Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.1 Approve 05-26-1987 Minutes • REGULAR MEETING - May 26, 1987 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Tuesday, May 26, 1987 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7: 34 p.m. by Mayor Linda Jeffery. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Moffatt, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Jeffery. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle- giance to the flag. * * * * Introduction of Senior Planner Staff introduced Rod Barger, newly appointed Senior Planner. * * * * Noise Ordinance Norma Lerma, 7725 Hillrose Drive, said when she responded to the citation issued related to the Animal Fancier' s Permit, she was arrested for traffic violations and subsequently was also told she would be booked at Santa Rita because of the violation of the noise ordinance. In response to an inquiry from Mayor Jeffery, Mr. Nave advised that this issue was separate than the Animal Fancier' s Permit public hearing item, which appeared later in the agenda, and should be handled separately. In response to a statement by Ms . Lerma, both the City Manager and the Mayor assured her she did not need to fear harassment from the Police Department or City of Dublin. . Ms . Lerma indicated that she had been given a notice to appear in court for two different purposes, once for the criminal offense related to the noise ordinance, and once on traffic violations, but that both dates were the same. Mr. Nave stated that if Ms. Lerma was scheduled in two different courts at the same time, it was not the function of City Staff to resolve that problem for her. She was advised to contact the District Attorney' s Office for assistance on this issue. CM-6-149 Regular Meeting May 26, 1987 Y Ms . Lenora Holmes, Hillrose resident, said that on a number of occasions the Police Department and Animal Control had cited Ms . Lerma for animals that were not hers . Mayor Jeffery reminded Ms . Holmes that this issue would be discussed as a public hearing item later in the meeting. Ms . Laura Aguilar, 7725 Hillrose Drive, referred to several instances when the Police Department cited Ms . Lerma regarding animal disturbances and as a result, Ms . Lerma had gone to the appropriate agency in an attempt to resolve the problems . Ms. Aguilar expressed particular concern regarding one occasion, during which Ms . Lerma was babysitting for Ms. Aguilar ' s daughter, when the Police Department refused to let Ms. Lerma return to her vehicle to obtain and present to them the proof that she was authorized to care for Ms . Aguilar' s daughter, but instead placed the child with a neighbor and booked Ms. Lerma. Mayor Jeffery advised Ms . Aguilar that her concerns must be dealt with by the District Attorney' s office. A Dublin resident asked that the record show that Ms . Aguilar' s family had not been harassed and that Ms . Augilar was not in danger. * * * * CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions : Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 11, 1987; Appointed Ms. Peggy Taylor and Ms . Deborah Gay as Tenant Commissioners for the Dublin Housing Authority. Authorized the use of the City of Dublin Logo on the Alameda County Fair Flag. Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 34 - 87 ESTABLISHING AN INSURANCE RESERVE FUND Authorized a City Representative to attend the Preview of the Alameda County Fine Arts Program and to purchase art work for the City offices not to exceed $500 in cost. Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $385, 639. 39. Received a report regarding the transfer of ownership of the Oakland Scavenger Company to Waste Management, Inc. CM-6-150 Regular Meeting May 26, 1987 Approved Financial Report for Period Ending April 30, 1987. * * * * ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES The City has received a request from Edward Galigher, Forward Planner with Kaufman & Broad, to refund administrative overhead fees collected on engineering work performed by contractors on behalf of the City of Dublin. Administrative charges are a normal and usual portion of the cost of services. The actual cost of inspection includes both direct and administrative costs . The City Attorney has recommended that the Council take no action, thereby reaffirming their position that Staff should continue to recover 100% of total actual costs of rendering services so long as the fees do not exceed the reasonable costs of providing the associated services . Staff advised that the Council accept the City Attorney's Statement and take no action. Mr. Ed Galigher, Forward Planner for Kaufman & Broad, commended Staff for their efforts and responses in regards to his request. He said that usually some form of written documentation, such as a resolution or an ordinance, was presented to a developer indicating fees which may be charged. He indicated that he had not received such notification regarding the 25% surcharge on engineering expenses . Mr. Galigher stated his concurrence with the concept of developers paying for City overhead costs, and said that he did not think the Santina & Thompson charges were extraordinary. He asked for clarification on how the City arrived at a 25% surcharge. Mr. Galigher said he did not. think the developer should be required to pay an administrative fee for office space, clerical assistance, heating, lighting and other such expenses as outlined in the City Attorney' s memorandum of May 5, 1987, as the developer is already paying for the actual engineering services . In su_*amary, Mr. Galigher requested clarification on the following items : 1) what does the 25% surcharge consist of, 2 ) why wasn't Kaufman & Broad notified of this requirement before commencement of the project, 3) by what mechansim does the City charge the developer fees two years in arrears without notice. Mr. Phil Molina, Finance