighboring
jurisdictions and the Bay Area; 2) providing internally consistent, coherent and easier to
use Codes for City Staff; $) making it easier for the public to review and to understand
the Uniform Code requirements; and 4) ensuring the City's compliance with the State's
building standards laws.
Mr. Shreeve summarized the proposed modifications to the DMC. There are 2 proposed
changes to the Building Regulation Administration Chapter 7.28. There are 5
modifications to the Building, Electrical, Plumbing and Mechanical Chapters 7.32, 7.36,
7.40 and 7.44 respectively. There are 12 proposed structural additions to the Building
Code Chapter 7.32. There are 7 proposed modifications to the Fire Code Chapter 5.08.
There is one proposed addition to the Fire Code.
Cm. Oravetz clarified that there is no financial impact to City.
Cm. Zika commented on seismic impacts to the whole Bay Area.
Elpi Abulencia, Linden Street, noted the proliferation of paperwork. With all these
amendments, he asked how these will impact older houses. For his new house, will he
have to take all steps to comply with these amendments?
Mr. $chreeve stated the new codes would be applicable for development on or after
November 1 st. Existing homes would be what is called legal non~conformance.
Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. $branti, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 164- 02
INCLUDING FINDINGS REGARDING THE NEED FOR AMENDMENTS
TO PROVISIONS IN THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
TO BE ADOPTED BY REFERENCE IN THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE
and waived the reading and INTRODUCED the Ordinance.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGUI.~R MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 398
PUBLIC HEARING - ARMSTRONG GARDEN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT,
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND SIGN~SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PA 02~009
7:49 p.m. 6.2 (410~55/410-$0)
Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing.
Senior Planner Janet Harbin presented the Staff Report.
This amendment to the San Ramon Road Specific Plan (SRRSP) would allow retail garden
centers in conjunction with a Planned Development (PD) Rezoning, Conditional Use
Permit (CUP), Site Development Review (SDR) and Sign/Site Development Review for an
approximate 6,400 square foot retail garden center with approximately 24,410 square
foot outdoor storage and landscaped area on 1.162 acres located at 7360 San Ramon
Road (northwesterly corner of San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Boulevard).
At the Planning Commission meeting on August 13, 2002, adjacent business owner,
Michael Perkins of the Sleep Shop, Ltd., expressed concerns that his business would no
longer be visible from the intersection of San Ramon Road and Amador Valley Boulevard
due to the location of the proposed garden center's trellises in the front and side yard
outdoor storage area. Additionally, the relocation of the existing accessway on the
Armstrong site further west on Amador Valley Boulevard would make it difficult for
customers to access his business.
The Planning Commission voted to recommend the project to the City Council with two
modifications in the trellises (shortening the north and south ends of the front trellis
structure facing San Ramon Road) proposed by the Applicant at the hearing, to improve
visibility of the Sleep Shop from the intersection, and with the addition of signage to
direct customers through the proposed parking area to the Sleep Shop building.
The trellis fencing provides security for the site.
Cm. Oravetz asked if there has ever been any security related problems on that corner.
Ms. Harbin stated it was previously a hardware store with the back area fenced off and
you couldn't see it from the street.
Chief Thuman stated in the past 6 years, we have had no criminal activity associated
with that piece of property.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
Sepfember 3, 2002
PAGE 399
Cm. Zika commented the drug store has stuff outside all the time. Have they had any
problems?
Chief Thuman stated it is not a significant problem at all.
Cm. Sbranti stated with regard to traffic northbound on San Ramon Road, what is the
possibility of putting a sign that says Sleep Shop? Is there space for a monument sign?
Ms. Harbin stated it would be difficult to put in a monument sign with the comer
treatment proposed. A sign could be put in at the rear entrance naming the different
businesses.
Cm. Sbranti felt if there is any way possible, it would be more effective to have it on the
corner.
Cm. McCormick asked if the 8' fence is on top of a 2' berm or is it flat?
Ms. Harbin stated there is a 2' grade differential so it would be 10' altogether. In this
situation, the plants would not be taken in for the evening.
Mayor Lockhart asked if the objective is to keep people from lifting things over the fence
or was 10' really the goal?
Ms. Harbin stated 8' was the goal.
Monte Enright, Chino, CA stated they have been working on this project for a little over
a year. They have met with neighbors and neighboring businesses and have taken in the
concerns of the Sleep Shop. They moved the building back a little and taken off a couple
of the lathe coverings. He stated it was his understanding that a monument sign was not
to be on the corner where they have landscaped it like a park setting. They are not
opposed to improving the back wall and building a trash enclosure for the retailer.
Regarding the height of the fence, they have locations that have lower fence heights.
When fences are too low, this creates problems. They are actually bringing the height to
8' at their other locations. Their calling card is the beauty of what they are selling inside
the fence. They want to allow customers that drive by to see in the garden center.
Cm. McCormick asked about the green color of the roof. Is this a negotiable thing?
Mr. Enright explained they had a series of focus groups and asked them to design the
building. They felt strongly about the comfort level and atmosphere that was created.
This is one of their breaking points.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 400
Cm. Sbranti clarified that they see a noticeable increase in crime with 6' fences.
Mr. Enright stated yes, and it was usually landscapers who were lifting the plants and
selling the product to their customers at a great profit.
Cm. Zika stated he felt 10' along the frontage will look more like a solid wall. He would
have no problem with a bigger fence in the back. '
Mr. Enright stated they really want the visual to go through with the wrought iron fence
painted hunter green. He discussed a possibility of 6' in the front gradually increasing
to 8' toward the back.
Cm. Sbranti stated he likes this whole project. He asked how difficult it would be to have
some type of a sign off to the side near the fountain.
Mr. Enright stated what they propose is to have a garden setting with the ability to see
into the garden center.
Ted Stelzner, Ontario, California stated he has been Armstrong's architect for 20 years.
He stated they were told by City Staff that they would not be allowed to do a triple
monument sign on the corner even if they wanted to. He discussed the Kindercare
signage and the Sleep Shop monument sign. The fence is designed to be a see through
and he explained the planting concept. He discussed the fact that Mr. Perkins' building
actually sits a little on their property. They agreed to remove some of the posts to
increase visibility. He passed out drawings of several sign alternatives. The traffic
survey they had done showed no problems.
Michael Perkins with Sleep Shop stated he felt Armstrong Garden Center will be a
welcome addition to Dublin. He traveled to southern California a few weeks ago to take
a look at some of their locations. His one concern is, please don't make him invisible.
