Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.2 Approve 10-24-1983 Minutes REGULAR MEETING - OCTOBER 24 , 1983 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, October 24 , 1983 in the meeting room- of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7 : 31 p .m. by Mayor Snyder ROLL CALL PRESENT : Councilmembers 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. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the minutes of the regular meeting of September 12 , 1983 ; Warrant Register in the amount of $53 , 886 . 64 ; RESOLUTION NO. 58-83 GRANTING A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1711 OF THE BUILDING CODE AND CONFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 2-812 TITLE 24 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CREATES AN UNDUE HARDSHIP (Mr . & Mrs . Robert Karns - 6851 Langmuir Lane) LIBRARY Ms . Alice Pitchford addressed the Council and reported some preliminary statistics related to Monday library usage . She stated she, and all the library supporters and ' Friends of the Library ' very much appreciated the support of the Council in this unprecedented funding of an additional library day . TRAFFIC CONTROL REQUEST DUBLIN BOULEVARD @ CLARK AVENUE & VILLAGE PARKWAY @ LEWIS AVENUE Mr . Jerry Abernathy, Maple Drive, addressed the Council with requests for traffic control and stated that his daughter had been struck by a car while in the crosswalk at Clark Avenue and Dublin Boulevard. CM-2-192 October 24 , 1983 The City Manager explained that as part of the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program, the City Council approved the Sierra Court/Dublin Boulevard traffic signal for 1984-85 . With respect to the Clark Avenue intersection, the City ' s Traffic Engineer has been instructed to make sure that due consideration is given as part of the overall Dublin Boulevard study. This study should be completed in approximately 6 weeks . This study will look at._, the entire scope of Dublin Boulevard from a safety standpoint. Cm. Moffatt felt that perhaps a little more traffic control by the police department should be given to the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection . Street lighting along Dublin Boulevard was discussed. Mr. Ambrose indicated that this was the first request related to the Lewis Avenue/Village Parkway intersection, however, Staff would have TJKM also study this intersection and make recommendations . SOUND BARRIER WALLS (ALONG I-680 ) John Bakron, 7723 Ironwood, addressed the Council on the subject of sound barriers along I-680 , between Amador Valley Boulevard and Alcosta Boulevard. He stated that since 1978 , CalTrans has been saying they were going to put one in, and he was requesting that the City Council help in this effort . Cm. Hegarty reported that the problem with this is that all the projects are put into slots and, unfortunately, sound barriers along this corridor of I-680 is -not in a very high slot as far as priority. The City could, however, lobby to try to improve the slot. The City Manager indicated that because of the proposed widening of I-680 , it was doubted that a sound wall could even be considered prior to the actual widening. Sound walls are very expensive, approximately $150 - $200 per linear foot. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SEMINAR Mr . Len Magnani reminded the Council and members of the audience that on Tuesday, November 8 , 1983 , the Chamber of Commerce is having a meeting with regard to growth and Dublin ' s place in that growth. The meeting will be at Howard Johnson ' s from 7 : 30 a.m. to 9 : 30 a.m. Speakers from Bishop Ranch and Hacienda Business Park, as well as a prestigious panel from the City of Dublin will be present. CM-2-193 Regular Meeting October 24 , 1983 CURFEW ORDINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING The City Manager indicated that Staff had made the corrections to this ordinance that were requested at the time the ordinance was introduced. Mr. Ambrose further reported that Staff had met with the owner of the AM/PM Mini-Mart with respect to that particular situation . Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing . John Bakron spoke in favor of the ordinance . Harry Day spoke in favor of the ordinance_ On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the _ Council agreed to change the title of the ordinance from curfew to anti- loitering, or an ordinance prohibiting loitering in public places . The City Attorney felt there was no problem with whatever the Council wished to call the ordinance, as the courts would look to the substance rather than the title of the law. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the reading was waived and ordinance adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 12 - 83 PROHIBITING LOITERING IN PUBLIC AND OTHER PLACES PA 83-035 AMADOR LAKES, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING Planning Director Tong presented staff report, stating that Mr. Mark Rafanelli and Mr. Ronald Nahas have applied for a Planned Development rezoning and Tentative Map to allow a 555 unit residential condominium project . The project would include 69 two story buildings, three one story buildings, with related parking, a recreational lake, and landscaped open space . The project would be located on a 39 acre site west of the proposed extension of Stagecoach Road and north of Amador Valley Boulevard. The proposed density is 14 . 