Director, suggested that Mr. Galigher meet with him for specific details regarding the 25% surcharge. He advised that the City' s actual overhead expenses related to the Kaufman & Broad project exceeded the 25% surcharge. He indicated that he thought the developer had been notified in advance of the fee, and said that some type of documentation could be prepared to specifically outline to developers the requirement of the 25% surcharge. Staff clarified that it would not be possible to predict the actual costs of a project in advance. A resolution had been approved previously which indicated that actual costs would be charged to the developer. Major CM-6-151 Regular Meeting May 26, 1987 problems arose in regards to the Kaufman & Broad project and as a result, expenses incurred by the City may have been twice that for which the developer was actually billed. It was the consensus of the Council to follow Staff ' s and the City Attorney' s recommendation, and no action was taken on this item. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING SALE OF EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE FISHERY RESTAURANT Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that on April 27, 1987, the Council set a hearing date on the sale of . 086 acre of City property along San Ramon Road, north of Amador Valley Boulevard, fronting the property owned by The Fishery Restaurant. The owners of The Fishery have requested to purchase this property for parking purposes and have agreed to the City' s price of $8. 50 per square foot. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 35 -. 87 APPROVING SALE OF CITY PROPERTY TO THE FISHERY AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO CONSUMMATE THE AGREEMENT * * * * PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE RELATED TO FLY CONTROL Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. This ordinance, which was introduced at the April 27, 1987 Council meeting, would make it unlawful for a person to create, allow or maintain a fly nuisance, allow waste to become a harborage or food source for rodents, or result in the unreasonable production of odors . The ordinance would also authorize the City Manager or other authorized agents to enter property to investigate conditions which may produce fly nuisance, rodent harborage or odor. The ordinance authorizes the City Manager to abate the nuisance. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 30 - 87 RELATING TO FLY. CONTROL * * * * CM-6-152 Regular Meeting May 26, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING ANIMAL FANCIER'S PERMIT Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. City Council Ordinance 27-87, which took effect on April 13, 1987, established regulations for Animal Control activities . Prior to that action, the County of Alameda Animal Control Department had been processing the appeal of an Animal Fancier' s permit pursuant to the County Ordinance. The appeal was inadvertently scheduled before the Board of Supervisors. The County Council removed the item and directed it to the City of Dublin prior to action by the County Board of Supervisors, as the Board did not have jurisdiction to rule on the appeal. At the time the appeal was brought to Staff' s attention, the City was in the process of revising this section of the municipal ordinances . Therefore, the City Attorney recommended holding the application until the revised ordinance was adopted. On April 17, 1987, the City of Dublin received an application for an Animal Fancier' s Permit from M. Laura Aguilar to maintain four dogs at 7725 Hillrose Drive, including one German Shepherd, one Malamute, and two German Shepherd/ Malamutes. Because the City had already received a fee for the original application, the fee for the current one was waived. On November 25, 1986, Alameda County Animal Control conducted an inspection to ascertain whether a permit should be issued to the applicant in accordance with Alameda County Ordinances. The permit was denied due to the findings referenced in their report. A follow-up inspection was conducted on May 1, 1987, in response to the permit request submitted in accordance with City of Dublin Ordinance 27- 87. The City Manager denied the request for the Animal Fancier ' s Permit. A letter from the City Manager dated May 6, 1987, contains the findings on which the denial was based. Citations were issued to the applicant by the Police Department on two occasions related to excessive noise. On May 8, 1987, four dogs were impounded, but were released on May 12, pursuant to compliance with conditions shown in a letter from the Police Chief dated May 12, 1987. Condition #3 of that letter did not permit returning the animals to 7725 Hillrose Drive unless an Animal Fancier' s Permit was issued. Staff advised that a representative from Animal Control had inspected the residence today and had observed four dogs on the property. It had not been determined whether the four animals were new ones or were among the original ones kept at that residence. The only purpose for the inspection was to determine the number of animals present. Sgt. Eugene McCall, Supervisor - Animal Control, was present in the audience to answer questions regarding this item. CM-6-153 Regular Meeting May 26, 1987 Staff recommended that the City Council uphold the denial of the Animal Fancier's Permit. Ms. Laura Aguilar, resident at 7725 Hillrose Drive and applicant .for the Animal Fancier Permit, said that although Staff's report was extensive, additional circumstances existed which had not been discussed. She addressed the issue of existence of fesces on the property, and advised that the property was cleared of the fesces on a daily basis. She said Mr. Juarez of the Health Department had visited her property and that his reports indicate he did not observe any violations. She said his visit was unsolicited. Regarding