He has had some cooperation with cutting back the trellis, and the only problem left is
the fencing. The problem with the fencing is while they're suggesting they must have 8'
high fencing on their property, the 3 sites he visited had no fencing above 6'. He was
told the Pasadena City Council wouldn't let them go above 6'. They will have 600
running feet of fencing on 2 1/z feet of grade level and then 8' above that. If you are
looking at trying to see his building, he will become invisible. It was suggested that
perhaps in the front of the project, they could keep this at 6'. He would have no problem
with 10' or even 20' in the back. They are already losing the traditional driveway they
have used for 17 years. He has been in business since 1978 and they have a lot of repeat
customers. Every customer counts. He requested that the City consider lowering the
fence in the front. As far as signage, they would like to have some way of directing their
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 401
customers to turn in. They would like to have the 24'.' sign and have their name, Sleep
Shop Limited. To have one just at the driveway doesn't address how they will get to
them when they are heading north on San Ramon Road and the driveway they are used
to taking isn't there anymore.
Cm. Oravetz stated one of the Flanning Commission members voted against the project
because of the roof and he asked Mr. Ferkins how he felt about this?
Mr. Perkins stated it is really a wonderful look. He is looking forward to having a
neighbor on the corner that has been empty for several years. He did not find a problem
with how they have designed their building. They should not have an issue with theft.
Mr. Stelzner stated from the front of the site, they would drop the fence to O' all along
the frontage. They will do whatever we want with regard to directional signage.
Elpi Abulencia, Linden Street, Dublin stated his concern was safety and security. There
was a bomb scare at Home Depot and everyone was told to vacate the building. He
wanted to know if consideration was given to safety, and asked if there is an escape
route.
Mayor Lockhart stated there is an exit on the other side of the building.
Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing.
Cm. Oravetz stated he liked the idea of lowering the fence.
Cm. McCormick stated she was concerned about the 3 person sign. She felt signage is
needed for Sleep Shop Limited, but not sure McNamara's is needed.
Mayor Lockhart stated she felt they all have the same issues as Mr. Perkins.
Cm. Sbranti agreed that having directional signage for every single business in tom
would be too much, but we are changing the driveway for this business.
Mayor Lockhart stated she felt this is a wonderful benefit for everybody in this area.
Armstrong does a lot of advertising and they will be able to use this to their advantage.
Lowering the fence will benefit Sleep Shop and putting in a driveway sign will also help.
Cm. Oravetz stated if Mr. Perkins hears customers saying they have problems locating
the driveway, he should come back and talk to the City Council.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 402
Mr. Ambrose clarified that the sign should be back by the new driveway and the text
should say Sleep Shop Ltd., and McNamara's Steak & Chop House with arrows (as
depicted on the top of page 2 of the handout which was presented).
Cm. Oravetz confirmed that there would be a 6' fence out in front and which would
wrap around the side where the existing actual building starts and also have a sign in
the new driveway pointing out where Sleep Shop and McNamara's are.
On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 165- 02
ADOPTING ARMSTRONG GARDEN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
TO AREA 3 (SAN RAMON PROPERTIES) OF THE
SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN PA 02-009
waived the reading and iNTRODUCED the Ordinance;
and adopted (with changes discussed)
RESOLUTION NO. 166- 02
APPROVING ARMSTRONG GARDEN CENTER FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND
SIGN/SiTE DEVELOOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST
TO CONSTRUCT A 30,810 + SQUARE FOOT RETAIL GARDEN CENTER
CONSISTING OF A 6,400 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND ADJACENT
OUTDOOR STORAGE/DISPLAY AREA, WITH AN
EXEMPTION/REDUCTION TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS
LOCATED AT 7360 SAN RAMON ROAD PA 02-009
RECESS
8:48 p.m.
Mayor Lockhart called for a short recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:56 p.m. with all
Councilmembers present.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 403
PUBLIC HEARiNG
CONSiDERATiON OF URGENCY ORDINANCE
ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM IN SCARLETr COURT AREA
15:56 p.m. 6.3 (410~20)
Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing.
Senior Planner Andy Byde presented the Staff Report. This item was continued from the
August 6, 2002 City Council meeting. At this meeting, the City Council heard the
proposed moratorium, as well as concerns from business and property owners regarding
the impacts of the moratorium. The Council then voted to continue the item and
directed Staff to evaluate additional alternatives to the proposed moratorium.
Mr. Byde discussed the proposed moratorium and the moratorium process.
Alternatives for consideration included:
Alternative 1: Modify Zoning Ordinance to Require CUPs for uses during the term of the
sP Study.
Alternative 2: Prohibiting Certain Use Types during the term of the SP or a maximum of
2 years.
Alternative 3: Limiting Modifications of Properties over 2.5 Acres.
Mr. Byde presented an analysis of the 5 options currently before the City Council,
including the proposed moratorium, Alternative 1, Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and the
No Action option.
Staff recommended that the Council determine if ministerial and discretionary actions
could negatively impact the outcome of the desired SP; and a) if the scope and exceptions
proposed in draft Ordinance are determined to be appropriate, waive the reading and on
an urgency basis, ADOPt Ordinance which will impose a moratorium on any
ministerial and discretionary actions (subject to the exceptions listed in the Agenda
Statement); - OR- b) if the scope and exceptions proposed by Staff are not appropriate,
then provide direction to Staff on the 4 remaining options listed in the Agenda
Statement.
Mr. Byde stated option 2 could allow the E1 Monte replacement building.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 404
Cm. Sbranti noted that under alternative 1 this would not prohibit the City from taking.
He asked for elaboration on this.
Mr. Byde
there is a
Cm. Zika
the study
Mr. yde
changed.
Cm. Zika
explained that the City Council would have to make the necessary findings and
potential for exposure to litigation.
asked fi, under alternate 3, any proposal on a site more than 2.5 acres before
is done, they would have to come before the City Council anyway?
stated it would prohibit the City from acting on it unless the ordinance is
stated basically all bets are off for a year and a half.
Mr. Ambrose clarified it could be processed, but the City Council couldn't act on it.
Cm. Zika asked if back on alternate 2, they could only approve those items not lined out
or as modified by Council?
Mayor Lockhart asked how alternatives 1, 2 and 3 might affect Mr. Corrie with dividing
his 3 parcels.
Mr. Byde replied that alternates 1 and 2 would have no affect, but it would be prohibited
under alternative 3.
Mayor Lockhart asked with regard to the maintenance building for E1 Monte RV - they
would not be affected by any of these alternatives.
Mr. Byde stated this was correct, but it must still go through the SDR process. They are
currently in the plan checking process.
Mayor Lockhart commented on the metal building on the lumber yard site and
expressed concern about this. If they had an allowed use, how would we deal with this
building?
Mr. Byde stated it goes back to what extent can we make appropriate findings under a
CUP as described in our Ordinance. The newer uses all have new buildings - all
proposed new buildings, they weren't required to have them. Could we require them to
make substantial changes?
CiTY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME Z 1
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 405
Ms. Silver stated in order to grant a CUP, certain findings have to be made, and it has to
be on a case-by-case basis. There could be facts made requiring modifications to the
building. Structures must be compatible with other structures in the vicinity. Since the
last uses have included new buildings, the Planning Commission could potentially find
that the proposal was not going to be compatible with other land uses in the area and
they could deny a CUP. If you can deny a CUP, this includes the power to make
conditions.
