Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.01 Draft CC 02-18-2003 MinFebruary 18, 2003 ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers McCormick, Oravetz, Zika and Mayor Lockhart. ABSENT: Councilmember Sbranti CLOSED SESSION A closed session was held at 6::30 p.m., regarding: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: 1) ANTICIPATED LmGATION ~ Government Code Section 54956.9, Subdivision (c) ONE potential case 2) EXISTING LITIGATION - Government Code Section 54956.9 Subdivision (a) Name of Case: Miller v. Travelers Insurance, RGW Construction, City of Dublin, Alameda Superior Court Case No. 2002056147. A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, February 18, 2003, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m, by Mayor Lockhart. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers McCormick~ Oravetz, Zika and Mayor Lockhart. ABSENT: Councilmember Sbranti (arrived at meeting at 7:2 5 p.m.) 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 announced that there was no action taken in Closed Session. VOLUME 22 APPOINTMENT TO PARKS & COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION 7:0~ p.m. 5.1 (110-30) Mayor Lockhart advised that she has appointed Steven Jones to the Parks & Community Services Commission to fill the remainder of the unexpired term of Betsy Zajac, who recently resigned. On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Sbranti absent), the Council confirmed the Mayor's appointment of Steven Jones to the Parks & Community Services Commission to fill the remainder of an unexpired term which ends December, 2004. APPOINTMENTS TO TRI~VALLEY COMMUNITY TELEVISION BOARD 7:07 p.m. 3.2 (110~$0) The terms for both of the City of Dublin's representatives, Valerie Barnes and Patrick Hannigan, expire at the end of February, 2003. Ms. Barnes and Mr. Hannigan have both expressed interest in continuing their service on this Board, and the Mayor has reappointed them to an additional term. On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Sbranti absent), the Council confirmed the Mayor's reappointment of Valerie Barnes and Patrick Hannigan to the CTV Board. CONSENT CALENDAR 7:09 p.m. Items 4.1 through 4.17 Cm. McCormick pulled Item 4.3 from the Consent Calendar. On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Sbranti~ absent), the Council took the following actions: Approved (4.1) Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 4, 2003; Approved (4.2 600-35) Change Order for Contract 02-15, Fire Station 17 for utility trenching; Adopted (4.4 600~:30) RESOLUTION NO. ~t9- 03 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH BERRYMAN & HENIGAR, ]NC. FOR CONSULTING SERVICES Adopted (4.5 G00-GO) RESOLUTION NO. 20- {)3 ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL E~AP 7537 (~RON HORSE TRA~L APARTMENTS BY ARCHSTONE COM~'~UN~T~ES TRUST) AN[:) APPROVING REGULATORY TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES Adopted (4.6 $60~50) RESOLUTION NO. 2i -03 DIRECT]NG PREPARATION OF ANNUAL REPORT FOR STREET L~GHT~NG MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTR~CT 83-1 Adopted (4.7 $60-20) RESOLUTION NO. 22- 03 D~RECTING PREPARATION OF ANNUAL REPORT FOR LANDSCAPING & L~GHT~NG MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 83-:2 Adopted (4.8 $60-20) RESOLUTION NO, 23- 03 D~RECT~NG PREPARATION OF ANNUAL REPORT FOR C~TY OF DUBLIN LANDSCAPING & L~GHTING I~AINTENANCE ASSESSMENT D~STRICT 86-1 {WLLAGES @ WILLOW CREEK) Adopted (4.9 $60~20) RESOLUTION NO. 24- 03 DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ANNUAL REPORT FOR LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESS~,~ENT D~STR]CT 97-1 Adopted (4.10 360-20) RESOLUTION NO, 25- 03 DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ANNUAL REPORT FOR STREET L~GHT~NG MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 99-t DUBLIN RANCH AND TRACT 7067 Adopted (4.11 GOO-GO) RESOLUTION NO, 26- 03 ACCEPTANCE OF ~,~PROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 6962 {DUBLIN RANCH PHASE 4, NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARD PACiFiC CORPORATION "THE ARBORS" AND APPROVING REGULATORY TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES Adopted (4.12 600-60) RESOLUTION NO, 27- 03 ACCEPTANCE OF ~MPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 6963 (DUBLIN RANCH PHASE ~, NEIGHBORHOOD M=2) STANDARD PAC~FIC CORPORATION "THE LAURELS" AND APPROVING REGULATORY TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES Adopted (4.15 600~60) RESOLUTION NO, 28- 03 ACCEPTANCE OF ~MPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 6964 (DUBUN RANCH PHASE i, NEIGHBORHOOD M=3) STANDARD PACIFIC CORPORATION "THE COURTYARDS" AND APPROWNG REGULATORY TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES Received (4.14 $$0~ 50) Preliminary Financial Reports for the Month of January 2005; Adopted (4.15 600~$0) RESOLUTION NO. 29 = 03 APPROVING A~IENDMENT NO. 3 TO AGREE[~ENT W~TH CCS PLANNING & ENGaNEER~NG, INC,, FOR CONSULTING SERVICES I-S80/TASSAJARA ROAD {NTERCHANGE ~PROVEi~ENT PROJECT Approved (4.16 600-30) Change Order and Budget Change amending Agreement with BSA Architects ($45,000); Approved (4.17 $00~40) the Warrant Register in the amount of $1,206,596.44. Cm. McCormick pulled Item 4. $ regarding the Disaster Service Workers and asked if this is already in place and how this works with CARD? Administrative AnalystJason Behrmann explained that the City's Emergency Disaster Council is set up to deal with local emergencies. We have just recently signed on with CARD and the next time we do some work or revise ourplan, they mill be called on to provide input. During the next fiscal year, we mill receive some federal grant money. Mayor Zockhart stated she felt in light of current events, it might be wise to get the Council back together to discuss some of the concerns and to have a drill. On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Sbranti absent), the Council adopted (4.:} 520-50) RESOLUTION NO. 30- 03 RELATB~E TO WORKERS' CO~PENSATION BENEFITS FOR REGISTERED VOLUNTEER "D~SASTER SERVICE WORKERS" CITY CC;¢%INC~i'L M[N~iTES P~.EG ULAR MEETING PAGiS 67 REQUEST FROM AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY FOR RECLASSIFICATION AND FEE WAIVER UNDER SHANNON COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY USE POLICY 7:13 p.m. 5.1 (610-20) Parks & Community Services Director Diane Ix>wart advised that Staff had received a telephone call this afternoon asking that this item be removed from the agenda. Cm. McCormick asked if they are not going to be using the facility? Ms. Lowart stated yes, but they no longer request the reclassification and waiver. MODIFICA~ON TO BASEBALL FIELD B AT EMERALD GLEN PARK 7:14 p.m. 5.2 (920-20) Parks & Community Services Manager Paul McCreary presented the Staff Report. The City has received correspondence from Dublin Little League (DLL) requesting to modify Field B at Emerald Glen Park so that