HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.1 Approve 07-25-1983 &08-02-1983 Minutes j
REGULAR MEETING - JULY 25 , 1983
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on
Monday, July 25 , 1983 in the multipurpose room of Frederiksen Intermediate
School . The meeting was called to order at 7 . 40 p.m. by Mayor Peter Snyder .
ROLL CALL
PRESENT : Councilmembers Burton, Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder .
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The' Mayor led the Council , Staff and those present in the pledge of
allegiance to the flag .
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the
Warrant Register in the amount of $52 , 944 . 83 was approved .
SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN
Cm. Burton disqualified himself from discussion of and voting on this issue
due to a conflict of interest .
On April 25 , 1983 , the City Council reviewed the San Ramon Road Traffic
Study. The Study identified various issues including the access situation .
The Study recommended that , instead of a frontage road, consideration should
be given to consolidating existing driveways , construction of an accelera-
tion/deceleration southbound lane , and extending Amador Valley Boulevard .
The Staff and a Planning Consultant , Mr . Eddie Peabody, along with Mr .
Anthony Hurt , Economist , prepared the Draft San Ramon Road Specific Plan .
The key issues identified in the Specific Plan were land use and circulation .
A detailed Staff analysis was presented for review by the City Council .
The City Attorney explained the process related to private vs public road .
It would be necessary to go through a public hearing procedure, and the City
Council would need to adopt a resolution stating public use and convenience
require the construction of a street , and the proposed location . The
affected property owners are given written notice to appear and present
whatever evidence they may have as to whether it is a necessity and whether
it is in the best location . The Council could then adopt a resolution and
proceed with eminent domain .
r�• �
CM-2-122
July 25 , 1983
The Specific Plan was divided into 5 areas :
1 ) (Dublin Boulevard/San Union Oil
Ramon Road) Scarteen Corporation
The Springs
2 ) (Western Edge ) Calmet/ (Mr. Howell )
3 ) (San Ramon Road/Amador Iceland
Valley Boulevard) Mr . Jeha
Ms . Bardt
Mr. Nichandros
Commercial Properties Ltd. / (Mr . VanWert )
Valley Christian Center/ (Dr . Tanneberg)
Mr . Moret
4) (Martin Canyon Creek) Various
5 ) (Silvergate Drive/San Barratt San Jose/ (Mr. Meeks , Mr . Head)
Ramon Road)
Cm. Hegarty indicated the main issues were land use and circulation and the
question of whether a private road or a public road would be best .
Mr . Fred Howell (Area 2 ) pointed out need for 1400 apartments to keep up with
the demand. The Planning Commission had recently approved 21 units per acre
and he urged the City Council to do the same .
Mr . Richard Jeha (Area 3 ) indicated he had received an approval from the
County for a shopping center , prior to the time that Dublin became a City ,
but was unable to finance , partly due to the economy and partly from problems
with the roadway access . Mr . Jeha questioned the need for an extension of
Amador Valley Boulevard .
Mr . John Nichandros (Area 3 ) related problems with the roadway . Because it
will reduce his parking, and reduce the driveway space , he felt certain
concessions would be in order , i . e . 1 ) eliminate setback at rear of property
in order to have enough building space , and 2 ) that they have proper access
into driveway area .
Mr . Morgan Howell , Architect , voiced concern over the fairness of Mr .
Nichandros bearing the brunt of giving up so much property.
Mr . Martin Locus , a Betlen Drive resident stated his concern was to discuss
density in Area 2 . The project was orginally to have been 12 condominiums
per acre , and now they were coming in with 20 apartments per acre . He
indicated Dublin had recently been getting some negative press related to its
proposed expansion and felt the City should be more concerned with developing
the existing land and further , that all the land in question should be zoned
. the same , whether it be commercial or residential .
CN1-2-123
Regular Meeting July 25 , 1983
Mr. Howell pointed out a real need for more rental housing in Dublin. Dublin
needs to have -balanced housing . People who want and need rental housing
typically don' t attend public meetings , nevertheless , these people are out =
there . Mr . Howell addressed the request from members of the audience for
properties to all be zoned commercial . It is a well established fact that
commercial establishments generate much more traffic than do residential .
Mr . Jim Gjerpe stated he represented a large group of people , basically the
entire City of Dublin and they felt all the property should remain commercial
and be developed into nice looking areas , rather than having high density
housing units crammed down their throats .