Carl Aaron, Ironwood Drive, stated he noticed this item at the last meeting and stated he
has no financial or family connection to it, except to shop there. He has been in the
same house since 1962 and shopped at Dolan Lumber, the Smog Station, and was happy
to hear that the shops and uses in that area are a good thing to have. He stated he agrees
with this. Mr. Dolan died not too long ago. He talked about a commendation Mike
Dolan received years ago where he loaned some large timbers as a result of an accident
on the freeway. He advised that he has not come to an opinion about the moratorium.
Stuart Ross, Lafayette, CA, landlords of 6500 Scarlett Court, Miracle Auto Shop stated he
wrote a letter to Mr. Byde and thought in 1998 their property was to be taken for a right
turn from Dougherty Road. Given that a condemnation action is likely to occur in the
next few years, he did not see a benefit to include their parcel in the SP study and
requested exemption.
Michael Reiss, San Ramon, CA stated he was here regarding the former Dolan Lumber
Company, at 6365 Scarlett Court. He reminded the City Council of comments made by
the party also interested in the property to turn the property into a Marine Center. He
stated he has a vision for the property. He has been in contact with a total of 3 auto
franchises who are very interested in this property. His initial plan is to install an atrium
style showroom, which will block out the rear of the property. Additionally, plans
would be to re~blacktop the area, install new perimeter fencing, new lighting and
eventually this will catalyst the area. He has all intention to build new state of the art
facility that will face out toward the freeway. He intends to tap onto the synergies of
surrounding businesses. This will create jobs for people in the Dublin area and produce
$18 million in taxable revenue. He has a vision of erecting 4 facilities on the total 6.5
acres and erecting a new Dublin auto mall. He hopes the City Council will allow sales
and service of automobiles on this property.
Glenn Kierstead, commented on the State Law which requires findings be made related
to health, safety and welfare. He asked how this affects public health, safety and
welfare?
Mr. Byde referenced the second page of the ordinance,
, ~"'i ";',', ............
CiTY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME Z 1
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 406
"WHEI~'AS, untimely changes o£ uses within the Area during the time that the City completes
the Specific l~an could ultimately £rustrate the City's Ions term e£torts to ensure the mum is
properly developed as properties become suitable for reuse, either by allowing the initiation of
uses incompaable with those recommended by the Specific Plan study or by directly preventing
the use of properties as recommended in the study; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoir~g, the City Council h'~ds that allowing development to continue
to occur in a disotxanized fashion poses a current and immediate threat to the public health,
safety and welfare because it will likely cause land use incompatibilities; and
WHEREAS, the CiO, Council h'nds that the approval of additional sutagivisions, use permits,
variances, building permits, or any other applicable discretionary permit, except for building
permits and discretionarypermits submitted prior to September $, gOOS, which would allow the
modtfication of the properO'es within the Scarlett Court area, therefore would result in that
threat to pubh'c health, safeOz and welfare."
He stated there is a concern and the findings are articulated that uses that go forward
without a SP, those uses could jeopardize the health, safety and welfare.
Mayor Lockhart stated the SP has always been designated for the entire area south of
Dublin Boulevard, which we feel needs a SP.
Mr. Byde stated land use incompatibilities are what the specific actions are intended to
prevent.
Mr. Kierstead disagreed and stated he did not feel this addresses health, safety and
welfare. He has a mini~storage facility behind one of the dealerships and behind 84
Lumber and he is land locked. He has no visibility. His parcels are above 2.5 acres and
they plan to do some expansions and he asked if this will prohibit the expansion. The
expansion they are planning requires no variance.
Mr. Ambrose stated the Staff Report shows one of the prohibited uses would be a vehicle
storage yard.
Mr. Byde stated option $ would limit with regard to lot size.
Mayor Lockhart stated options 2 and 3 would limit his ability during the SP study.
Mr. Kierstead requested that the City Council put themselves in his position. He asked
them to consider the three issues of safety health and welfare and stated he did not feel
they can make these findings as a Council. The City can control the development out
there and you don't need a mandate to tell them how to develop.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 407
Doreen Green, Amarillo Road stated she was representing 2 landowners in the area,
Busick and Gearing. They have multi~tenants. She has been a homeowner since 1965
and involved in local business since 1970. She has a rapport with the City and its
growth. The first thing that confused her was that they were considered a blight area.
As far as restrictions on use of buildings, we are saying some uses will not be permitted
anymore; various uses that all give something to the community. They provide a great
many jobs and put money back into the coffers of the City. There are a tremendous
amount of autos being sold out there. There are other uses that need to be addressed.
Their tenants offer a very unique service. In today's business climate, private
development will take care of the area in due course as the need arises. She agreed that
on their property they do not have the highest and best use. They would like to improve
the property further to go along with the improvement of the City. At the end of the last
meeting, there was some discussion about property owner representatives meeting with
City Staff to thrash out some of the issues. She stated she hoped the City would give
them an opportunity to have this meeting before forcing this down their throats. This
could cost owners money.
Peter MacDonald, Pleasanton, stated they oppose the moratorium in virtually all its
forms, particularly alternatives 2 and $. The ordinance, as proposed, is like taking a
baseball bat after a fly. If you go with a moratorium approach, you stop redevelopment
that you want to happen. It will get in the way with redevelopment that the Council
wants. He stated Mr. Reiss does not have a lease on the property. They are also
negotiating with the boat company. The market isn't creating blight, but is dying to put
that property back in use. They favor a SP, provided they don't end up with a
moratorium that keeps them from 2 years of rent on this property. Just let it happen.
This is a freeway commercial location. He stated he thought the direction was to allow
the City Staff to go back and work with the property owners and it was ultimately
decided that the City felt there was no need to meet. He distributed a document to the
Council making suggestions related to a possible approach to an Interim Ordinance.
(NOTE: No copy was $iven to the City Clerk for inclusion in the record.) He stated this
was what they wanted to go over with Staff. They would like to have a chance to come
up with options.
Cm. Oravetz commented this sounds a lot like option 1.
Mr. MacDonald stated what they propose is far simpler than option 1. Everything in the
area would require a use permit. Then they could see if the use is compatible. This
would be far simpler for the Zoning Administrator and for Staff.
Mr. Ambrose stated Staff has not seen this proposal.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 408
Ms. Silver stated she just read it and felt paragraph 2 is too vague. The state law that
authorizes a moratorium allows the City Council to adopt an interim ordinance to
prohibit any uses that may be in conflict with a SP. In her opinion, a moratorium
ordinance has to focus on uses. Alternative 2 does not prohibit all uses, it allows a
number of uses. The purpose of this statute is to allow the City Council, when
considering changes to a GP or SP or zoning, to say let's put everything on hold while we
decide what we want to come out of the process. The Council did this several years ago
on Village Parkway.
Cm. Sbranti asked fundamentally how this is different from option 1.
Ms. Silver stated option 1 lays out a clearer process. Mr. MacDonald's appears to not
follow a standard process, but provides too much discretion to the Zoning Administrator
without guidance.
Cm. Zika asked if his proposal would be subject to the same disadvantages as option 1.