the diamond can be configured for both 80' and 90' play. The estimated cost to complete the improvements is $3,215. This was not part of the annual park maintenance program; therefore, there are insufficient funds in the park maintenance budget to complete the project this fiscal year. DLL has agreed to reimburse the City for the total cost of the improvements. Jim North, Juarez Court, President of DLL, thanked the Mayor and Council for allowing them to speak this evening. This will be very instrumental to the ongoing success of their programs this year. This last year, field use fees were raised 50% or $15,000 and this is a substantial percentage of their overall budget. Pleasanton does not charge for use of their fees. This puts them at a little bit of a disadvantage in trying to provide- services for the kids. He is trying to figure out a way of how they can engage in a relationship with the City to help them maintain or lower their costs. He commented on the new 'library and the murals downtown, which are all for the benefit of the community. Mayor Lockhart suggested that the Parks & Community Services Commission would be a good place to start with dialogue. Mr. North stated the fields had deteriorated last year. If there is a gift program, they would like to work with Staff. Mayor Lockhart stated the work done at Emerald Glen Park and renovation of the Dublin Sports Grounds has provided some really nice fields. She urged him to work with Staff to see what we may be able to do in next years budget. Cm. Oravetz stated a couple of years ago we waived the usage fees for DLL and he questioned if we are still doing this. Ms. Ix>wart stated this was for one year only, last year. On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Sbranti absent), the Council approved DLL's request to modify Baseball Field B at Emerald Glen Park and to reimburse the City for the cost of the improvements. A speaker slip was submitted by Mark Nelson, "The success of Ziltle League, andyouth spots relies on access to proper fields and facilities." PLAOUE MONUMENT AND FLAGPOLE AT THE HERITAGE CENTER 7:21 p.m. 5.3 Heritage & Cultural Arts Supervisor Theresa Yvonne presented the Staff Report. As part of the fundraising campaign for the restoration of the Murray School Bell Tower, the Dublin Rotary Club would like part of their funds to pay for a monument thanking the donors for their contributions. The Dublin Historical Preservation Association would also like to donate a flagpole to be installed in conjunction with the monument. Cm. McCormick expressed concern with the example of the plaque in the packet. There are typos and misspelled names. She asked if these will be corrected. Ms. Yvonne stated she understood that the Rotary Club has already cast the plaque. Cm. McCormick stated in that case, out of respect to the people named, she will not vote for this. Pat Zahn, a member of the Dublin Rotary, stated she was not aware of this, but stated they will pay for another plaque. Cm. Sbranti arrived at the meeting at 7:25 p.m. City Manager Ambrose requested that they provide correct spellings and advised that Staff will convey the information to the Rotary Club. On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the installation of a plaque (with corrections) and flagpole at the Dublin Heritage Center. PUBLIC HEARING - PA 02-022 & PA 02-02:3 TOLL BROTHERS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS - DUBHN RANCH A-4 & A-5 7:26 p.m. 6.1 (600-60) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Planning Consultant Mike Porto presented the Staff Report. This is the second reading of an Ordinance approving Development Agreements between the City of Dublin and Toll CA II, L.P. The DA's are required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. These Agreements will vest the project approvals recently granted by the City Council. This project is part of Dublin Ranch Area A comprised of approximately 369 acres of mixed-use development including Single Family Residential, Open Space/Golf Course with appurtenant structures, and a Neighborhood Recreation Facility. The Planning Commission, on December 10, 2002, approved a Site Development Review for Neighborhoods A~4 and A-5 of Dublin Ranch Area A. The Tentative Maps, (Tract 7139 for Neighborhood A~4 and Tract 7140 for Neighborhood A~ 5) setting the lot patterns for these subdivisions were approved by the Planning Commission on July 25, 2000. Dublin Ranch Areas A~4 and A-5 are located east of Fallon Road. The open lands of Jordan and Bankhead are to the east. Proposed Holes 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Golf course are directly adjacent to these subdivisions to the east. The project area is entirely vacant with no structures. Grading has occurred to create the proposed lots and streets. No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. C~TY C4DU'NC~iL ~.g{NUTES ¥©LUME 22 REGULAR BiEETtNG PAGE ?© Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 2- 03 APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS TOLL BROTHERS (TOLL CA ~l, L.P.) FOR NEIGHBORHOODS A-4 & A-5 OF DUBLIN RANCH AREA A PUBLIC HEARING APARTMENT TEMPORARY SIGNAGE 7:27 p.m. t3.2 (400-30) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Andy Byde presented the Staff Report. This is the second reading of an Ordinance to amend the Sign Regulation Section of the Zoning Ordinance to allow temporary signage for apartment communities. Temporary banners would be allowed to be ! 2 square feet maximum in size, allowed to be up 10 days and down 20 days with a maximum duration of 90 days per calendar year. No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 3- 03 AMENDING CHAPTER 8.84 SIGN REGULATIONS (ZONING ORDINANCE) PA CITY C©UNC~L MIN]~JTES VOLUME 22 REG~S-LAR MEETING ?AGE 7! ACCEPTANCE OF WORK - MURRAY SCHOOL BELL TOWER 7:29 p.m. 7.1 (600-30) Parks & Facilities Development Coordinator Rosemary Alex advised that information on this project had been brought forward Friday afternoon and Staff therefore requested that the item be continued to the next City Council meeting. PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC FACILITIES GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIHC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY STATUS REPORT PA 02~017 7:30 p.m. 7.2 (420-30) Planning Manager Jeri Ram presented the Staff Report. This item is for the City Council to review the Public/Semi-Public Facilities (PSPF) General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study and review possible alternatives for implementation of a new policy. In general PSPF are public buildings, such as schools, government buildings and libraries, and semi-public buildings, such as religious institutions, clubhouses and meeting halls. The Study reviewed 5 different directions that the City could take. Alternatives include: 1) No Change Alternative; 2) Add Places of Assembly as a Land Use Category; 3) Re-Designate