Ms . Liz Schmitt , a Cypress Court resident urged the Council to consider mixed
zoning , and felt that a mixture was good and healthy for Dublin. She was
concerned over the lack of rentals and the expense to live in Dublin.
Mr . Dave Petty commended the Staff and Consultant for the Specific Plan that
was prepared. Mr . Petty stated he felt the density to be too high.
Mr. Jack Beachum, a Dublin Green Drive resident questioned where commercial
base would be in 20 years . He felt that apartment complexes would cost the
City in added services , etc . , and he couldn' t see any revenue coming from
them. He also was against the proposed density, and the problems he could
foresee 5 years from now, when Dublin has nowhere to build pocket commercial
developments . He stated Dublin is a very small land-locked community .
Cm. Hegarty felt that what the people want are office complexes , however ,
many many vacancies now exist . The original Enea project was to have been
all office complex space , but they have now stopped building office
buildings . There are 300+ condominium & apartment rental units now under
construction + another 500 on the drawing board. Dublin has a strong tax
base now, but we must act to keep it that way. With everything that ' s taking
place across 1-580 , it is necessary for Dublin to maintain its attractive-
ness , and what we do with this corridor is critical . Developers must
cooperate to create attractive redevelopment centers .
Cm. Jeffery indicated she would like to see a mixture of zoning .
Cm. Moffatt felt there was a definite lack of apartments in Dublin. He
indicated some Dublin employers , including himself have a hard time
recruiting people , because people can ' t afford to live here . He felt Area 2
would be a good residential area , but would not lend itself to commercial ,
primarily because it is too far off the beaten track.
Related to Area 3 , Cm . Hegarty made a motion to have the interim zoning
ordinance held in place for 6 months or one year , or until something comes
up , and until all the property owners can get together with a plan. He would
like to see all the property put into one parcel , and a Planned Unit
Development come forward . The motion died for lack of a second.
CM-2-124
Regular Meeting July 25, 1983
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt , and by unanimous vote , the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 35-83
ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONCERNING
SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN
On motion of Cm. Moffatt , seconded by Cm. Hegarty: 1 ) Area #2 - eliminate
office zoning , and designate multi-family residential with a density of 13-21
rather Chan 13-18 per acre ; 2 ) Area #3 - designate commercial with public
road with property owners given fair market value for property necessary for
easement ; 3 ) Area #5 - designate neighborhood commercial ; 4) Area #4 -
leave as is . This motion was defeated due to NO votes cast by Cm. Jeffery
and Mayor Snyder . Cm. Burton abstained.
On motion of Cm. Moffatt , seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote , the
Council agreed to designate Area #3 for retail commercial , shopper goods with
a public road. . Cm. Burton abstained.
On motion of Cm. Moffatt , seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote , the
Council agreed to change the density on Area #2 to 12-21 multi-family
residential units per acre . Cm. Burton abstained.
On motion of Cm. Moffatt , seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote , the
Council agreed to leave Area #4 as is (Martin Canyon Creek - recognized open
space use ) . Cm. Burton abstained.
Cm. Moffatt made motion which was seconded by Cm. Hegarty related to Area #5
to leave designation as neighborhood commercial , the same as Area #3 . This
motion was defeated due to NO votes cast by Cm. Jeffery and Mayor Snyder .
Cm. Burton abstained.
RECESS
A short recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10 : 35 p.m. with all
Councilmembers present .
SAN RAMON ROAD -SPECIFIC - PLAN (Continued)
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt , and by unanimous vote , the
Council agreed to adopt the San Ramon Road Specific Plan with the changes
discussed, and further, to exclude Area #5 (Barratt ) until the City Council
meeting of August 22 , 1983 . Cm. Burton abstained .
SAN RAMON ROAD PLAN LINE
The City Engineer and Traffic Engineer previously prepared a traffic study
and accompanying drawings for the improvement of San Ramon Road, which were
presented to the City Council on April 25 , 1983 . The elements of the
schematic plan line which were before the Council for consideration were : _
CM-2-125
Regular Meeting July 25, 1983
1 ) Schematic lane configuration ; 2 ) Strip map of San Ramon Road indicating
approximate location of future improvements ; 3 ) List of proposed traffic
signal locations ; 4 ) List of possible access points onto San Ramon Road. The _
issues of traffic problems on Silvergate Drive were not part of this plan ,
but were raised through this process and were covered in the City Traffic
Engineer ' s report .