Ms. Silver stated what he is proposing is very indefinite and not as structured as
alternative 1.
Mark Harvey, Dublin Honda, stated he came tonight to make sure he does not qualify
for any of the alternatives. He stated he thought No. 2 sounds good as long as we don't
include used cars.
Don Price, E1 Monte RV, stated he thought they had gotten in under the wire, but now
wasn't sure. He submitted his plans the day before the deadline for plan check.
Mr. Byde stated the SDR section requires that for any new building in excess of 1,000
square feet, the City must make findings and discretionary items had to be submitted
prior to that date. His item was submitted as a building permit. This was what he
referenced.
Mr. Price stated he wants to fit in wherever he can get his building. He is running about
800 motor homes through this building. When it rains, it is really tough with a fleet this
size. They want their service building.
Elpi Abulencia stated he wanted to make the Council stronger in its direction and
decision. Based on his business experience, he asked why don't we simplify the playing
field. Why not go with No. 1 ? The Mayor said previously, "daily we face the problem of
growth and strive to understand people and to know who we are and where we are
going". Along with the sustainability resource effort, he suggested we find out what the
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
Sepfember 3, 2002
PAGE 409
people want really, what the owners want and tenants want and in interest of saving
time, have a strong foot of what we are going to do, not just a moratorium and
something that will precipitate conflict and disharmony among the people.
Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing.
Cm. Zika stated he felt it is unfortunate that Staff and the property owners could not
meet. Peter's idea could expose the city to claims of taking property. This whole area is
not blighted, but we are saying it is an entrance to the City and with modifications to
Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road so we can do this without piecemealing it. He
would be willing to entertain alternates 2 or 3, which seem to offer the greatest
flexibility to property owners. This would allow us to develop some comprehensive plan
on what we ultimately want to do with the area.
Mayor Lockhart stated she felt this would give owners a year to deal with some sort of a
plan. The Council has the responsibility to look at this for the benefit of the entire
community. We are not asking people to make changes tomorrow, but look at changes
that could be accommodated with a SP. We are trying to do the least amount of damage
to everyone and we can best do this as part of an overall SI'. She felt alternative 2 gets
closest to doing this with listing businesses to include and those to exclude. This gives
the business community direction on where the plan is going.
Mr. Byde stated it is reasonable to expect this could be done in 13 or 14 months.
Mr. Ambrose stated we have involved property owners and business owners heavily in
the past. The issue is what do we do in the interim.
Cm. McCormick stated she was leaning toward option 2 as this gives the most flexibility
to the property owners. We're not trying to put anybody out of business. She would like
to see something as flexible as possible while we are planning for the future.
Cm. Sbranti stated he doesn't like option 3, and feels option 2 is better than a strict
moratorium. This has been done in the past. He agreed with Cm. Zika that it is
unfortunate that a meeting has not taken place between property owners, businesses and
Staff. We should look to make sure they all have frontages through the SP process and
look at circulation. With option 1, he still felt this gives flexibility.
Cm. Oravetz stated he was sticlcing with option 1. He did not feel it is a threat to health
safety and welfare. We do want to change that area. Option 1 gives the business
owners the control they need to continue to operate their businesses. He was against a
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 410
moratorium at this time, but was all for doing something different out there. He
supports alternative 1.
Cm. McCormick asked if we adopt option 2, how this will affect the Corrie property and
Miracle Auto Painting?
Mr. Ambrose stated all properties are covered, but relate only to shaded uses. Permitted
uses are identified in the Staff Report. It doesn't preclude everything.
Cm. Sbranti felt the sooner we get the SP done, businesses will benefit and he felt option
2 will still allow some uses. The Village Parkway precedent worked well.
Cm. Oravetz felt we will make a very unlevel playing field for them to compete in
Dublin. We will be tying their hands with option 2.
Mayor Lockhart disagreed.
Cm. Oravetz asked ff Staff should also go back and look at Mr. MacDonald's options.
Mr. Ambrose stated the City Council could add or delete uses at this time.
Cm. Sbranti asked about a contractor's office - is this just small office space?
Mr. Byde responded it is generally equipment storage associated with contracting.
Cm. Sbranti asked about recreational facility indoor.
Mr. Byde stated this would be a gymnasium or arcade. There's a whole list of about 20
that fall into this category.
Cm. McCormick asked about an automobile vehicle storage lot and if this would be
prohibited.
Mr. Byde stated it would not be prohibited under his current use, but it couldn't go
forward during the term of the moratorium.
Cm. McCormick stated she would consider moving this one off the list.
The Council agreed to take this one off the list.
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 411
Mr. Byde suggested that in order for Staff to meet with property owners, that this item be
brought back to the October 1 st meeting.
On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Mayor Lockhart, and by majority vote, the
Council directed Staff to return to the Council in October with option 2 and add back
auto vehicle storage lot. Additionally, Staff was directed to meet with property owners
and have them indicate what other uses they want included during the 14 months. Cm.
Oravetz voted in opposition to the motion.
PUBLIC HEARING
AMENDMENTS TO THE SMOKING POLLUTION CONTROL ORDINANCE
10:27 p.m. 6.4 (560-90)
Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing.
Administrative Analyst Jason Behrmann presented the Staff Report and advised that the
purpose of this Ordinance is to bring the existing provisions of Chapter 5.56 of the
Dublin Municipal code regulating smoking into conformity with recent changes in State
Law and to add additional permissible restrictions on smoking in enclosed and
unenclosed public places and places of employment. The amendments would change
the Ordinance as follows:
1. Prohibit the retailing of tobacco products or tobacco paraphernalia by means of a
self~service display.
2. Prohibit smoking in dining areas that are part of a restaurant, business, non~profit
entity, place of employment, or located in any public place.
$. Prohibit smoking within a reasonable distance from any entrance, opening, or
vent into an area in which smoking is prohibited except while actively passing on
the way to another destination and without entering or crossing any area in which
smoking is prohibited.
4. Prohibit smoking in common areas of multi~family buildings including, but not
limited to, apartments, condominiums, retirement facilities, and nursing homes.
Cm. Oravetz asked if the city has ever issued warnings or citations related to outdoor
dining.
Mr. Behrmann stated yes, we've probably had half a dozen complaints in the last few
years. Dublin Police Services does send out units occasionally to make sure violations
are not occurring.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 412
Mayor Lockhart asked where we got the 25' figure.
Mr. Behrmann stated it came from Alameda County Health Department to give guidance
and this was their recommendation.
Mayor Lockhart stated the owner of a business may be cited or a person smoking. Who
makes this determination?
Mr. Behrmann stated it would be up to the police officer, based on the circumstances.
Mayor Lockhart read a speaker statement which was submitted. "CathiKarlicek,
Corinne Street, San Ramon, Office 756 7 Amador Valley l~lvd Dublin I have asthma ~
cannot walk into myplace of employment without holch'n$ my breath. My clothes smell
and as a result I have to keep them in the garage. Please pass this ordinance."