School Sites; 4) City-Initiated Land Use Map Amendment; and 5) Developer-Initiated Land Use Map Amendment. Alternative 6 - while meeting with the various members of the development community, it was suggested that it might be appropriate to form a task force comprised of members of the development community, Staff and two Councilmembers to work on solutions or a policy that would accomplish City Council goals, as well as consider the development community's concerns. This alternative would extend the time period before a policy could be developed; however, it would provide an opportunity to explore other development issues that may not have been identified in the Study and work out a solution that would be acceptable to the City and the development community. The Dublin Unified School District has advised that there may be excess land in eastern Dublin of 81 acres. Mayor Lockhart stated she appreciated the study, which was very helpful in looking at the entire issue. Cm. Zika asked if we are using Chula Vista's definition or the one listed on page 2. Chula Vista seems to include school sites, but ours doesn't. Ms. Ram stated schools have been excluded. We are not using Chula Vista's definition. Cm. Zika asked where the 81 acres are specifically located? Ms. Ram stated part of a high school site, which turned into a middle school, and 2 elementary school sites, all in eastern Dublin. Mayor Lockhart stated she felt there is a lot of inner-play between the School District and developers on School District properties. Cm. Zika asked if anybody went out and talked to the religious leaders in the community and asked if they plan to expand or about their future plans. Ms. Ram stated no, but mentioned that Staff is working with Valley Christian Center on an expansion plan in the near future. It varies from religion to religion or sect to sect, plus there are new groups forming all the time opening up in industrial areas. This is very difficult to track. Mayor Lockhart stated she likes alternative ¢ (task force) to bring together people in the community who have needs, those providing the service, and those who have land. We may find it is not needed, but there will be an opportunity to learn about the various services. She hates to overburden Staff, but if we tackle this, we need to have all the players involved. The report opens up the thinking process on PSPF uses and their value in our community. Cm. McCormick stated she also likes alternative 13. We are lacking community input and we are feeling this right now. She asked if it will really take a year? Ms. Ram stated Staff can bring it back and get it going as soon as they can and then bring a progress report back in 4-6 months. Cm. Sbranti stated he felt we need to make sure we do it right and talk to non-profits, religious groups, boys and girls clubs, etc. This is a high priority as the east develops. He stated he supports alternative 6. City Manager Ambrose suggested the City Council provide more direction on what the committee will look like. Getting the players identified will be a substantial task. REGULAR MEETING Mayor Lockhart suggested the Council provide information to Staff, so it can be agendized at the next meeting. Mr. Ambrose questioned where this will fit in the priority list. Martin Inderbitzen, Koll Center Parkway, Pleasanton stated what he is hearing is that there is no really easily identified standard on how to approach this issue. This has been before the City Council before and he stated he did not feel there is a problem that needs to be fixed, but how do we define a mechanism to deal with this in land use. Most of the uses are dealt with through the CUP process. His first choice would be alternative 1. They recognize this is not where the City wants to go. In the context of Dublin Ranch when they did the GPA and major revisions to town center, they addressed this by putting in a $ acre PSPF use and in addition, they've added a public site with the fire station. They're also working on area F north to identify a site appropriate for PSPF uses. If direction is to go with task force, he can support this, but east Dublin will never get built if they have to defer to more task forces. Request Staff to bring pending applications before the City Council to identify if uses are appropriate. They need ability to continue to move projects forward. He stated he hopes we can do both at the same time. Mayor Lockhart stated we have been doing this. She felt the task force would find out if it is or isn't meeting the needs. This will protect both sides of the issue to determine needs. We shouldn't use this issue to slow a project down. Cm. Sbranti agreed. If a project is moving forward, we don't want to hinder it for 13 months. He asked if we go with alternative 1, understanding CUPs are allowed, how much are planned right now within the eastern plans? Ms. Ram most of the PD zones allow it with CUPs, but you have to have appropriate sites. Cm. Zika commented we currently have a lot of churches right in the middle of residential zones. We don't know whether or not there is the need right now. Cm. Oravetz stated with doing alternative 13, we are still doing alternative 1. We don't want the task force to go on forever. He would like to see the task force meet twice in the next month and come back with a decision. It doesn't have to be a big list of people. Mayor Lockhart stated she wouldn't want to box Staff into one month. We're probably talking about people who aren't even here yet. Cm. Zika relayed a saying, "decide in haste, repent at leisure" and stated he would not want to see this happen. Mayor Lockhart suggested they look to putting the task force together and go ahead with alternative 1. Advertise for task force and they can meet on a regular basis. Mayor Lockhart then suggested direction be given to Staff to come back with how we might implement a task force at some time in the future. On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by unanimous vote, the Council supported alternative 6. Mr. Ambrose clarified that this is with the understanding that Staff will continue to process and bring applications forward, and the developer takes the risk of whether the FSPF may be enlarged by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. REPORT ON GRAND OPENING ACTIVITIES FOR NEW DUBLIN PUBLIC LIBRARY 8:05 p.m. 7.3 (940-50) Heritage & Cultural Arts Supervisor Theresa Yvonne presented the Staff Report. The City Council reviewed detailed plans for two grand opening events for the new Dublin Library. The first is the preview party and fundraiser planned by the Alameda County Library Foundation and the second is the Grand Opening Celebration planned by the City of Dublin and the Alameda County Library Staff. The City allocated $10,000 for opening day ceremonies. Lara White, with the Library Foundation, discussed the preview party to be held the Thursday evening before the grand