Mr . Chris Kinzel, City Traffic Engineer briefly reviewed the plan line, which
calls for the future widening of San Ramon Road from I-580 to Alcosta
Boulevard. Mr . Kinzel explained that the intersections of Dublin Boulevard
as well as Amador Valley Boulevard would have upgraded traffic signals . The
Silvergate Drive intersection would also be widened and signalized. Mr .
Kinzel stated that with regard to the access to the Shell Station. on the
southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road his recommendations
were . in the first section between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard, no access be
provided, and in further analysis of the Shell Station, because of the high
volume of traffic at this location, both turning from Dublin Boulevard and
continuing southbound toward the freeway, as well as right turns , it was felt
that this would be an inopportune place to allow access from a safety
standpoint . Because of the office .building and restaurant at this location,
this could develop into a major access opening .
Mr . Fisk , 7773 Woodren Court , addressed the Council with concerns related to
the increased traffic load, the earthquake fault , speed limit and noise/sound
barriers along this area .
Martin Locus, a Dublin resident spoke against the widening of San Ramon Road
for the purpose of providing a thoroughfare for Stoneridge shoppers to get to
San Ramon . Mr . Locus felt these shoppers would bypass Dublin shops and
Dublin shouldn ' t provide this access to accommodate other cities .
On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the
Council certified the negative declaration .
On notion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the
Council approved the plan line as a conceptual document for the future design
of San Ramon Road improvements along with access elements and future traffic
signal locations .
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the
City Attorney introduced an ordinance restricting parking on Silvergate Dr .
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the
Council agreed to add the removal of the Silvergate Drive median to next
year ' s capital improvement program list. of projects .
CM-2-126
Regular Meeting July 25 , 1983
ARDMORE STREET CLOSURE
As a result of a request from some of the neighbors in the Bonniewood area,
the City Council received a traffic report and took testimony at its regular
meeting of June 27 , 1983 . The Traffic Engineer recommended that the City
Council consider the closure of Ardmore Street between Wicklow and Bonniewood
as a means of reducing speeding in that area , provided that it was acceptable
to the affected residents in the area . Street closure is considered the only
physical action that can be taken to eliminate or reduce the reported
problems, other than increased enforcement .
Staff conducted a poll of the immediate neighborhood regarding this closure .
The poll indicated the neighborhood was 3 to 1 against this closure .
On motion of Cm. Moffatt , seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the
Council rejected the closure of Ardmore Street between Wicklow Lane and
Bonniewood and further , encouraged residents to work with the police
department in apprehending speed violators .
PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT
At its meeting of June 27 , 1983 , the City Council authorized Staff to
publicize the vacancy on the Planning Commission . A total of seven (.7 )
individuals either reactivated their old applications or made new
applications . Those individuals were : Charles Auble , Elton Baird , Richard
Henderson, David Petty, Ray Rand, Robert Stein and Jerome Weakland .
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, all
names were placed in nomination .
David M . Petty received a majority of votes , and was welcomed as a member to
the Dublin Planning Commission . Mayor Snyder conveyed that Mr . Tong would be
in touch in the very near future .
SURPLUS SCHOOL PROPERTY
NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISPOSE OF DOLAN SITE
At its meeting of July 11 , 1983 , the City Council considered a notice of
intent from the Murray School District to dispose of the Dolan School site as
surplus school property . At that meeting , the Council requested the Parks &
Recreation Advisory Committee to consider the desirability of acquiring this
site for parks and recreation purposes , and further , that Staff report back
to the Council .
After considerable discussion with respect to the merits of retaining this
site as an area for park and recreation use, it was determined that the site
was too large to develop for facility parks and recreation purposes .
CM-2-127
Regular Meeting July 25 , 1983
On motion of Cm. Moffatt , seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote , the
Council directed Staff to notify Murray School District that the City is not
interested in purchasing the Dolan Site .
SOLID WASTE - ALTAMONT LANDFILL
The City has been requested by the Alameda County Solid Waste Management
Authority to consider the following Solid Waste Management issues ; 1 ) Should
additional quantities of solid waste be imported from San Francisco to the
Altamont Landfill after 1988? 2 ) If the additional importation of solid
waste is permitted, and the Solid Waste Management Plan is amended
accordingly, how should the money received for the importation of San
Francisco refuse be distributed? This request results from an application by
the Oakland Scavenger Company to amend the County Solid Waste Management Plan
to permit importation of San Francisco solid waste and sludge beginning
November 1 , 1988 .