Carl Aaron, Ironwood Drive, stated during his 4 years in the Air Force and working
career, he spent a lot of time with smokers. It takes a lot of effort to get people to initially
roll up dead leaves and put fire to it and put it in their mouths. When some people start,
it is almost impossible to stop. His concern was a ban on smoking in outdoor dining and
25' seems excessive. Maybe have 1 &. This would be inconveniencing a lot of people
unnecessarily.
Edy Coleman, Silvergate Drive, Director of Community Services for the American Cancer
Society with an office here in Dublin, stated the Environmental Protection Agency, the
California Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Institute of Environmental
Sciences and Toxicology have reviewed the data and found that secondhand smoke
continues to produce carcinogens for which there is no safe place for breathing;
whether it is 2 or 10 or 25 feet, it is inconvenient. Because of this, we have 3,000 non
smoking adults that died last year and thousands of deaths from heart disease from
people that do not smoke. She requested that the Council consider these types of things
and urged support of this ordinance.
Dr. Marla Blagg, Alameda County Public Health Department, stated they are legislatively
appointed by State of California to do tobacco education and health services. Their
services provide education to residents and business owners. They will do this for any
person who makes a request of their program. The City of Oakland has defined
reasonable distance as 25' and they are recommending all cities have similar ordinances.
Regarding complaints, she stated her program staff has this available for the Council's
review. Their role and function is to provide information and advice and how they can
assist in adopting new ordinances. Oakland adopted the 25' at least 3 years ago. Most
CITY '~{~'~N~ i L::"I~i'iNUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
Sepfember 3, 2002
PAGE 413
agencies are putting reasonable distance in their ordinances, but are not defining it.
They are requesting that cities put in a footage.
Cm. Sbranti asked if any other jurisdictions have defined reasonable distance either
formally or informally.
Dr. Blagg stated this is a new issue and it is very difficult for them to provide services
when there is no definition. A bar situation would be different from a hospital or
healthcare agency. They will never put a patron in a risky safety situation.
Ken Cherry with Big O Tires, stated his main concern is 2 5', as this would put people out
in the street. He was also concerned about Village Parkway, which has the double
buildings. With regard to policing of the ordinance, he stated he would hate to feel we
have to have the Police Department take their time away from more important things to
catch a smoker.
Ted Hoffman, Jr., Owner of Earl Anthony's Dublin Bowl, spoke about 2 5' being too
much. The ordinance has been working in the state. In Livermore, Pleasanton and San
Ramon, there is no footage mentioned, it is just reasonable distance. They would have a
problem with bowlers going outside with their bowling shoes on. His employees also are
allowed to take cigarette breaks and this would put them in a hazardous situation. He
was concerned about liability issues in the parking lot. He felt it should be reasonable
distance and up to the business owner to handle. A lot of businesses will be hurt by this.
Hotels and motels draw business in from all over the world. How will the City handle
Hacienda Crossings? The ordinance is working the way it is as a state law.
Cm. McCormick asked what he considers reasonable distance.
Mr. Hoffman replied he has not looked at this in order to put a number on it. He has
heard other people say, if the smoke blows into your door. He would like to solve his
own complaints.
Lloyd Everett, Outback Steakhouse, stated this a tough situation. They are in a business
that has to cater to the public and it is very difficult and he would hate to be put into a
position of having to call the police on a customer. They have a double foyer and the
patio has solid doors and this is a choice for the smokers. He stated he will enforce
whatever the City passes, but this is certainly not a way to build businesses. This would
give his competition an unfair advantage. He has had maybe 2 or $ complaints in 3
years. He also had a letter from the Monarch and they feel this would put them at an
unfair advantage. They do a lot of foreign business. He would hate to see the PI) take
time to police this action.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 414
George Fagundes, Chamber of Commerce Chairman of the Board, stated he realizes the
impact this ordinance would have on the business community. Twenty~five feet for
some businesses mean having employees in the parking lot or in the street. This could
pose some liability issues. The power of habit prevails. Many restaurants ban outdoor
area smoking, but some allow it. Who will be responsible for establishing the 25'
around businesses? Because of the safety issues and the economic impacts and affect on
businesses, the Dublin Chamber of Commerce urged reconsideration of any changes to
the ordinance at this time.
Richard Guarienti, Rhoda Avenue, stated he felt the problem is with concentration of
smoke, not so much the distance. He stated he did not feel 25' is unreasonable.
Mayor Lockhart read a letter from the Monarch Hotel (Pacific Valley investors, Inc.):
"RE.: New City Orch'nance under consideration requiring that smoin'ng in public may only occur
at least 25 feet away from any builch'n$ entrance On behalf of the Best Western Monarch
Hotel, we feel compelled to inform you that we anticipate this ordinance impacting our already
distressed business levels significantly. As a hotel catering to leisure and business travelers from
all over the United States and beyond, we already face difficulties with a portion of our clientele
from other states and abroad by not allowing them to smoke in our public spaces (lobby,
restaurant and bar). To date, this fact could be mitigated by aSkl'ng guests to 'yust step outside"
and by providing ashtrays at ail entrances. It will be very difficult, if not impossible, to explain
to guests to step out into the middle of the parMn$ lot to smoke. We have all the required
signage in place to alert people of areas where smoin'ng is allowed (which is only the case in a
very rest~cted ama, i.e. the guest rooms of only one tloor in one buil~'n~) - and we strictly
enforce this policy. Please consider that it will be detrimental especially to our banquet and
restaurant business to have to police all smoldng within 35 feet outside of our building as well
Thank you in advance for your In'nd consideration. Yours sincerely, Wayne Levenfeld
President, ?VI Hotel Group and Heather Wolf General Manager~ Monarch Hotel"
Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing.
Cm. gbranti talked about the 4 main components of the ordinance.
1. Prohibit the retailing of tobacco products or tobacco paraphernalia by means of a
self-service display.
2. Prohibit smoking in dining areas that are part of a restaurant, business, non-profit
entity, place of employment, or located in any public place.
3. Prohibit smoking within a reasonable distance from any entrance, opening, or
vent into an area in which smoking is prohibited except while actively passing on
the way to another destination and without entering or crossing any area in which
smoking is prohibited.
4. Prohibit smoking in common areas of multi-family buildings including, but not
limited to, apartments, condominiums, retirement facilities, and nursing homes.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME g 1
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 415
He stated 1 and 4 he definitely supports. He felt outdoor dining is something all
residents should be able to enjoy - smokers and non-smokers. In }'leasanton and San
Ramon where they prohibit outdoor smoking, he has seen restaurants still flourish. We
may want to look at issues with distance. Dublin has enough to offer, we will still have
restaurants and businesses to come to Dublin if we prohibit smoking.
Cm. Zika stated he is a former smoker of 40 years. The idea of 25' from an entrance is
ridiculous. Business men and women are smart enough to know their customer base
and should be able to tell them to move here or there. The way it is currently drafted,
this is 25' from any entrance.