opening. Staff will return to the City Council on March 4th with possible dates for completion of construction and suggested possible dates for both events. Cm. McCormick stated she serves on the committee, and they are doing a fine job. This will be a good party. Mayor Lockhart advised that Donna Miller brought 2 pictures to her today. One is of the 1914 grand opening of the first library in Dublin and another shot is the inside of the library with 2 shelves of books. These are wonderful black and white photos. On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the events. SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR NEW DUBLIN SENIOR CENTER 8:11 p.m. 7.4 (¢00-30) Parks & Community Services Manager Paul McCreary presented the Staff Report. In order to begin the Design Development Phase of the Senior Center project, the City must approve the schematic design. Karl Danielson with the Dahlin Group made a presentation on the refined floor plan and proposed building elevations and facades. Cm. Zika noted there were no skylights in the main part of the building, and asked if they had considered this? Mr. Danielson responded that they want the ability to black out the rooms. Cm. Zika commented he noted no entrance from Amador Valley Boulevard and felt this is a good thing. Ms. Lichtenstein stated we are looking at skylights and we have had leaks at the Swim Center. On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the schematic design. CiTY C©UNCIE~ N~I~N[.iTES VO~rME 22 DUBLIN RANCH AREA G PARK DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND PARK NAME SELECTION 8:23 p.m. 7.5 (600-30) Parks & Facilities Development Coordinator Rosemary Alex presented the Staff Report. As approved in the 2002-07 Capital Improvement Program, design of the 4.8 acre Neighborhood Park in Dublin Ranch Area G will begin in FY 2002-03, and construction will be complete in FY 2003-04. As part of the design development process, the City Council was asked to provide input on site furnishings, play equipment, restroom facility, entry trellis, lighting, plant palette, and refinements to the overall design. In addition, names for the park were solicited and 4 names are being recommended by the Parks & Community Services Commission for consideration, including: Bray Park, Finnian Commons, John Monego Memorial Park and Nielsen Park. Aditya Advani presented the park plan concept. A reforestation plan is worked into the park design. Soils samples are being taken. All trees being considered were shown. Mayor Lockhart asked about the dog area and if we are considering double gates? This prevents dogs from getting loose. Mr. Advani stated this could be done, but gates are a really expensive part of the fence. He suggested maybe we could do one double gate right at the entrance and remove the other side gates. Mayor Lockhart asked about shaded areas for the dog run, and also about clean-up supplies for the dogs. Mr. Advani stated there will be a considerable amount of shade with the poplar trees. Mayor Lockhart asked how much recyclable material we will be using in the park, and if it is possible to do the arbor with recycled materials. Mr. Advani stated recycled wood typically can't take any weight, but the upper slats could be recycled materials. Mayor Lockhart requested recycled materials be used on picnic tables as much as possible and also trash receptacles. Ms. Alex stated she had spoken with Jason Behrmann regarding the use of recycle bins. Cm. McCormick asked how flexible the rose area is with regard to introducing other roses. There is a possibility of having a rose plan in the future. Mr. Advani stated on two of the corners they could create little rose gardens. Mayor Lockhart commented she liked the idea of older light fixtures. She suggested they check the ones at Dublin Ranch; as these are really nice. They should look at using the same fixture. Ms. Alex stated we are over budget at this point, but we will soon get a better handle on the infrastructure elements and we will then investigate all the elements being presented tonight and we may have to present some design modifications before going out to bid. Cm. Sbranti asked how we ended up so over budget? Ms. Alex stated part of it came from the additional elements that were requested. We've also done further development for the plans and a certain amount is included for contingency. Cm. Zika pointed out there are a lot of hungry contractors out there right now. We may get lucky if we can get it out on the street soon. Mayor Lockhart stated with regard to names, she would combine some of the suggested names and have it be Bray Commons. Bray has been our sister city for 1 ¢ years. Our name is much more prominent in their community. Cm. Sbranti stated he likes the idea of Bray as it gives new residents information about our history. Cm. Oravetz stated he likes the idea of John Monego Park. This will last forever and he supports this name. Cm. Sbranti discussed a public safety committee which is considering a policy to honor police and firefighters who have died in the line of duty. This committee is also looking at street names as a standard. Mayor Lockhart felt one of the issues is everything you do for one you must do for everyone. We do have a monument here at the Civic Center and we do have a street C~'TY CD-UNC}~L M'~N~i'TES REGULAR MEE!ING PAGE 18 named for Officer Monego. A park area needs to represent the life and heart of the area and she stated while she has all the respect in the world for John Monego's memory, she will not support naming a park for him. On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Sbranti, and by majority vote, the Council approved the design development plan and determined that the park name would be Bray Commons. Cm. Oravetz voted against the motion. RECESS 8:57 p.m. Mayor Lockhart called for a short recess. The Council meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m., with all Councilmembers present. LETFER SUPPORTING ALAMEDA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S REQUEST TO CONGRESSMAN RICHARD POMBO TO EARMARK $30 MILLION OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR THE I-580 HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANE PROJECT 9:05 p.m. 8.1 (1060~90) Public Works Director Lee Thompson presented the Staff Report. The existing Federal Transportation Program, also called the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, will expire at the end of Fiscal Year 2003. In anticipation of the reauthorization of this program, the Alameda County CMA has requested Congressman Richard Pombo to earmark $30 million of federal funds for the I-580 HOV land project. Mayor Lockhart advised that she will be back there in March lobbying for transportation dollars. Cm. Zika stated if we get this, it would be beyond our normal allocation. On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the letter supporting CMA's request to