the barking, Ms. Aguilar indicated that when the Police Department received complaints family emergencies had occurred which prevented anyone from being at home to quiet the dogs. She said reasons why the dogs bark so much is because of a neighbor who uses a dog whistle to provoke them when no one is home, because of children who reside behind her house who at one time jumped the fence and played with the dogs, but because she had asked the parents not to permit them to do that, the children now throw rocks at the dogs, and because another neighbor throws broken dishes into the yard. Ms. Aguilar addressed the concern related to the dogs being "at large" . She said when they were puppies they had jumped the fence. Since then, a higher fence was built, and the fence was reinforced, which eliminated the problem of the dogs getting loose. Ms. Aguilar indicated that she thought the problems had been resolved with her neighbors, with the exception of the one using the dog whistle, and said she thought the dogs and the complaints to Animal Control were being used to harass her. She stated that Animal Control could verify that the dogs which were running loose were not hers. Ms. Aguilar said she had requested an Animal Fancier's Permit for four dogs and would like approval for that number. One of her dogs is crippled and remains inside the house. The other one is the mother of the younger dogs. One of the two younger dogs is sick. She said she did not want the animals destroyed. She said there is no reason to fear the dogs, that children play with them. She stated that she had done everything possible to maintain a quiet residence. John .Rayotti, Dublin resident, said his name appears on the list of complainants at last once, and possibly more often, for several reasons, two of which include the odor and fly problems resulting from the dogs. He advised that the children who live directly behind the house have only been there for three months and are too young to have climbed the fence to play with the dogs, that the previous owners did not have children, and that the owners prior to that time also had children too young to have climbed the fence. He indicated that his children were older but did not play with the dogs, and stated that the neighbor kitty-corner to the Aguilar residence had older children, but he did not think those children played with the dogs either. CM-6-154 Regular Meeting May 26, 1987 Mr. Rayotti made reference to an argument between his wife and Ms. Aguilar in the presence of Animal Control Staff, and expressed his concern regarding disturbances created as a result of dogs barking at 3 : 30 a.m. Mayor Jeffery requested that Mr. Rayotti address the Councilmembers rather than Ms. Aguilar. Mr. Rayotti said that at one time he had counted 13 dogs on Ms. Aguilar's property. He said that the fences on the corners, which extended three feet, were not new, but that the existing fence had been patched. He said the fence in the back was chicken wire. Mr. Rayotti strongly recommended that the City Council adopt Staff's recommendation to uphold the denial. Robert Box, resident on Hillrose Drive, said he did not think anything had been done to cause Ms. Aguilar to feel threatened. He expressed concern regarding the dissention between the neighbors as a result of the problems with the dogs. He said he had been an eyewitness to the dogs almost harming someone, and referred to an incident when the dogs had backed a teacher and children from a day care center against a van. He expressed concern about the flies in the neighborhood and complained about odor problems. He said that Ms. Aguilar had installed a fence higher than that permitted to prevent the dogs from getting over the fence. He stated that he did not believe the dogs would not go over the fence. Ms. Holmes, Hillrose resident, said she doesn't hear the barking of the dogs as she lives down the street, but she didn't understand why, if Mr. Box felt the dogs may be dangerous, he would let Ms. Aguilar babysit for his children at her house. She referred to two occasions when she witnessed two dogs running loose - one time the dogs being a German Shepherd and Black Lab and the other time the dogs being a German Shepherd and a Spaniel - and indicated that neither occurrence invovled Ms. Aguilar's dogs, but that each time she was issued a citation from Animal Control. She said that she did not think that all of the citations issued were fair. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Hegarty, Sgt. McCall discussed the procedure followed with the impound truck. At the time the animals are picked up and impounded, Animal Control attempts to locate the owner and return the animal to him or her while the truck is still in the area. If the owner cannot be located, a note will be left on the door which appears to be the animal 's residence. For clarification purposes, Staff noted that only one citation had actually been referenced in regards to the dogs running at large. The other references had to do with warnings issued regarding complaints received from neighbors. However, several citations were issued as a result of the dogs not appearing to be properly licensed. Ms. Aguilar advised that licenses had been obtained for each of the dogs, but that Ms. Lerma did not know where they were kept and could not present them to the Animal Control officer. Regarding Mr. Box's CM-6-155 Regular Meeting May 26, 1987 comments, Ms. Aguilar said she had kept his children one weekend while he and his wife attended a wedding. She made additional comments -regarding arguments between herself and Mr. Box. Mayor Jeffery asked Ms. Aguilar to restrict her comments to the appropriate issue. Ms. Aguilar said she had introduced the concept of fly traps to Mr. Box. She indicated that Juanita Stagner had inspected the fence and seemed to think it was adequate. She said the chicken