Cm. Oravetz concurred with Cm. Zika; he doesn't like the 25'. The business people
should be able to police their own business. He wants to make sure our businesses are
on the same playing field with Pleasanton and San Ramon. We need to strike the 25'.
Cm. McCormick commented she also loves the Outback, but avoids the outdoor area
because there is smoking allowed there. Smoking is down. She loves to dine outside and
she goes to Pleasanton. No one seems to oppose item 1. We may need to look at the 25'
and where it would be. She stated she resents having to walk through smoke to get into
businesses. Nomsmokers are the majority. The location is very important. She knows
businesses that require employees to go and smoke in their cars because they don't want
customers to have to be exposed to this.
Mayor Lockhart stated she felt if businesses were truly looking at this issue with their
customers in mind, we wouldn't be looking at this tonight. This is inconveniencing non-
smokers more. This is a health and safety issue in our community. She agreed that
giving alternatives is the best of both worlds; accommodating both groups. The main
entrance to any building should be smoke free. If someone wants to smoke outside a
building, this could be a secondary entrance. This could accommodate both groups. She
doesn't buy the argument that this will hurt businesses. She would like to discuss main
entrance be smoke free and allow secondary entrance say smoking is allowed in this
area. Regarding the issue of distance, she stated she is more concerned with separating
people than the exact distance. Maybe we need a minimum distance, and ask people to
be reasonable about it. We need to get something on the books to protect non-smokers.
Cm. Sbranti proposed when we talk about distance say "the main entrance" and 25' may
be a bit excessive. We could limit the footage or say a reasonable distance and not
define it.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME g 1
REGULAR MEETING
Sepfember 3, 2002
PAGE 416
Mayor Lockhart stated businesses would just have to post the location. The intent is to
keep the smoke away from the main entrance to businesses. If you have only one
entrance, you set the distance, but if they have a secondary entrance, they could set
reasonable distance. Say 25' from the front or a reasonable distance from secondary
entrance.
Cm. Oravetz suggested we do what Fleasanton and San Ramon do.
Cm. Sbranti stated he felt the problem with reasonable distance is this is too vague.
Item 1. All the Council agreed.
For Item 2, Cm. Zika asked if this includes a patio such as at Monarch?
Mr. Behrmann stated yes.
Item 2. Mayor Lockhart, Cm. McCormick and Cm. Sbranti stated yes and Cm. Zika and
Cm. Oravetz said no.
Item 3. Cm. Zika and Cm. Oravetz said no. Cm. McCormick and Mayor Lockhart said
yes. Cm. Sbranti recommended 10' or put reasonable distance. All we need to define is
from the main entrance. Say reasonable distance from main entrance with
recommendation of minimum 1 &. Cm. Zika stated he could vote for this.
Mr. Behrmann brought up places such as children's play areas, outdoor dining and
asked if the Council wants to keep 25' in these areas.
Someone replied they felt we should be consistent and say I O' from everything.
Everything defined as reasonable distance which the City defines as 10'.
Cm. Sbranti stated the minimum 1 O' should be from the main entrance.
Chief Thuman stated if the language says "recommended", this would be unenforceable.
Ms. Silver stated the effect would be the same as saying reasonable distance. The
Council could say 1 O' minimum (unless it would put them in an unsafe situation). This
would make it enforceable.
Cm. Sbranti stated he felt we should keep it 1 O' from the main entrance.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 417
Cm. Oravetz read the last paragraph from the Chamber of Commerce letter and said
they're saying don't tie their hands.
Cm. Sbranti recommended on item $ that we say safe and reasonable distance minimum
10' from main entrance.
item $ Mayor Lockhart, Cm. McCormick, Cm. Sbranti, Cm. Zika all said yes. Cm.
Oravetz said no.
Item 4. All the Council agreed.
Ms. Silver stated she would draft language and come back later in the meeting.
At 11:48 p.m., the Council temporarily continued discussion on this item.
At 12:43 a.m., the Council resumed discussion of this item.
Ms. Silver read changes:
1. Section 5.56.040 on page 2: Change the distance in the second sentence of
"Reasonable distance" to ten (10) feet and add at the end of that sentence: "...Minimum
of ten (10) feet unless the application of the ten-foot minimum would place the smoker
in a potentially unsafe location, in which case a "reasonable distance" shall be a location
closer than ten feet which does not place the smoker in a potentially unsafe location."
2. Section 5.56.070.A change to read: "...as defined in this chapter, from any main
entrance into an enclosed area in which ..."
Page 6 - any main entrance and only applies to main entrance. Paragraph b applies
same restriction to areas that are unenclosed which are subject to the ordinance.
On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote, the
Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED the Ordinance with the above changes.
Cm. Oravetz voted in opposition to the motion.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
AT VILLAGE PARKWAY AND LEWIS AVENUE
(DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE iMPROVEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN)
11:49 p.m. 7.1 (820-20)
Senior Planner Janet Harbin presented the Staff Report and discussed: Previous City
Council Action; Modified Conceptual Design; Implementation of Village Parkway
Specific Plan; Budget/Capital Improvement Program l:hnding; and Other CIP Projects for
Village Parkway.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 418
Of the design alternatives considered by the Consultant, Dave Evans of Singer
Fukushima Evans, the proposed plan for the intersection improvements at Lewis Avenue
and Village Parkway which were shown as Attachment 1 were the most comprehensive
and most cost effective design, providing both pedestrian crossing improvements and
plaza design elements, including textured paving, landscaping and irrigation. This
Conceptual Design will meet the goals of the VPSP relative to creation of a more
pedestrian~friendly environment and a public space/plaza at the intersection.
Ms. Harbin stated following Council direction on the project, the Consultant could then
be directed to go forward with completion of the construction and bid documents at this
time. These documents would be brought back to the City Council in a few months for
authorization to commence the bid process.
Dave Evans presented the modified designs.
Cm. Zika asked if a U-turn base of 25' is adequate?
Mr. Evans stated Public Works told him they need to meet this requirement.
Public Works Director Lee Thompson stated this is an average.
Cm. Oravetz stated this is one of the most widely used U~turns with people coming out
of the post office and then turning to go back toward McDonalds.
Cm. Sbranti asked if we are in the process of negotiating to acquire some of this land.
Mr. Ambrose stated Staff will go forward based on Council direction after tonight.
On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Sbranti, and by unanimous vote, the
Council approved the Conceptual Design for Intersection Improvements and authorized
preparation of construction/bid documents.
CIVIC CENTER LIBRARY MODULAR FURNITURE BiD AWARD
12:04 a.m. 7.2 (600-50/350~20)
Parks & Facilities Development Coordinator Rosemary Alex presented the Staff Report
and advised that one bid was submitted for the Library Modular Furniture, which is the
second of two furniture packages for the Library.
As part of the bid proposal, the bidder was required to describe Green Building practices.