2 dwelling units per acre . The project site was part of the 1486th Zoning Unit Planned Development, commonly referred to as the "KREMCO" project. The KREMCO Planned Development required that : a) at least 2/3 of the units on the site be attached and clustered; b) densities may range from 6 to 14 units per acre; and c) a new Planned Development rezoning be processed. The KREMCO Planned Development also included a number of conditions of approval such as the extension of Stagecoach Road to Alcosta Boulevard. The basic issues which needed to be addressed were: CM-2-194 Regular Meeting October 24, 1983 Park Dedication - the City Council should determine how the park dedication requirement should be met ; and Environmental Concerns - 1 ) extending and landscaping Stagecoach Road to Alcosta Boulevard; paying 1/2 the signal cost at Stagecoach Road and Amador Valley Boulevard; and paying $83 , 000 toward improvements along Amador Valley Boulevard; 2 ) designing, building and maintaining the lake according to expert recommendations ; 3 ) providing energy conservation features to meet State and PG&E energy standards . At the Planning Commission meeting, several residents of the Sunny Glen senior adult community requested consideration of a 6 ' high sound wall . The applicant indicated he would consider solid fencing. Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. The applicants showed a slide presentation depicting similar developments to the one being proposed in Dublin . The 3/4 acre park site was discussed. Mr . Cliff Fuller, a resident of the Sunnyglen Adult Community, representing the Board of Directors, expressed concerns related to the type of fencing being proposed. Future treatment of the continuation of Stagecoach Road was discussed. This will run alongside the Sunnyglen Community. Ms . Judy Olson questioned the impact that all this new development would have on Dublin ' s schools . Ms . Olson also conveyed concerns related to traffic on Dougherty Road and questioned where all the water would go in the event of an earthquake . Mr. Phil Flores had questions related to the small parcel that was to be given to the Sunnyglen residents . Mr. Flores stated the Sunnyglen people did not wish to accept the dedication of this land. The Planning Director clarified that if the Council wished to eliminate the dedication of Lot #152 to the Sunnyglen Homeowner' s Group, .a specific general provision would have to be added to the ordinance. Consensus was that the Sunnyglen residents should be given an opportunity to decide on this issue as a group. Mr . Vincent Delworth had concerns related to the type of fencing that will be used. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Hegarty stated he felt this to be a good development. The traffic signal on Amador Valley Boulevard was discussed. CM-2-195 Regular Meeting October 24 , 1983 On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council determined that the park dedication requirements should be met by fees and land with improvements and that the City of Dublin should provide the park and recreational services . On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 59-83 ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONCERNING PA 83-035 - AMADOR LAKES On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the Planned Development rezoning subject to the conditions of approval as drafted and with changes discussed related to non dedication of Lot 152 to the Sunnyglen Homeowner ' s Association ( subject to confirmation by the Sunnyglen Board of Directors ) . The City Attorney also indicated that this could be handled at the time of the approval of the final map. RECESS A short recess was called. All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened. SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN - APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS On September 26 , 1983 , the City Council directed Staff to develop a list of definitions for the permitted uses and prohibited uses in the San Ramon Road Specific Plan . Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. David Burton, Dillon Way, addressed the Council and suggested that a C-1 zoning should be used. Richard Weevie felt it to be essential to have some flexibility with regard to personal services . Mr . Weavie indicated he and Mr. Jeha had appeared before the Planning Commission with regard to their proposal last week. Mr. Len Magnani , Western Development Services, questioned why the area could not be zoned as C-1 with restrictions . Cm. Moffatt indicated he had a lot of problems with the definitions and made a motion not to accept definitions as prepared. Cm. Moffatt stated he felt convinced that San Ramon Road should go back to a C-1 classification. The motion died for lack of a second. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majority vote, the Council accepted definitions . Voting NO on this motion was Cm. Moffatt. CM-2-196 Regular Meeting October 24 , 1983 On motion of Cm. Jeffery , seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 60 - 83 ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONCERNING PA 83-063 SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by majority vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 61 - 83 ADOPTING PA 83-063 SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS Voting NO on this motion was Cm. Moffatt . OLD ST. RAYMOND ' S CHURCH LETTER FROM AMADOR-LIVERMORE VALLEY HISTORICAL SOCIETY The City has received a letter from Alan B. Campbell, President of the Amador-Livermore Valley Historical Society inquiring as to whether the City is interested in participating in the protection of the old St. Raymond' s Church . Mayor Snyder felt the property should remain in the hands of those who have a strong interest in that building. He felt there was a very poor working relationship between the Amador-Livermore Valley Historical Society and the Dublin Historical Preservation Association. The DHPA has offered to operate the church, or to do something with it, if they were to be given certain title to it, as well as earmarked funds for its restoration. Cm. Moffatt .suggested the City take over and lease or own, whatever, and turn over to one of the historical organizations for the rehabilitation and restoration and maintenance . He felt it would be prudent on the part of the City, thru its Park & Recreation Commission to oversee this . On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to turn over to Park & Recreation Commission for recommendation to City Council as far as what to do. The Commission should reconcile problem and offer alternatives . Council felt they would like to see the Amador-Livermore Valley Historical Society do something. NOISE ORDINANCE Staff has received a request from Nidel Day, 8078 Marquita Court, to address the City Council regarding the adoption of a noise ordinance . At its meeting of October 10 , 1983 , the City Council tabled action on a noise ordinance indefinitely . CM-2-197 Regular Meeting October 24 , 1983 Ms . Day requested a more generalized ordinance, rather than just addressing audio noises, and further, that it cover a 24 hour a day period. Ms . Day indicated she had done a neighborhood survey, and the results were that several people would like to ,see a noise control ordinance adopted in Dublin . The use of decibel meters was discussed. Lorraine Scott, resident of Arroyo Vista indicated they have a noise ordinance that works quite effectively, and urged the Council to act quickly in adopting such an ordinance . Harry Day, Marquita Court, felt a noise ordinance should be considered on behalf of the children who are growing up in an atmosphere where there is a total distain for the public good. Judy Olson felt people should be careful not to overdo this situation . Some noises , she felt were more innocent annoyances , i .e . lawnmowers, chainsaws , perhaps barking dogs . People should be encouraged to go to their neighbors at least once and let them know if they are bothered by noise . Mayor Snyder felt that regardless of what the City does, residents will always have the option of pursuing civil action. The City Attorney stated there were some constitutional problems and that he was working with the "reasonable man" standard, but felt confident that Staff could come up with some type of ordinance that could pass a constitutionality test . Consensus of Council was to direct Staff to bring back samples of other city ' s ordinances and present at the City Council meeting of November 28 , 1983 . FALLON SCHOOL & KOLB PARK SITE ACQUISITION In accordance with City Council direction, Staff has met with representatives of the Murray School District to discuss the City ' s interest in acquiring the Fallon School and Kolb Park site . At that meeting, the School District indicated interest in maximizing the amount of money it could receive through the purchase of the site . School District representatives indicated these funds were needed to upgrade school facilities throughout the rest of the District. Since that meeting, the City received a letter from the School District offices indicating that the School Board of Trustees had extended by 45 days the period of time in which the City has to respond with a proposal for the purchase of the site . The School District ' s intent is to maximize the dollars they can get from the site . Discussion was held related to the Naylor Bill . CM-2-198 Regular Meeting October 24 , 1983 Cm. Jeffery asked for clarification on certain points related to the Naylor Bill . Discussion was held related to splitting the site, and only pursuing the acquisition of the Fallon site . Cm. Jeffery didn ' t feel the City should pay the cost for an appraiser. The City Attorney explained that it would be advantageous for the City to have its own appraiser in order to have a tool with which to bargain, if the City decides to purchase the site : Cm. Hegarty felt the 14 acres being discussed was going to be very expensive property, and further, that if the City couldn ' t use the Naylor Bill to obtain the property, then the matter should be dropped. Staff was directed to ascertain whether the City can qualify under provisions of Naylor Bill . On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the 'Council directed Staff to request that Murray School District give City an extension of time adequate to conduct negotiations for acquisition of Fallon and Kolb Park site . BART EXTENSION STUDY FINAL REPORT At its meeting of October 10 , 1983 , the City Council received a report from the City Traffic Engineer highlighting the transportation issues which the City is presently faced with. As part of that presentation, the City Traffic Engineer briefly reviewed the draft final report for the Livermore-Pleasanton BART Extension Study. The City Council directed Staff to formulate a position for the City and return this item to the City Council at its meeting of October 24 , 1983 for further consideration. Since the last meeting, Staff has received some clarification from the BART Staff with respect to its request for the City' s comments . The BART Staff has indicated that there will be a public hearing period after the Technical Advisory Committee meeting on October 27 , 1983 in order to receive additional input from the public . The City Traffic Engineer prepared a draft letter on behalf of City Staff which discusses the major issues and concerns of the City of Dublin with respect to the BART Livermore-Pleasanton Extension Study. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, Council directed Staff to forward those comments in draft letter thru its Technical Advisory Committee representative to the Bay Area Rapid Transit District . Council also directed Staff to provide a copy of the letter to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce . CM-2-199 Regular Meeting October 24 , 1983 STREET NAME AND APPROACH SIGN & BUSINESS AREA STREET NUMBER SIGN PROJECTS As part of the 1983-84 Capital Improvement Budget, the City Council approved a Street Name and Approach Sign Project totalling $17 , 000 and a Business Area Street Number Sign Project totalling $8 , 000 . The Street Name and Approach Sign Project would provide for the installation of 35 reflective street name signs to traffic signal mast arms and 16 reflective street name signs in approaches of major intersections on arterial streets . The Business Area Street Number Sign Project would provide for the installation of 51 block number signs in medians and in the parkways throughout the commercial district. The City Council discussed the option of modifying the plans and specifi- cations to provide for internally lit street name signs . On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, Staff was authorized to advertise for bids for the project as originally proposed with a bid opening date of Monday, December 5 , 1983 at 10 : 00 a.m. FEDERAL AID URBAN PROGRAM The City Manager gave a report related to the Federal Aid Urban Program. The City of Dublin was allocated $249 , 952 in Federal Aid Urban Funds upon its incorporation. Last year, the City was allocated $140 , 048 in Federal Aid Urban Funds through its participation in the Tri-Valley Urbanized Sub-Area with the Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton and the unincorporated area of Alameda County . Therefore, the City has been allocated, thus far, $390, 000 in Federal Aid Urban Funds . These funds have been included in the City' s Capital Improvement Program for funding of the following projects : 1) Dublin Boulevard - Rehabilitation - San Ramon Road to Flood Control Channel ; 2 ) Amador Valley Boulevard - Rehabilitation - San Ramon Road to Donahue Drive; 3 ) Village Parkway - Rehabilitation - Amador Valley Boulevard to Dublin Boulevard. This year, the City Engineer applied for Federal Aid Urban funding for the widening of San Ramon Road between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard. Both of these projects have been included in the City ' s Capital Improvement Program with the anticipation that funds would primarily come from the General Fund. The City was successful in competing with the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton for these funds . The Alameda County Transportation Advisory Committee has recommended allocation of Federal Aid Urban funds for these two projects in the amount of $405, 000 . On October 19 , 1983 , the Alameda County City Manager' s Group reviewed the proposed FAU Program for the County, and also recommended approval of the two Dublin projects . These projects have yet to be approved by the Mayor' s Conference, the Board of Supervisors , MTC, Caltrans, and the Federal Highway ' s Administration. CM-2-200 Regular Meeting October 24, 1983 It appears very likely that Federal Aid Urban funds for these two projects will be approved and thus reduce the cost of construction to the General Fund. OTHER BUSINESS Sphere of Influence - LAFCO Report Discussion was held related to sending a letter to all property owners within the proposed sphere, explaining the process that the City must go through in order to have its sphere of influence established. Cm. Jeffery suggested sending a card that can be returned, and the inclusion of a stamped self- addressed envelope . Staff was directed to identify the issues in the LAFCO report and report back to Council at its meeting of November 14 , 1983 Seminar - League of California Cities Cm. Jeffery suggested sending a letter to the League of California Cities and the Mayor and Councilmember ' s Division of the League addressing the poor quality of the October League Conference held in San Francisco. Valley Mental Health Facility Cm.. -Moffatt reported that the County Health Agency is proposing to undertake a study to determine if the services at Valley Mental Health Facility in Pleasanton can be reduced. Cm. Moffatt requested that a letter be written opposing a reduction in the level of mental health services to Valley residents Council concurred that this opposition letter be written. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council , at 11 : 50 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to an adjourned regular meeting on November 1, 1983 . Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CM-2-201 Regular Meeting October 24, 1983