wire was added on top of the wooden fence to keep the dogs from jumping over. She stated that she did not think the dogs had ever attacked a group of children and asked that she be contacted by the teacher who was allegedly nearly attacked by the dogs. Ms. Aguilar indicated that she had spoken with a neighbor, Mr. Schuben, who said when she had last spoken with him, that he had no problems with her keeping the dogs. He was not able to attend the meeting to support her request. Sgt. McCall said he has been involved with this case since it first existed over a year ago. At that time Ms. Aguilar had 9 dogs at her house, and she had indicated to him that she would make every effort to have the dogs adopted out. However, it took a long time for that to occur. He said he had received a number of barking and odor complaints regarding the dogs, and that Animal Control had been accused of not doing their job. Sgt. McCall said he had personally visited the residence and that no one was at home, the dogs were barking, and the neighbors were upset. He said this has been an on-going problem. He indicated that most of the time before the Health Department visits a site the residents are pre-warned. Sgt. McCall advised that his officers had visited the residence unannounced and verified the presence of fesces throughout the entire yard. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Moffatt, Mr. Rankin verified that an inspection of Ms. Aguilar's residence had occurred today for the purpose of determining whether or not the City's ordinance which requires an Animal Fancier's Permit for more than two dogs was still in violation. Mr. Nave pointed out that the ordinance requires that a denial of the Animal Fancier's Permit could be made based upon any one of the findings not being met. Staff advised that in order for the permit to be granted, all of the findings outlined in the ordinance must be met. Mr. Nave indicated that if the fence which had been referenced was over six feet in height, it was in violation of the City's ordinance. CM-6-156 Regular Meeting May 26, 1987 Cm. Hegarty expressed concern that the dogs were not wearing the licenses at the time Ms. Lerma was issued the license citations. It was noted that one of the purposes of the licenses is to indicate whether or not the dogs had received the appropriate rabies shots. Cm. Hegarty and Cm. Vonheeder indicated that the findings could not be met. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by a unanimous vote, the Council upheld City Manager's denial of an Animal Fancier's Permit to maintain four dogs at 7725 Hillrose Drive and denied the appeal. Cm. Snyder stated that he thought the most important thing relative to this issue was the maintenance of peace and tranquility in the neighborhood. Mr. Nave said it would be appropriate for the Council to establish a time by which the dogs must be removed from the premises. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Hegarty, Ms. Aguilar said she did not know what resources were available regarding the disposition of the dogs and indicated that she wanted to discuss this further with her children. Cm. Hegarty suggested three weeks may be a reasonable length of time in which to require that Ms. Aguilar comply with the Council 's action. Mayor Jeffery suggested the Ms. Aguilar 'be given an opportunity to find a place for the dogs during the weekend and that they be required to be removed by Monday (June 1, 1987) . Ms. Aguilar advised that she did not believe that was a reasonable period of time. Cm. Vonheeder suggested a 30-day time frame be established. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by a unanimous vote, the Council established a period ending two weeks from this meeting during which the dogs must be removed from Ms. Aguilar's premises. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING - DUBLIN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. She indicated that because of the number of items remaining on the agenda, discussion on this issue would be limited to one hour. Staff called attention to replacement page 33, which was attached to the end of the Staff Report and which should be inserted into the Draft Plans. CM-6-157 Regular Meeting May 26, 1987 The General Plan established a goal of maintaining the downtown area as the commercial center of the Tri-Valley area. To implement this goal, the City Council appointed the Downtown Improvement Study Committee, made up of local business persons, citizens and a Chamber of Commerce representative. To help provide planning, engineering and architectural expertise, the Council approved the hiring of 3 consultant firms: Wurster, Bernardi & Emmons, TJKM, and Laventhol & Horwath. On February 19, 1987, the Downtown Improvement Study Committee reviewed a Draft Plan, made several revisions, and recommended approval of the Draft Plan as revised. The Planning Commission, after considering the Draft Plan at two meetings, recommended several modifications. On April 6, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending adoption of the Negative Declaration and adoption of the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan and associated General Plan Amendment as modified. The Draft Plan has 5 major sections: Specific Plan Policies; Circulation/ Parking; Development Plan, including Land Use and Central Block Improvements; Urban Design Improvements; and Implementation. The primary goal of the Draft Plan is to maintain and further develop the downtown area as a vital and competitive regional retail center. Specific focuses in the Draft Plan include: - Central Block improvements around the Mervyn's-Ward' s (Toys R Us) -Gemco (Target) area - Restaurant Row concept along Amador Plaza Road - Joint promotional program for downtown businesses - Urban Design Improvements, including Entry Signage, Banners, Landscape and Street Furniture - Public and Private Sector implementation, including identification of about $3 million in new projects/programs. Larry Cannon, Wurster, Bernardi & Emmons, discussed the process used in arriving at the conclusions outlined within the Draft Downtown Plan, and said a market analysis, traffic analysis, and physical analysis had been performed relative to the downtown area. He said during the course of the study the following items had surfaced: 1) a great number of properties held in large corporation ownership; 2) there is a possibility that as the value of land increases, auto dealerships may vacate the land and it may be sold or used for other purposes; 3) it was discovered that more parking than would be necessary to serve uses outlined in the Draft Plan exists in the downtown area; 4) only a limited amount of potential public area exists. Mr. Cannon gave an overview of the elements contained within the Draft Plan. Mr. Cannon referred to comments from Bedford Properties, outlined in a letter from William Bopf, dated May 19, 1987, and recommended that if the Council make any revisions related to Mr. Bopf's request, they be limited to page 29 (Zone 3 : Regional Transit Mixed Uses) of the Draft Plan rewording the text to read "Commercial uses and transit-related parking" . CM-6-158 Regular Meeting May 26, 1987 He urged the Councilmembers to consider future potential uses of the referenced property, rather than the short term, and advised that in the future it is possible the property may be developed for more intensive use. o Regarding page 36, Table C, Development Standards, Mr. Cannon advised that it was the suggestion of the Planning Commission that a maximum 45 ' height limit be permitted in Zones 3 and 4. He noted that Zone 5 should not be asterisked. Mr. Cannon discussed the concept of a restaurant row and said it would be possible to infill additional buildings off Amador Plaza Road without requiring additional parking. Cm. Hegarty expressed concern regarding the possibility of a shortage of parking in the future if the infill occurs and additional parking is not provided. He referred to the Fry's shopping complex and mentioned the parking shortage which occurred when Orchard Supply Hardware occupied that building. Mr. Cannon said the committee had been very conscious of that possibility. He discussed a survey taken during the Christmas holidays which verified an excess of parking, and indicated that TJKM had also performed a cross check of standards from other cities, and the conclusion was the same, that there was excessive parking. In response to a concern expressed by Cm. Snyder, Staff indicated a meeting had been held with corporate representatives from Circuit City, during which time there was discussion related to possible future infill on that property. Circuit City staff assumed a "wait and see" attitude, and indicated they could not commit to future development at this time. Mr. Cannon referred to the strategies outlined within the Implementation Plan, and discussed different funding mechanisms which may be available as means of achieving City goals. Mayor Jeffery asked for comments from the audience. Mark King, member of the Board of Directors of Arbor Creek Circle Home Owners Association, said his purpose for attending the meeting was to discuss the possibility of the installation of illuminated street signs on traffic signals. He asked if the Councilmembers had considered utilizing signs that were similar to those on Alcosta Boulevard and San Ramon Road. He indicated that he was particularly concerned with Silvergate Drive. Mayor Jeffery indicated that this subject may be more appropriately addressed during the public hearing regarding San Ramon Road Improvements. Mr. King proposed that the illuminated street signs be installed in the downtown area also. CM-6-159 Regular Meeting May 26, 1987 Mr. Cannon suggested that if a graphic consultant is hired, he be assigned the responsibility of analyzing all of the signage throughout the City and develop a proposal that would be consistent specifically throughout the downtown area. Cm. Hegarty requested that, because of the importance of the Draft Plan, the Council continue discussion of the Draft Dublin Downtown Specific Plan at a special meeting during which no additional agenda items would need to be handled. The rest of the Councilmembers concurred with Cm. Hegarty. In response from Mayor Jeffery regarding the timing of adoption of the budget, Mr. Ambrose advised that the majority of the items identified within the Draft Plan are discussed within the Capital Improvement Program, and that those costs which have not been developed, will not be developed prior to the time the 1987-88 budget must be adopted. In addition, he indicated that the Council had the ability to modify the budget if necessary. By a unanimous consensus, the Council continued discussion of the Draft Dublin Downtown until July 21, 1987, at 7 :00 p.m. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING SAN RAMON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, PHASES III and IV Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Lee Thompson, City Engineer introduced Nina Caputo, Court Recorder, and advised that Caltrans required a verbatim transcript of this public hearing. The hearing was held to present current studies regarding the location and design of a 1. 