Steelcase Inc., is the principle source of furnishings for this project and they incorporate
the following environmentally sound practices: 1) Improving air quality via {;4%
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 419
reduction of volatile organic compound emissions since program implementation in
1989, discontinued use of CFCs in manufacturing the reduction of ozone depleting
substances below federal limits. 2) Reducing waste by shipping with blanket wraps and
reusable polyurethane foam "buns". 3) Using recycled materials in manufacturing.
On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 168- 02
AWARDING CONTRACT NO. 01-12
DUBLIN LIBRARY MODULAR FURNITURE
TO ADVANCED INSTALLATION SERVICES ($294,703.73)
and approved the Budget Change.
SELECTION OF CONSULTANT FOR THE FISCAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED IKEA
12:08 a.m. 7.3 (600-30)
Senior Planner Andy Byde presented the Staff Report.
In June, 2002 the City Council authorized a General Plan Amendment Study for the
27.44 acre property formerly approved for the Commerce One project. Specifically, the
GPA Study authorized Staff to evaluate changing the approved land use from Campus
Office, to General Commercial to accommodate a 300,000 - 340,000 square foot IKEA
home furnishings store. As part of the GPA Study, fiscal impacts, including projected
revenues and the costs of providing services, would be evaluated as part of the project.
Economic and Planning Systems (EPS) was contacted to request a proposal to evaluate
the fiscal impacts from the proposed IKEA home furnishings store. EPS has conducted
numerous fiscal impact studies for many jurisdictions within the State and has worked
extensively within the arena of fiscal analysis. In addition, EPS has completed various
projects for the City with superior results.
The EPS proposal includes the traditional fiscal analysis focusing on determining the cost
of providing services and projecting the potential net revenue from the proposed IKEA.
In addition to evaluating the narrow fiscal analysis, EPS will evaluate the following: the
opportunity cost of office development in lieu of IKEA, the potential traffic impacts on
COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME Z 1
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 420
adjacent shopping areas resulting, and the potential impacts of the proposed IKEA on
existing and future shopping patterns.
Cm. Oravetz asked if EPS has done any work in the past with IKEA.
Mr. Byde stated not to his knowledge.
Cm. Sbranti asked about the potential impact on other similar businesses in the City and
ff they will consider this?
Mr. Byde stated they will evaluate this.
Cm. McCormick clarified that they will do a comparison with proposed office
development.
Mayor Lockhart asked if they will also be looking at the entire area and will we be able
to analyze what is still available and what this will be at maximum buildout as zoned for
office. She clarified she was talking about the total build out in the whole area.
Cm. Sbranti asked if we did approve IKEA would there still be an office demand for the
surrounding land? Will having an IKEA enhance or diminish future office uses?
Mr. Byde stated they can look at this with anecdotal evidence and evaluate the impacts to
existing businesses with similar use types.
Cm. Oravetz asked ff we could put the work program on the website to share with our
citizens.
The Council agreed and requested that this be done.
On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Sbranti, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 169- 02
APPROVING THE SELECTION OF ECONOMIC AND PLANNING SYSTEMS
TO CONDUCT FISCAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 421
SENIOR HOUSING PROPOSALS UPDATE
12:17 a.m. 7.4 (430-10)
Housing Specialist Julia Abdala presented the Staff Report.
Four proposals were received from non-profit groups, which would allow the senior
apartments to be maintained as affordable for the life of the project. In order to
construct this project, the developers will need to apply for and retain funding from
various sources. The type of funding they apply for and receive will affect some of the
features of the project. The level of affordability preferred by the City Council will
influence the type of financing for which the developer will apply.
The final location and final appearance of the Senior Center will also impact the housing
project. It is anticipated that the location and appearance of the Senior Center will be
developed prior to the conceptual design phase of the Senior Housing.
The City Council was requested to discuss and determine the appropriate process to be
used in the selection of a developer to provide Senior Housing at 7606 Amador Valley
Boulevard.
Staff identified two potential options for selecting the developer.
Option One- A special meeting of the City Council would be scheduled. At this
meeting, each of the developers would provide information on the project. Following
the interview process, the City Council would determine which developer would provide
a project most in line with the City's requirements. The City Council would authorize
the City Manager to negotiate an agreement with the selected developer.
Option Two - The City Council could appoint a subcommittee of two members of the
Council to meet with Staff and the Housing Consultant to interview the four developers.
At the end of the interviews, Staff, the Housing Consultant, and the two Councilmembers
would recommend a finalist for Council consideration.
Ms. Abdala discussed the criteria that should be considered with either selection process,
including: 1) Design and Compatibility Issues; 2) Financing; 3) Affordability Level; 4)
Completion Timeline; and 5) Managerial Capacity and History.
On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by unanimous vote, the
Council determined that the preferred option for selecting the Developer would be
Option 1.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 422
INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) AND
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (EDSPA) STUDY
FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN PROPERTIES PROJECT AREA
This item was moved and heard by the Council immediately following Item 7.1.
12:01 a.m. 8.1 (420-30)
Senior Planner Andy Byde presented the Staff Report. A GPA and EDSPA study is
requested for the Eastern Dublin Properties project area to address several issues,
including: 1) Land use map consistency between project area boundaries, Specific Plan
Land Use Map boundaries, and the GP Eastern Extended Planning Area Land Use Map;
2) clarifying Livermore Airport Protection Area requirements; and 3) studying land use
changes that will likely result from the findings of the Resource Management Plan.
On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the Council
adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 167- 02
APPROVING THE REQUEST FOR INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN
AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY
FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN PROPERTIES PROJECT AREA
CONTINUATION OF AGENDA ITEMS TO NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
12:20 a.m.
Mayor Lockhart suggested due to the lateness of the hour, that the Council continue 4
items to the next City Council meeting. Continued items would include:
Item 8.2
Item 8.5
Item 8.6
Item 8.8
Agreement for Maintenance and Operation of the Dublin Library (File #
600-40)
Revisions to Parks & Community Services Commission Bylaws and Rules of
Procedure (File # 610-20)
Approval of Master Project funding Agreement with Alameda County
Transportation Improvement Authority for ACTIA Project No. 9 - Iron Horse
Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Route Project (File # 600~40/1060-90)
Update on Pending Changes to the City's Stormwater Permit under the
Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (File # 1000~20)
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
Sepfember 3, 2002
PAGE 423
On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by majority vote, the Council
agreed to continue the four items to the next City Council meeting. Cm. Sbranti voted in
opposition to the motion.
PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE
12:23 a.m. 8.3 (600-30/920-30)
Parks & Community Services Director Diane Lowart presented the Staff Report and
advised that the 2002-07 Capital Improvement Program includes a project to update the
1994 Parks & Recreation Master Plan. The Master Plan establishes goals, long-term
policies and standards to guide the City in the acquisition, development and
management of Dublin's park and recreation facilities. As with all planning documents,
it is necessary to prepare updates every five to ten years to address changing conditions
in the development of the City.
When adopted, the Parks & Recreation Master Plan envisioned a 330-acre park system
based on a service population of 66,000. The Plan did not contemplate infill
development within the then existing City limit, nor was development envisioned on the
Transit Center property. These developments alone generate the need for between 15
and 17 acres of parkland not currently accounted for in the Master Plan.