Congressman Pombo to earmark $30 million of federal funds for the I-580 HOV Lane Project. DUBLIN RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROPOSAL 9:08 p.m. 8.2 (430-80) Community Development Director Eddie Peabody presented the Staff Report. Dublin Ranch developers have submitted a proposal to allow concentration of all Dublin Ranch affordable housing requirements into a single project on 25 acres east of Keegan Road between Central Avenue and Dublin Boulevard. The project will consist of $20 senior restricted units and 608 family units. Staff presented $ options for Council consideration. Option 1: Proceed to process a specific request to allow the concentration of all Dublin Ranch affordable housing requirements into a single project on 25 acres immediately west of the Toll Area G project with certain requirements as suggested by Staff. Option 2: Have the developer create a new series of projects in the future that would concentrate a portion of the Dublin Ranch affordable housing requirements in several locations as suggested by Staff. Option $: Instruct Staff to continue to require (to the extent possible) that affordable housing requirements for the Dublin Ranch property be met for each future project when submitted on the individual project site and based on the present requirement of 50% moderate, 20% low and $0% very low household income levels. At the present time, Staff has not evaluated the Developer's financial plan. If the City Council wishes to proceed with Option 1, Staff will need to return to the City Council with a specific evaluation if the proposed subsidy is appropriate. Does the City Council support idea of concentrating all in one location? Subsidies - should any subsidy be considered for units above the 12.5% requirement? Should the project be required to provide the 50% moderate household requirement now identified in the Inclusionary Ordinance? Does the City Council wish to make the project top priority in order to complete it by July 2003? Does the City Council want to delay other Dublin Ranch projects now underway in deference to this project? V©L}JME 22 REG,_iLAR ME ET~NG Febr~ary ~8, 2003 Option 1, 2 or :3 for Council consideration. Option 1 - since writing the Staff Report, another issue that has risen is the need to come up with an agreement with Dublin Ranch for the 138~acre community park in Area B which does not have a park agreement. The applicant should be instructed to complete this agreement with the City. Cm. Zika asked about the credit they are seeking. Will they be in competition with our senior housing tax credit? Mr. Peabody stated he did not believe they will be competing with us. Cm. Zika questioned the addition for the number of units and stated he came up with t310. If we delay the senior project and delay the transit center project, does this put them in jeopardy? Mr. Peabody advised that we are in a fairly critical point with our senior project in order to get their entitlements by July. Regarding the transit center, Mr. Ambrose stated housing needs to be underway by fall of this year in order to utilize the MTC grant. A grading permit has to be issued by September. Cm. Sbranti spoke about the comments on our housing element. What issues did they raise specifically? Ms. Ram stated the question related to whether or not under the medium density zoning regulations, we can supply actual housing. They questioned our ability to provide moderate units at that density. Our program is really just getting started, so we have nothing we can point to 5 years ago. Martin Inderbitzen, 7077 Koll Center Parkway, Pleasanton, representing the Lin Family and Dublin Ranch, stated it was 2 years ago when the City Council talked about affordable housing. He argued for something less than the current ordinance. Working with Staff and other developers, it occurred to him that there were ways to meet these requirements. They have met and exceeded the challenge to develop a proposal for affordable housing of the magnitude and quality of this proposal. They think it is phenomenal and hopes Dublin will put on its can do attitude and they hope to do all the projects and go forward. How can we make this a reality? He introduced their development team, consisting of the most qualified people in the Country, led by Robert Kline, Kline Financial. Navy Brandbard, with architectural firm helped design the project; and Dave Chadborne, McKay & Somps. This project is not as complicated as it may sound. It comes down to a few policy issues. They referenced the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance to figure out if they could hit the mark with this project. They will build these units in advance and ahead of buildout of Dublin Ranch. They are asking for two exceptions: an exception from the mix of units and an exception for disbursal. Another exception is a slight reduction in parking requirement, which relates only to the senior component of the project. They have come very close to the Ordinance and hope the City will take this into consideration. Mr. Inderbitzen referenced page $ of the Staff Report, the bullet points. Yes on first, second and third. They will not ask for retail use of 5,000 sq ft. They get points for being within half a mile of retail with their project. That is the only element that would require extended processing time on this project. They feel they can work with Staff on alternatives. Yes on 25% density bonus. They will pay back the ${3.8 million as they sell credits over time. The City could avoid a financial analysis. They can sell the credits to some developer and use that credit to retire the loan with the City. The last two, he felt are repeats of prior ones and yes on both. Mr. Inderbitzen stated on the dispersal issue, he would argue for this. Unit size and affordability allocation issues were discussed. The percentages should relate to the overall project. They are providing us with 100% of very low income units which is 30% of the 399 units. They are providing us about 400% of our low income units. In the moderate category they provide 1 {31 units which is about 52 short. This is 204 more low income units than they are obligated to do. He did not feel the 52 unit shift as being significant. In order to help the moderate issue, if you think of the senior component and the family component as providing workforce housing they could shift the 52 or 54 senior units and put them in the family apartments. This shifts the entire 1 {31 moderate units to just family. Mayor Lockhart asked if this would affect the size of the units. Mr. Inderbitzen stated that in itself doesn't, but they can provide some 3 bedroom apartments in this project. They will have to take a look at the architecture to see how they can provide some 3 bedroom units. The other projects that Staff is working with, they can only provide moderate units. If they can't do a project like this, they end up coming back with