0 mile improvement of San Ramon Road, consisting of road widening, signalization, lighting, and landscaping. The proposed project is a Federal Aid Urban (FAU) project, receiving funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) , as well as local funding sources. An Environmental Assessment was prepared for this project by Santina & Thompson, Inc. , -who were assisted by other consultants, including TJKM (traffic engineers) and Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. (noise consultants) . Trudi Ryan, Santina & Thompson, explained the contents of the Environmental Assessment Report, and discussed related environmental issues and factors which could impact the project. Charles Salter discussed the process and standards utilized to develop the Noise Study. In addition, he reviewed mitigation measures proposed for properties along San Ramon Road. Staff advised that public comments could be received during the course of the hearing, as well as in written format ten days from the date of the CM-6-160 Regular Meeting May 26, 1987 hearing, but those comments made during the hearing would not be addressed at this meeting. Instead Staff would respond to the comments in writing. Lenora Holmes, 7843 Hillrose Drive, expressed concern for children crossing San Ramon Road to reach Nielsen School. She asked that a study be performed related to safer crossing facilities, and urged the Councilmembers to take the safety needs of the children into consideration before taking action on the proposed project. Barbara Michardi, 7749 Woodren Court, stated that she was dismayed by the project and indicated that she would submit a letter to the City detailing her concerns. She has two young children who would like to be able to cross San Ramon Road, but she did not feel they could safely do SO. She concurred with Mrs. Holmes regarding the need for additional safety measures, and requested that Staff take action to insure the existence of safe crossings by studying and developing ideas more creative than the use of signals. Rick Reschert, 11981 West Vomac Road, requested a guarantee or commitment that if, following the completion of the project, the sound level in his yard is higher than the federal specifications, money would be allocated to correct the problem. He expressed concern regarding the potential increase of sound which could result from installation of the proposed "acceleration lane" . He said he was disturbed by the possibility of additional traffic being funneled down San Ramon Road as a result of implementation of the redevelopment plan. He stated that he had witnessed 10 to 12 accidents at the Vomac intersection during the last several years, and also expressed concern regarding the safety of children crossing that intersection. Mayor Jefferey advised that no action would be taken by the City Council at the meeting, but that the public hearing would remain open for the next 10 days, during which time written comments regarding the San Ramon Road Improvements, Phase III and Phase IV project could be submitted to the City offices. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING FIREARM ORDINANCE Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. The City Attorney's office prepared an ordinance regulating the shooting of firearms within the corporate limits of the City. Any person who fires or discharges any gun, revolver, rifle, pistol, shotgun or firearm of any kind is guilty of a misdemeanor. The ordinance would not apply to peace officers in the performance of their official duties. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by a unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance regulating the shooting of firearms. * * * * CM-6-161 Regular Meeting May 26, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING - PA 87-018 ENEA PLAZA - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING REQUEST Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. On May 4, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted two resolutions which respectively recommended the City Council approve a Negative Declaration for the project and adopt Findings and General Provisions for the Planned Development Rezoning request. On May 20, 1987, the Planning Department received a request from the property owner to continue the project to the June 8, 1987, City Council meeting. Because the public notice had already been given for the item, Staff recommended the City Council hear any comments regarding the item from members of the audience and then continue the item to the June 8, 1987, City Council meeting. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. By a unanimous consensus, the Council continued PA 87-018 Enea Plaza - Planned Development Rezoning request to the June 8, 1987, meeting. * * * * CITY OF DUBLIN MEMBERSHIP IN THE DUBLIN SISTER CITY ASSOCIATION Staff advised that Claudia McCormick, secretary of the Dublin Sister City Association, provided the City with a copy of the letter mailed to various organizations. The Sister City Association has now incorporated, and they have arranged for a pairing with Bray, Ireland. The group is just in its formative stage and many of the details of the Association's activities have not been determined. Ms. McCormick has advised that a 'delegation from Bray, Ireland has accepted an invitation to visit Dublin, California during the Shamrock Festival, scheduled to occur July 27 - August 2, 1987. Mayor Jeffery serves as the Chairperson of the Committee. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed that the City should participate as a non-profit member of the Dublin Sister City Association with a $25 membership fee. * * * * CM-6-162 ' Regular Meeting May 26, 1987 S I TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION ENTITY The City has received a request from William Fraley, Alameda County Planning Director, for $1,500 in the 1987-88 City budget "for several computer runs for a tri-valley-wide transportation plan" . The plan would eventually form part of a County-wide transit plan that the Alameda County Public Works Agency is developing. The letter from Mr. Fraley also indicates that a request is being made for endorsement of a Tri-Valley Transportation Entity. The entity would consist of seven (7) Planning Commissioners, one from each of the Tri- Valley jurisdictions. The entity would oversee a Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and conduct two public workshops to get public input. The proposed Tri-Valley Transportation Entity and Plan is the latest evolution of what started as a request for the Tri-Valley Planning Commissions to help Alameda County in its current plan review process. At its November 10, 1986, meeting, the City Council reviewed the Task Study Group's Final Report. The City Council stated its concerns regarding a new transportation entity, including its objection to any shift of land use and transportation planning responsibilities. Staff expressed several concerns regarding the proposed Tri-Valley Transportation Entity: 1. Should the City participate in such an entity? 