Staff solicited proposals from architectural and planning consultants to prepare the
master plan update and recommends entering into an agreement with Singer Fulcushima
Evans, Inc.
Cm. McCormick asked with regard to a policy in the master plan if at some point we will
be obtaining open space, equestrian trails, etc. Are we considering this as part of the
master plan?
Ms. Lowart stated there is a whole chapter on open space and trails and we will
thoroughly review this. Currently open space has not counted toward our park standard
but they do get counted in our inventory.
Mr. Ambrose discussed the acreage for parks and for open space.
Cm. Zika commented on infill projects and putting residential units in and asked if we
are looking at park land with those?
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 424
Ms. Lowart stated we are looking at infill projects, which will increase the need for
about 15 - 17 park acres.
Cm. Sbranti stated he felt it would be worthwhile to look at infill park areas and perhaps
with negotiations or working with property owners, we may be able to secure some
small park space in the downtown area and this could contribute to the acreage needed.
Ms. Ix>wart clarified that that's exactly what Staff has already started looking at.
On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote, the
Council authorized the City Manager to execute the Agreement and approved the
Budget Change.
PUBLIC ART FOR SENIOR CENTER
12:32 a.m. 8.4 (900-50/240~30)
Heritage & Cultural Arts Supervisor Theresa Yvonne presented the Staff Report.
As a high priority goal, the Council directed that Staff commission Public Art for the new
Senior Center, and as a result, 1% or $53,640 was allocated for a Public Art component
as part of the Senior Center project. In order to integrate the Public Art into this project,
the artist should be selected shortly after the schematic design for the building is
approved by the City Council or by December 2002.
Ms. Yvonne discussed appointment of an Artist Selection Committee. Suggested make up
of the committee would be: 1 representative from each of the Heritage & Cultural Arts
commission, Parks & Community Services Commission, and Senior Center Committee; 2
representatives from senior citizens at large and 2 representatives from the community
at large. Non-voting members of the Committee would include the City Project
Manager, the Architect, the Landscape Architect and the Heritage & Cultural Arts
Supervisor.
The Committee would identify locations and parameters for the art in/at the Senior
Center and would submit a Request for Qualifications to artists in the region. After
going before the Heritage & Cultural Arts Commission and the Parks & Community
Services Commission, the City Council would have final approval.
Cm. McCormick asked where they find artists in the region.
' "%', ~ J , ' ,,, ,,," ,",' 'I,, '
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME g 1
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 425
Ms. Yvonne responded we have a list of about 5,000 artists.
Mayor Lockhart asked how we will select committee members?
Ms. Yvonne responded we will go out into the community and also advertise.
Appointments will come back to the Council.
Cm. McCormick asked if we are looking for sculptures?
Ms. Yvonne stated we will not limit the RFP.
On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the Council
approved the formation of a Selection Committee and authorized Staff to solicit
representatives and authorized Staff to proceed with Request for Qualifications to the
artist community.
CEREMONY COMMEMORATING ONE-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11
12:37 a.m. 8.7 (610-50)
Assistant City Manager Joni Pattillo presented the Staff Report and advised that the City
will hold a commemorative event on September 11, 2002 in front of the Civic Center at
the Flag Poles. The program will be highlighted by a flag ceremony during which time
the Alameda County Fire Department Color Guard will retire the World Trade Center
flag which was presented as a gift to the City by FDNY Firefighter Richard Dore, for
placement in the time capsule. The program will also feature songs, poetry and
inspirational readings by several young people in our community, as well as
commentary by Mayor Lockhart, ACFD Chief William McCammon and Parks RFrA
commander DawnLee DeYoung.
Additionally, all Fire Stations in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties will observe the
anniversary of 9/11, from 7:05 - 7:29 a.m., during which time Fire Station crews will
stand at attention, salute and lower the flag to haft-staff at the times (Pacific Standard)
that the South and North Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed. The ACFD
encourages the public to attend the observance at Fire Station No. 16, on Donohue Drive
in Dublin. The U. S. flag flying over the Civic Center will also be lowered to half-staff at
7:29 a.m., in preparation for the City's evening event.
Mr. Ambrose advised that we received a letter from Scott Haggerty, President of Board of
Supervisors, inviting us to participate in an event. They want us to have our City flag on
a pole. Mayor Lockhart will go and represent Dublin.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 426
Mayor Lockhart stated additionally, the Alameda County Fire Department will provide
us with a bagpiper that evening. We will have a joint Honor Guard between the Army
and Fire Department.
OTHER BUSINESS
12:46 a.m.
Mr. Ambrose reported that Danville will be hosting a meeting of the Tri-Valley Council
on September 12th.
Mr. Ambrose advised that we received a request from the DUSD Superintendent to
provide dates for a joint meeting of the City Council and the School Board. They request
a date around the middle of October or later; preferably a Monday or Thursday.
The Council indicated that October 24th would not be workable. October Z 1st or 28th
would be preferable.
Cm. Sbrami stated he was going to bring this forward and request that a joint meeting
be held.
Mr. Ambrose stated we haveWt listed agenda items yet. We could talk about joint
facilities use policy or focus on areas of development.
Mayor Lockhart stated she feR talking about the high school would be their main issue.
We should limit the discussion to just a few main issues.
Cm. Oravetz reported that he will attend an East Bay Division meeting next week in
Hercules.
Cm. Oravetz stated he had concerns related to a safety issue with a blind turn at the new
7Eleven on Dougherty Road at Amador Valley Boulevard. Because of the way the road
curves, we may need to put a sign on Amador Valley Boulevard. He requested that Staff
take a look.
Cm. Zika reported that he attended a 2 hour transportation meeting on August 20th.
Basically, our options are taking money and fixing Hwy 84 or putting in HOV lanes on
the freeway.
Ciw CouNcI~ ~iNuTES .......
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
September 3, 2002
PAGE 427
Cm. Zika stated he attended the Chamber of Commerce barbeque on August 21 st and
this was really nice.
It was reported that the Tri-Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau recently installed their
new officers.
Cm. Sbranti stated he went to the Chamber event also. In addition, he went to a
Shakespeare event at Concannon.
CLOSED SESSION
At 12:57 a.m., the Council went back into closed session for consideration of items 2, $
and 4.
2.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGA T/ON- Government Code Section
54956.9(a) Name of Case: Goodland Landscape v. City of Dublin, Alameda Superior Court No.
2002042262
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION- Government Code Section
54956.9(a) Name of Case: Dubray v. City of Dublin, Alameda Superior Court No. 2002057128
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION- Government Code Section
54956.9 subdivision(a) Name of Case: City of Dublin v. Dublin Land Co., Alameda Superior Court No.
V.018100-2
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTION
Mayor Lockhart advised that there was no reportable action.
ADJOURNMENT
11.1
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned
at 1 :$0 a.m.
ATIZST:
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
Sepfember 3, 2002
PAGE 428