a project by project basis and try to get some low and very low and request to do 7 Vz% and then the City has to use its money to figure out how to do low CiTY C©~{~JNC[L MSN~ITES VOLUME 22 REGULAR ME El'lNG PAGE ~2 and very low. This high density project is well located. They are excited about this proposal and would like to see it become a reality. Cm. Sbranti asked who will manage the senior site. Mr. Inderbitzen stated it would be either the Lins or an entity created by the Lins. Cm. Sbranti asked related to prevailing wage issue - how specifically does this law make the whole project not pencil out? Robert Kline 550 California Avenue, Palo Alto answered this and explained that if a city provides funds, it is not a public works project and if you issue tax exempt bonds through December 2003, you will be exempted from the prevailing wage requirement. July 1 t3 is the application deadline with award to be made in September and if you sell your bonds by December, you have a permanent exemption. This will have a very material effect. You go from having to find $6 million to finding $1 $ million. He stated he sits on the California Housing and Finance Agency Board. They have done $800 million in just the last 5 years. Mr. Kline discussed wage rate and benefit package and ratio apprenticeship to craftsman. If you have a project with a $20 million construction budget, you are looking at about a $3 million increase. Cm. Zika stated he is not a big supporter of prevailing wage rate. The Department of Labor has never done a wage survey. Mr. Kline discussed Calpers money; they provide equity, 4% tax credit, tax exempt bonds and a number of sources in order to make the project work. The mixed income approach is one of the best models used in the country. Timing of bond sales were discussed. You have to sell the bonds by December 31 st in order to get the exemption. Mayor Lockhart asked if the retail space is dropped, does this change it to community use? Mr. Inderbitzen replied they talked about using this space to provide other amenities such as education programs, meals on wheels programs, pharmacy drop, those kinds of things. They would look at how they can fit within the requirements of the program. VOLUME 22 ?AGE 85 Mr. Ambrose commented Staff hasn't had an opportunity to review it in depth. This addresses only the first phase. What happens to balance of project and how is it financed? Mr. Kline stated the senior project will use the tax exempt bonds and because they are family or senior, they will use all the same components of financing. They expect a lot of tough questions and will provide Staff with a great deal of details. They will be at the Staff's disposal and have plenty of information. They plan to do the senior phase and one family phase, which will be concurrently submitted, with $32 million in bonds on each phase and then they have credits and equity for each phase. The next family phase they would have some other layer of solution because they don't think they can get the third phase done. They don't have a bulletproof answer for the third phase. They will try and carry enough of the cost in the first two phases to carry the third phase. They would have to meet with Staff during this process to refine their costs. They are trying to set a realistic goal of what they can get accomplished during the window of time available. Allison Brooks, stated the Vision 2010 Committee, Community Planning and Housing Committee and subcommittee reviews projects submitted and usually they have a set of endorsement criteria they use. They have not had adequate time to review this project. They would like to review it and compare it with their endorsement criteria. Cynthia Morse, Lake Drive, stated she is also a member of Tri -Valley Interfaith Housing Forum. Her first reaction to the project is it is really exciting. This needs to happen. She had a few concerns. First, possibility that this project would delay other important projects currently being studied like Bancor, the senior center, the transit center. It was not clear if these things would slow down. Concentration of affordable units is a concern. This issue of dispersal and building in phases was really important and they discussed this at length. This addresses quality of life issues for residents. Dispersing avoids getto~ism. It is also all apartments and they talked about different types of units in all phases. If you have family units, you need more than 2 bedroom units. Also, the day to day management of a project of this size requires a lot of expertise. With affordable units, you have need for a management to do problem solving and referrals. A number of non-profits could be contracted with. Will universal design be considered in these units? Mark Schlitt, Creekside Court stated it is really impressive to stand before the City Council. This Council is aggressive on affordable housing issues. Option 1 is probably as close to the right option as we need. Intentions are great, but action is everything. If we don't build affordable housing now, there's always a reason not to later. He stated he C~TY OOUNC.~L M~N~JTES VOL[iME 22 is a member of the Interfaith Forum. His only concern is in making sure we have exhausted inclusionary funds. Look to meeting needs and be creative with ways to look after the community. Pat Cashman, representing the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA) complimented Dublin Ranch on the program they have put together. This is a wonderful opportunity being presented to the City of Dublin. He stated he appreciates the notion of subsidy for exceeding requirements of the program and he intends to work with them - it's good that this has been put on the table. The ACSPA sees doing 17.5% and doing a mix of condos and apartments, but approach is the same with the increment above the requirement. The timing aspect concerns them a lot. The transit center is all geared up and ready to go. On behalf of Alameda County, they do not want to be set aside in order to facilitate their project. It would be extraordinary if they were able to get a commitment for this number of units during this round. Their project is committed to prevailing wages and it seemed inevitable due to the timing. If they can make it without their project being sacrificed, they would wholeheartedly support their project. It would be wonderful for Dublin. Mr. Inderbitzen thanked the speakers and stated he hopes Dublin is a city that can do, not can't do. Regrets that they would be pitted against one another. The approval process for this project is not that complicated. The land use process is an SDR process. They will repay the $6 in some form. They need to figure out the approach so there is enough money to go around. He hopes there isn't a vision that somehow they are ghetto-izing this project. The mix of the 928 units 14% very low, 37% at low, 17% moderate and 32% market rate is a nice blend. Salary