On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the
Council directed Staff to respond that the Dublin City Council felt that
Oakland Scavenger Company should be permitted to import waste from San
Francisco to the Altamont subsequent to 1988 for a 5 year period, and that
any revenue derived from the importation of San Francisco waste go to the
Solid Waste Management Authority, and further , the Authority be given the
discretion to disburse those funds including reimbursement to those agencies
that incur substantial road repair costs related to the importation of the
San Francisco waste .
GENERAL PLAN PROGRAM
REVIEW OF WORKING PAPER NO. 1
Mr . Tong explained that as part of the Dublin General Plan program, Staff and
the General Plan Consultant , Mr . John Blayney have prepared the Working Paper _
No . 1 , reviewing the existing conditions and planning issues within the City.
On July 12 , 1983 , the Planning Commission conducted a citizen ' s workshop, at
which time a number of citizens participated and provided some valuable
input . On July 18 , 1983 , the Planning Commission discussed the issues and
forwarded the issues to the City Council for review and comment . Staff
prepared an annotated list of those issues, which was included in the City
Council ' s packet .
The City Manager explained that this is one of the City Council checkpoints
that was set up in the original procedure .
Under the heading Housing Issues , it was felt that item B . S . Opportunity for
affordable housing on east side of City be changed to delete "on east side of
City" .
Under the heading Housing Issues , it was felt that item B . 8 . Lowering
development standards for affordable housing , the word lowering should be
changed to " review" . _
CM-2-128
Regular Meeting July 25 , 1983
Under the heading Commercial and Industrial Development Issues , it was felt
that item B. 1 . Design review committee to review site development
applications be deleted .
Under Public Facilities Issues , item V. C . 2 "Need to unify school districts"
was deleted.
Under Circulation Issues , item VII . B. 2 "parking congestion in certain parts
of the downtown area" was changed to "Parking congestion - Village Parkway" .
Also under Circulation Issues , the following item was added "Improve access
to downtown from I-580 freeway" .
John Blayney , the General Plan Consultant , requested either 1 ) earlier timing
on the agenda or 2 ) special meetings for future General Plan items . The
Council concurred with scheduling special meetings .
OTHER BUSINESS
LAFCO Group Meeting
Cm. Burton reminded the Council of the meeting being held on August 4 , 1983
at 7 : 30 p.m. at the Palomares School . Mrs . Grace Poulson has invited
representation from the City Council .
ACTEB/ACAP
Cm. Moffatt advised that the Livermore/Amador Work Program will not be funded
next year.
RECESS -TO - EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 1 : 05 a .m. , the Council recessed to closed session for discussion of -
personnel matters .
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
The City Council determined that it desired to increase the salary and
benefits paid to the Planning Director, and adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 37-83
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 24-82
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
CM-2-129
Regular Meeting July 25, 1983
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss , the meeting was adjourned at _--.
1 : 36 a .m.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CM-2-130
Regular Meeting July 25, 1983
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 2 , 1983
An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was
held on Tuesday, August 2 , 1983 in the multipurpose room of Frederiksen
Intermediate School . The meeting was called to order at 7 : 38 p.m. by Mayor
Peter Snyder .
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Hegarty , Jeffery and Mayor Snyder .
Councilmember Moffatt was absent .
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor led the Council , Staff and those present in the pledge of
allegiance to the flag.
PUBLIC HEARING
STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE ASSESSI,,LENT DISTRICT
The Mayor declared the public hearing open.
The City Manager gave a brief presentation on the history of street lighting
in Dublin and the status of the litigation which was pending and could impact
the formation of an assessment district for street lighting. He indicated
that it was Staff ' s recommendation that the City Council adopt a resolution
approving the Engineer ' s Report , confirming the diagram and assessment and
ordering improvements and formation of maintenance assessment district for
street lighting.
The City Engineer reviewed his report , the assessment diagram and assessment
roll . He explained that a zero assessment is recommended for Fiscal Year
1983-84, and the method of assessment that would be used by the City if a
levy were to be made by the City.
Larry Jensen of Jones Hall Hill & White , legal counsel for the district
indicated he would be available to answer any questions that might come up .
Cm. Burton asked if the assessment was based on land area . The City Engineer
replied in the affirmative .