2 . If the City does participate, should a Councilmember (policy maker) rather than Planning Commissioner, be a member of the entity? 3 . What would be the explicit purpose of the entity; its authority; how much would it cost; how would it be financed; how would it coordinate its activities with the City? 4. Should the City consider the $1,500 request as part of the budget process? Staff said that at a recent meeting, the Alameda County Planning Staff said they would be sending a letter to the Council further detailing their proposal. Cm. Hegarty suggested that a letter be sent to Mr. Fraley requesting additional information about the proposed entity. Cm. Snyder expressed concern that if Alameda County were the only county participating in the entity, the entity may not be beneficial. In addition, he said he thought it was interesting that, in essence, the County was asking the cities to pay for an element of the County's General Plan. Mayor Jeffery said that at a recent meeting of the Tri-Valley City Councils, a committee of policy makers was formed to consider Tri-Valley transportation. By consensus, the Council deferred action until additional information is provided. CM-6-163 Regular Meeting May 26, 1987 Mayor Jeffery suggested it may be appropriate to discuss the Tri-Valley Transportation Committee at this time. Cm. Vonheeder volunteered to serve on that committee. By Council consensus, Cm. Vonheeder was appointed to the Committee. POTENTIAL EXPANSION OF DUBLIN RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY AND SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY The City Council authorized the Dublin Ranch General Plan Amendment Study and Specific Plan Study as requested by applicant, Mr. Ted Fairfield on behalf of Chang Su-0 Lin et al, and directed Staff to contact surrounding property owners regarding their interest in participating in the studies, to share in the costs, and to obtain input as to the general types of land uses they would like studied. In addition to the Lin's, Staff received responses from 14 property owners, 6 of whom were willing to discuss participation in the studies and in sharing costs, 3 who were not currently interested, and 5 who desired additional information. Property owners who expressed interest and their proposed general land uses are: - Dublin Land Company (John Di Manto) : residential, retail, office - TMI, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enerson: residential, commercial, industrial - Alameda County (Charlotte Lundberg) : business park/industrial - Redgwick Construction (Don Redgwick) : land uses not indicated - Louis Papas: business park, residential - Lin/Fallon Investors: business park Staff recommended that the General Plan Amendment Study area be contiguous with the City, and possibly include some' or all of the Business Park/ Industrial: Low Coverage properties along I-580. In addition, Staff recommended if the study area includes property where the owner is unwilling or unable to share in the costs, other property owners who are willing to pay should share in the addiitional costs. Staff indicated that the Specific Plan Study area does not need to be contiguous to the City and could include properties that are not contiguous to each other. If the Specific Plan Study area includes property where the owner is unwilling or unable to share in the costs, the other property owners should initially fund the study and then recover the costs when the property is developed. It was Staff's recommendation that input should be obtained from property owners when defining the General Plan Amendment Study area and the Specific Plan Amendment Study area. Mr. Ted Fairfield, representing the Lin's, indicated his concurrence with Staff's presentation but suggested that it would be most feasible if the Specific Plan Amendment Study included the entire area, and that the area CM-6-164 Regular Meeting May 26, 1987 i 1 i I for the General Plan Amendment Study should be as broad as possible. He ! urged the Council to request that the traffic studies include the entire loop of Doolan Road. Mike Durkey, Attorney for T.M.I. , thanked Staff for their interest and support, and recommended that the entire extended planning area be included within both the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan areas. He advised that he also agreed with Mr. Fairfield's recommendation regarding the traffic studies. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Hegarty, Mr. Tong advised that to include the entire extended planning area within the studies could be very costly and the task would be very extensive. He said it may be more feasible to limit the study to the areas where property owners have indicated the most interest. Mr. Fairfield indicated that there was no dispute between Staff and himself regarding the Specific Plan Study area, but said he thought it would be more cost effective to broaden the General Plan Amendment Study area. In response to an inquiry by Cm. Snyder, Mr. Tong advised that from a traffic standpoint it would be necessary to determine what type of land use may be designated in order to determine the traffic impacts. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by a unanimous vote the Council defined the General Plan Amendment Study area as follows: the Eastern Extended Planning Area to the east of the present City boundaries; the Alameda County owned property south of the new Santa Rita jail site and north of I-580; and the properties on both sides of Doolan Road that use the road for traffic circulation. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by a unanimous vote, the Council defined the Specific Plan Study area as follows and directed Staff to establish a funding mechanism: the Alameda County owned property south of the new Santa Rita jail site and north of I-580; the properties between the present City boundaries and Tassajara Road; the properties between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, excluding the Moller property at Tassajara Road and the Alameda County boundary; and the T.M.I. and Jordan properties east of Fallon Road, with the Jordan property able to be excluded prior to beginning the consultant studies. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by a unanimous vote, the Council determined the general land uses to be studied as follows: - residential (high, medium and low density; estate lots) - retail/commercial - office/commercial - industrial - business park/industrial - business park/industrial - open space - schools CM-6-165 Regular Meeting May 26, 1987 On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by a unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to obtain proposals and cost estimates for consultants ' services, to develop the method of sharing the costs, and to report back to the City Council with the recommended consulting team. * * * * LAVTA SHORT RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 TO FISCAL YEAR 1991-92 A Short Range Transportation Plan Draft Report (SRTP) for Fiscal Year 1987-88 to Fiscal Year 1991-92 was prepared by JHK & Associates, a Consultant for the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, and presented to the Council. The following three service alternatives were presented in the SRTP Draft Report: Alternative 1 - Recommending general improvements to the system operations, including realingment of routes and modifications to schedules in Livermore and Pleasanton, the extension of WHEELS Route 2 to provide direct non-peak period service from Dublin to Stoneridge Mall, and to review the system operations in the Fall of 1987 to determine if a demand response service during non-peak periods in low density residential areas in Dublin and Pleasanton would be appropriate. This alternative does not recommend increasing service hours. Alternative 2 - Recommends incorporation of service modifications identified in Alternative 1, in addition to providing 30-minute service during peak periods on WHEELS bus routes 1, 2 and 3, serving Dublin and Pleasanton, and four bus routes serving Livermore. Alternative 3 - Recommends incorporation of service changes identified in Alternative 1 and frequency changes identified in Alternative 2. It also recommends a new intercity route connecting Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore, and provides a direct link to Chabot College from Dubin and Pleasanton. The SRTP Draft Report indicates a total five year capital budget at $10, 870, 800, which would provide a maintenance facility, 19 replacement buses, 15 buses for service expansion, 2 transit centers and miscellaneous improvements. It indicates that $6. 3 million would be required from other sources to fund the capital program for the five year plan period and identifies Urban Mass Transportation Administration funds, Alameda County sales tax revenues, Measure B sales tax revenues, and Federal Aid - Urban funds as several potential funding sources to meet this funding short fall. The SRTP Draft Report does not recommend consolidation of the paratransit service. CM-6-166 Regular Meeting May 26, 1987 On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by a unanimous vote, the Council endorsed the LAVTA General Manager's recommendation for Alternative 3 and the Five Year Operating/Capital Plan. * * * * DSRSD Services Study Mr. Ambrose advised that late Friday he had received a revised copy of the Memorandum of Understanding from San Ramon, but that he had not completed his review of it and neither had it been reviewed by San Ramon Councilmembers. Senior Housing Task Force Cm. Hegarty said he had received a letter from Irene Weinreb, who had served on the Senior Citizen Housing Task Force. He suggested that a letter be sent to Mel Hing's office requesting additional information regarding the action taken on this item. The recommendation is for funds to be allocated through general obligation bonds, and the Task Force desires this to be placed on a ballot. Staff recommended that the County should provide the City with a letter requesting a resolution be acted on in this regards. The consensus was that no action would be taken on this item until additional direction is received from the County. Bicentennial Committee Mayor Jeffery requested that she be notified of anyone who may be interested in serving on a Bicentennial Committee of the Constitution in conjunction with the City of Livermore. * * * * Portion of Silvergate Drive Closure Staff advised that a portion of Silvergate Drive would be closed for approximately one and a half weeks for the purpose of doing road improvements on the intersection of San Ramon Road and Silvergate Drive. * * * * CM-6-167 Regular Meeting May 26, 1987 CLOSED SESSION At 12 :20 a.m. , the Council recessed to a closed executive session to discuss personnel items and pending litigation, City of Dublin vs. BART and City of Dublin vs. Pet Prevent-A-Care. * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12 : 30 a.m. * * * * Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk * * * * CM-6-168 Regular Meeting May 26, 1987 II