range data was distributed to the City Council. They are trying their best to provide a full compliment of work force housing. The issue of the amount of moderate housing still needs to be discussed, as well as dispersal of affordable housing throughout the rest of the project. Cm. McCormick asked about the required amount of parkland. Mr. Ambrose stated the Master Development Agreement for Dublin Ranch assures 68 acres of parkland. As we start to grant entitlements, we squeeze down this area. Our view is we need to nail the parkland down. Mr. Inderbitzen stated they can move fast. The issue of management was discussed and he stated there is no evidence that affordable units are more difficult to manage. An on sight manager is critical if you have low cost units. Cm. Sbranti talked about the issue of credits. How does the process work in terms of credits? Mr. Peabody explained that the Ordinance says credits are provided for those developers who provide more than 12.5% of units. He then discussed various scenarios of transferring credits from one property owner to another. Ms. Silver discussed satisfying the requirement of must build through use of credits. Cm. Zika stated he was really concerned about concentration of low and very low income housing all in one location and advised that the Housing Task Force agonized over this. He has seen too many going bad. If you add in the in-lieu fee, $43,000 for each unit is substantial. He stated he was concerned that we may lose the $1.3 million for the transit center and also put the senior center housing in jeopardy. We have a shortage of Staff. This is just too much too fast and he would pick option 3 to disperse throughout the project. Concerned with getto~ization if you jam them altogether. Mayor Lock_hart stated in a perfect world, we would like to see an even split. We didn't start with a perfect record and we have a long way to go. With this project, while not easy, the benefits of those extra 50 or 1 O0 units cannot be lightly tossed away. Like anything else, we need to balance out the needs of the community versus the timing and effort it will take to get there. There is a window of opportunity and she stated she is in total disagreement with getto~ization comments made. This will give people who work in our community an opportunity to live here. These people are very important for our community. The park design approved earlier was designed for people who live in apartments. We have an opportunity to do this and she stated she doesn't mind having Staff come back with exactly what we are getting into. She felt that down the road we will be very sorry if we don't pursue this. She stated she did not feel we have to do this at the expense of any other housing project or transit center. Not willing to just say this is tough to do. We have the best Staff in the valley to get this done. There is no doubt it will be a challenge for Staff. Cover this hurdle and see what we can do in the next two weeks to see what we can accomplish. Prefers we say we can do this and get it done. She supports moving to the next level to have Staff and Dublin Ranch people get together and work out some of the issues. Cm. Oravetz he also concurred with Mayor Lockhart; using getto~ization is way out of bounds here. This is an opportunity to look at the glass as half full. He assured Mr. Cashman that he didn't have to worry. Pleasanton voted against an opportunity to provide some affordable housing. We have an opportunity that doesn't come by many times. C~TY CG~UNC~L VOL~IME 22 REGULAR MEETING PAGE 86 Cm. McCormick stated she is okay with a cluster of housing and felt the design was very well thought out. The shift of the senior housing to moderate was good. She stated she was not sure about the subsidies. She felt the scariest part of project is them saying they will sit down with Staff, and this means they aren't working on other projects. She is most concerned about the transit center. She stated she needed to hear from the City Manager or Mr. Peabody saying these things can occur concurrently. Mr. Ambrose advised that 8 major planning studies have been given to Staff since approval of the budget. Something has to give. There are only so many hours in the day. It takes quality people to put these things together. We are entering into a very difficult budget season, which will take a lot of Staff time to get us through. The timing couldn't be worse. Yes, Staff will need to look at a laundry list, and may need to shift priorities. It is not as easy as simply hiring additional people. We are tapped out on space and logistical issues would have to be overcome. Cm. Sbranti stated the opportunity to have more units, to have more senior units, dollars per unit to get more units and amenities, disbursal among projects and shift from senior housing all help. It was brought up at the Housing Task Force the issue of disbursal. He personally supports the prevailing wage, and felt this gives the people who build the project the opportunity to live in the project. The fact that there is no for sale units is of concern, and he felt we need to look at this. The timeline and workload must be weighed. He would like to see this back in two weeks in terms of workload and additional financial information. Credits also need to be clarified. Mayor Lockhart talked about flexibility built into the Ordinance. She relayed that she had heard Waterford Place would be interested in having some of their apartments going into for sale units. Cm. Sbranti commended the development team for bringing in this creative proposal. His concern is moving ahead of projects already approved and in the works right now. He would like to look at the list. He also needs to see the figures on the prevailing wage and how this impacts the project. Mr. Peabody stated Daniel Lopez could probably not accomplish this in time for the next meeting. Mr. Ambrose stated Staff could come back with the workload issue on March 4th and then look at the other issues on March 18th. Issues would include concentration subsidy, to what extent, adhere to income levels, timing issue and a lot of other smaller issues, including parking. VOL~gM;~ 32 REGigLAR M ~7,~T.