Cm. Jeffery asked if the $125 ,000 was the entire cost which would be incurred
for street lighting . The City Engineer indicated that the $125 ,000 had been
projected by PG&E and City Staff . This amount is used to develop the
assessments . If the amount is too low, the City would have to bear the
difference . if it was too high , the assessments for the following year would
be favorably impacted. -
CM-2-131
Adjourned Regular Meeting August 2 , 1983
Mayor Snyder invited questions from the audience regarding the assessment
district .
Mr . Carr , 8646 Davona Drive , asked if the $125 ,000 cost represented the
current assessment , and if the assessment was equally assessed among all
residents , even though they were not all receiving the same benefit . The
City Manager indicated the present assessment was the 1982-83 assessment , was
less than $125 ,000 and that all residents were equally assessed. Mr. Carr
asked what was the current assessment . The City Engineer indicated it was
presently $16 . 75 and would be increased to $23 . 72 .
Mayor Snyder requested Mr . Jensen to provide an overview of the pending San
Jose litigation.
Mr . Carr asked for clarification regarding the status of the County Service
Area and the reason that the City was being cut off .
Mayor Snyder and Cm. Hegarty explained the past actions of the County and the
Local Agency Formation Commission.
Mr . Carr asked if the district would be used for any other purpose . The City
Manager indicated it would not .
Mr . Bill Davidson, 8622 Davona Drive , asked why it was an assessment rather
than a tax, because an assessment would not be deductible on the income tax
statement .
Martin Locust , 11781 Betlen Drive , asked if there were any areas in Dublin
that had substandard lighting . The City Engineer described those areas which
had deficient street lighting .
Frank Armstrong, 8626 Wicklow Lane , asked about the financing of the District
as it related to the assessment for 1982-83 as compared to 1983-84. He
indicated that he did not see any areas that needed street lighting, and
thought more residents should be notified regarding the assessment district .
He indicated that the assessment district was only a means of circumventing
Proposition 13. He stated that the City should use its surplus to fund
street lighting rather than an assessment .
Ted Impson, 8646 Beverly Lane , asked if there is any legal reason that the
City could not pick up the cost for street lighting.
The City Manager indicated that there were no written protests .
Mayor Snyder invited any persons wishing to make an oral protest of the
assessment district to speak.
Mr . Carr was concerned that adequate notice had not been given to the
community.
Dixie Braggen, 7361 Brookdale felt that the notice on the telephone pole was
confusing .
CM-2-132
Adjourned Regular Meeting August 2 , 1983
Rick Munlane , 7194 Elk Court , stated that the City should incur the costs for
street lighting from the City budget .
Bill Davidson, 8622 Davona Drive , stated that it should be set up as a tax if
at all . He indicated he was against the assessment district .
Ted Impson indicated that the City should spend its funds on street lighting
instead of major street improvements .
The Mayor requested proponents of the assessment district to speak.
Martin Locust indicated he was not protesting the district , but was in favor
of the district because it gave citizens local control on an annual basis .
It provides a year-by-year review of the district .
Mr. . Carr indicated he does not want to see taxes go up any more . Mr . Carr
indicated if it was just for lighting, he was in favor of the district .
Mr . Davidson spoke in opposition to the district .
Mr . Impson asked if the City was considering imposing a utility tax. The
Mayor indicated the City has never considered imposing a utility tax.
Mr . Harkness , 8680 Valencia , indicated he was in favor of increased lighting
and increased savings and supported the district .
The Mayor closed the public hearing .
Cm. Burton indicated that the City Council was preserving its local options
in the future by forming this assessment district .
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, _and by 4-0 vote , the
Council approved:
RESOLUTION NO. 38-83
APPROVING ENGINEER ' s REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM
AND ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND FORMATION
OF A MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
Mayor Snyder explained the next steps involved in the district formation.
The Council directed Staff to notify the County of the City Council ' s action
and requested the County to permit the City to remain in the County Service
Area for one more year .
CM-2-133
Adjourned Regular Meeting August 2 , 1983
OTHER BUSINESS
Press Coverage on City Crime Rate -...
Cm . Burton requested that the City clarify two differing articles on the
City ' s crime rate . Cm. Jeffery suggested that it be placed on a future City
Council agenda .
Housing Conference Report
Cm. Hegarty gave a brief report on his attendance at a recent Housing
Conference .
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council , at 9 : 17 p.m. the
meeting was adjourned .
J,
.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CM-2-134
Adjourned Regular Meeting August 2, 1983