~iNG PAGE 87 Cm. McCormick stated she goes along with Cm. Sbranti regarding the prevailing wage. We need to have a plan B if we don't make the July deadline. Is there a way to salvage the project? Is prevailing wage the death nail? With regard to location and having housing together on 2 5 acres, a Council consensus agreed this would be okay. Cm. Zika opposed. With regard to subsidies - all very low and low - Cm. Sbranti stated he needs more information. Mayor Lockhart indicated she would not be willing to look at this. Cm. Zika stated he thought this was extreme because they have to build the 12.5%. This would deplete the whole fund. Mr. Ambrose stated the issue for the City Council is trying to stretch our dollars. There are potentially other projects out there for us and they are providing a lot of additional affordable units. With regard to moderate % versus low and very low, Cm. McCormick stated she can live with the shift of moderate. Cm. Sbranti yes. Cm. Zika stated he would like to see more for sale units. Cm. Oravetz yes. With regard to timing and prioritizing to reach the July window, Mayor Lockhart stated she was willing to look at this. Cm. Zika stated he was willing to consider, but don't put other projects in jeopardy. Cm. Sbranti yes. With regard to parking standards and needs, Cm. Zika stated there should be at least one parking space per unit. This is a minor thing. Cm. McCormick asked if they could leave this off. Mr. Inderbitzen stated parking is an issue and some compromises would need to be made. If the focus is :3 bedroom units, they can't provide additional parking. They can work on this. Mr. Ambrose brought up the commercial linkage fee. Mayor Lockhart stated she would like to see how this relates to this project. Mr. Inderbitzen stated they would be interested in using credit to offset commercial linkage fee. They are looking for some way to equalize the benefit for everybody. Cm. Sbranti requested related to credits, look at how they would apply to future affordable housing in the east. He stated he was still concerned there are no units for sale. He stated he would like a status report regarding other proposals in the east. VOLUME 22 PAGE 88 Mr. Ambrose stated Staff will report back on what types of developments others have proposed. The remaining annexations are very few. Cm. Sbranti requested that Staff put in the report what's projected and what the potential is. Mayor Lockhart stated she felt getting as much information as they can at the next meeting will help lead them to a decision one way or the other. She stated she hopes we can get these built. On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by majority vote, the Council indicated a preference for Option 1: (Proceed toprocess a specific request to allow the concentration of all Dublin Ranch affordable housin$ requirements into a sin$1e project on 35 acres immediately west of the ToII Area G project with certain requirements as susegested by StafO, and with comments and questions as discussed by the City Council: 1) what happens if prevailing wage is provided? 2) financial report subsidy and report back on how credits are transferred $) list of developments and affordable housing potential 4) list of current projects and shifting priorities 5) how for sale units affect potential now or down the road 6) okay with mix and shift of senior to family units Cm. Sbranti stated he prefers a loan over subsidy and clarified that this will be part of the study. Cm. Zika voted in opposition to the motion. · PRESENTATION ON BROWN ACT AND POLITICAL REFORM ACT REQUIREMENTS 11:38 p.m. 8.3 (640-40/630-60) City Attorney Elizabeth Silver presented the Staff Report which included a detailed outline of the requirements of both the Brown Act and the Political Reform Act. The most important recent change in this area of the law is a statutory clarification of regulations issued by the Fair Political Practices Commission relating to the requirement that public officials recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest. The new law spells out the steps to take if a public official has a conflict but wishes to make a statement as a member of the public. The Council thanked the City Attorney for the report. CITY C©'UNC[L NIJiN~iT£S REGULAR MEETING PAGE 89 GRANT AGREEMENT WITH ALAMEDA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 11:41 p.m. 8.4 (600-40) Parks & Facilities Development Coordinator Rosemary Alex presented the Staff Report. As approved in the 2002-07 Capital Improvement Program, construction of Fire Stations 17 and 18 will begin in Fiscal Year 2002-03 and be complete in FY 2003~04. This grant funding will provide $100,000 toward the construction of Fire Stations 17 and 18 in eastern Dublin, which are currently under construction. On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Sbranti, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the City Manager to execute an Agreement with the Alameda County Waste Management Authority. PUBLIC ART MASTER PLAN 11:43 p.m. 8.5 (900-30) Heritage & Cultural Arts Supervisor Theresa Yvonne presented the Staff Report. The Public Art Master Plan will provide a comprehensive plan to establish guidelines for the operation of the Public Art Program. The first step to hiring a consultant or firm is to solicit qualified proposals. Mayor Lockhart asked who will interview the finalists. Ms. Yvonne stated it will be representatives from the Heritage & Cultural Arts Commission, she and the Parks & Community Services Director, and the City Manager or his appointee. On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Sbranti, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to distribute Request for Proposals for a consultant to create a Public Art Master Plan for the City. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULE FOR POLICE SERVICES 11:45 p.m. 8.13 (580~10) City Manager Richard Ambrose presented the Staff Report. Police Services are provided to the City of Dublin through contract with the Alameda County Sheriff's Department. The report prepared for City Council consideration came out of a study to identify cost effective alternatives to improve the overall delivery of police services to the community and, at the same time, assure the City that Dublin continues to attract the most qualified personnel. The City would potentially realize savings of at least $27,1300 annually, if an alternate work schedule is approved. Cm. Oravetz asked if the officers have voted on this. Chief Gary Thuman stated actually they conducted an informal survey and the view of the officers is a very strong preference is to work the 12 hour schedules. There's a maximum of 80 hours of comp time that can be accrued. Cm. Sbranti stated this provides better coverage and collaboration. On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved a 12~hour alternate work schedule as a 2~year pilot program and authorized elimination of an unfilled 2002~05 Higher Service Level Administrative Sergeant position. OTHER BUSINESS 11:56 p.m. The County will be holding a hearing in the Dublin Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m., tomorrow night related to the Juvenile Detention Facility. The City of Dublin will be hosting a meeting of the Tri-Valley Council at McNamaras on Thursday, February 27th. CITY C©9-NCI'L MINUTES V{} LUi5/IE 22 REG~JL.AR MEETING The East Bay Division meeting on February 20th, will be held here in Dublin at McNamaras. Mayor Lockhart wished a happy birthday to Cm. McCormick, whose birthday is on Friday. ADJOURNMENT 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CITY COUNCIL M~N'UTES VOLU}¢2E 22 iREG U L.A.R MiEET}..-NG PAGE 92