Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-10-1993 Adopted CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING - May 10, 1993 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, May 10, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m., by Mayor Snyder. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT'. Councilmembers Burton, Houston, Howard, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (610-Z0) Mayor Snyder led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. RECYCLING PROGRAM WINNERS FOR MONTH OF APRIL 1993 (810-60) Management Assistant Bo Barker announced the five winners in the recycling program contest for the Month of April, 1993. Dan Borges, LDD General Manager presented Savings Bonds to: Debbie Flottman, Doug Abbott and Ken Johnston. John Mangini and Ron Strong were unable to attend the Council meeting, so Staff will see that they get their bonds. Staff advised that five winners will be drawn each month, with Savings Bonds presented at a Council meeting. * * * * CUSTOMER SERVICE AWARD FOR MAY (150-90) City Manager Ambrose presented the May Customer Service Award to Michelle Wierschem, Recreation Coordinator. State Budget (330-80) Frank Ruskey stated he was back before the Council on his most important issue; economics of the State of California° The Council is a witness that he has been accurate in his predictions in the past. He recently attended a conference on the economy, and there is talk that perhaps by the last quarter of 1995, California could hit bankruptcy. We haven't even seen the base closure yet or what this will do. There is no growth Potential in businesses in the next 3 or [] · · ~ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · [] · · · · · Regular Meeting May 10, 1993 4 years. It is time that we recognize as a City, that we have more hard times coming. Cities are going to find that it is going to be toUgher than ever. Cities will be asked to pick up more and more of the burden from the State. Some tough and hard decisions will have to be made by the City Council. He hasn't seen any 4 or 5 year plan on the part of the City. We should call in some top people to consult. He did a survey and when you take 25,000 people you have a certain fixed cost. Businesses that have been bringing in the most tax dollars are dwindling away from Dublin. The only real solution is we have to either grow or die. We have to bring more tax revenue into Dublin. Mayor Snyder advised that Staff has been working diligently this entire fiscal year trying to understand what the State will be doing to us. He testified last Thursday up in Walnut Creek at a hearing where everyone is trying~to understand what is happening to us as well as everyone else. He encouraged everyone to attend the budget hearings which should be completed by the middle of June. Cm. Burton questioned when he said increase the revenue base, if this is spelled T A X E S? Mr. Ruskey stated there are other options. We could bring in other businesses. He discussed the possibility of stores that might close if the same stores open in neighboring cities. This would certainly hurt us a lot. Cm. Moffatt advised that the City had sent out an information letter a couple of weeks ago. In discUssing the cost of government, the City of Dublin has the lowest number of administrative staff per capita than any of our neighboring cities. Mr. RuSkey stated this statement was incorrect. He did his own study. He compared City Manager's salaries with populations and Dublin pays more than anyone else. Mayor Snyder advised that they were talking about two entirely different things. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 26, 1993; Awarded the bid for 2 police vehicles to Shamrock Ford and authorized Staff to issue a purchase order in the amount of $33,876.32 ($27,116.32 + $6,760 for the 3-year/85,000 mile Premium Extended Service w/Maintenance Warranty 350-20); Accepted improvements constructed under Contract 93-04 (Topaz Circle Water Service) and authorized payment in the amount of $3,690 to Jardin PiPeline (600-30); · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · [] · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · CM - VOL 12 - 200 Regular Meeting May 10, 1993 Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 46 - 93 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR SUPPLEMENT NO. 003 (CYCLE STATE-LOCAL PARTNERSHIP FUNDS (SB 300) (600-50 & 1060-90) Authorized Staff to solicit bids for Contract 93-08, Bi-Annual Striping and Marking Contract (600-30); Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 47 - 93 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION, DELIVERY AND SALE OF REFUNDING CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A TRUST AGREEMENT, A LEASE AGREEMENT, AN ESCROW AGREEMENT, A PURCHASE CONTRACT AND AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (340-70 & 600-30) Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $863,942.40 (300-40). Cm. Houston requested that~ the Investment Report be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. He noted that the yield on the State Fund is still going down, and also that a sentence had been deleted about moving the City's portfolio into longer maturities with more favorable rates as LAIF's yield declines. He questioned if the City's policy had changed. Mr. Rankin stated it had not changed. Staff will be'bringing back a policy in the near future. Staff is currently prohibited from investing longer than 5 years without Council approval. On motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council received the City Treasurer's Investment Report as of April 30, 1993 (320-30). Cm. Houston requested that the item related to destruction of building records be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. He was concerned with records that give environmental history. This couldn't be done if the records have been destroyed. Cm. Burton stated he agreed. He questioned why we need to get rid of these records. Mr. Ambrose advised that the primary issue is space. Ms. Silver stated the Building Official is proposing destruction of 6 record categories. The Council could delete #2 (plans for buildings or structures that have subsequently been demolished) from the list. On motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted, with the change discussed · [] · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ~ [] · · · · · · · · · CM - VOL 12 - 201 Regular Meeting May 10, 1993 RESOLUTION NO. 48 - 93 AUTHORIZING DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN BUILDING DEPARTMENT RECORDS (160-70) Cm. Moffatt asked if we could microfilm any of these. Mr. Ambrose advised that we have not gotten into microfilming any of our records. Cm. Houston requeSted that the item related to the Celebrity's Restaurant be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. He stated he understood that they will not have to pay a fee. He asked the status of their application. Mr. Tong advised that Staff is in the process of taking the CUP to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. It will be within the next month or so. On motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council received an informational report related to Celebrity's Coffee Company Conditional Use Permit (410-30). Cm. Houston requested that the item related to the assessment district be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. He questioned when the 45 day notification period started. Mr. Thompson advised that Staff would have to come back to the Council with the Preliminary Engineer's RepOrt and then the 45 day notices would be sent out. Staff hopes to have it on the agenda of the next Council meeting. Cm. Houston questioned how hard or easy it will be for citizens to protest this. Mr. Thompson explained the procedure. They must file a written statement that they protest the assessment. This is a brand new requirement of the State. Staff will explain what the project is all about in the notice. Ms. Silver discussed the information which must be included in the notice. Cm. HoUston asked if 50% of the citizens have to protest before it can be voted on. Mr. Ambrose explained that if there is a 50% protest, we would have to abandon the district. Cm. Burton stated he had received several notices in Contra Costa County and he would be interested in knowing in our case if a 5% protest would cancel the project or if it would just put it to a vote. nnn n n n n n nm n n nmb n nnnnn nnn n n n n n n n n n mn CM - VOL 12 - 202 Regular Meeting May 10, 1993 Mr. Thompson advised that it takes a 51% protest to overturn it. Ms. Silver clarified that it would take 50% + one. The notices Cm. Burton received were probably under a different statute. Cm. Houston stated he is against this. If 5% protest it, he would want it put to a vote. He would like the 5% protest provision added. Mayor Snyder stated he felt it should be done according to the requirements of the statute. Cm. Houston stated he did not agree with the statute. Mr. Ambrose advised that the notice wouldn't go out until after the next meeting when the Preliminary Engineer's Report is acted upon. At that time, the Council could discuss any special provisions. Cm. Moffatt stated he would rather see the protest percentage the same as for a recall. Mayor Snyder pointed out that the City Council has a right at any time to withdraw from this process. It is ultimately a Council decision. Mr. Thompson reminded the Council that the City has 3 assessment districts that have gone on for years and years. Mr. Ambrose advised that an advisory measure could be placed on the ballot. The City may be better off abandoning this than having an election, however. The Registrar of Voters has indicated they will be increasing their election costs considerably. We spent close to $24,000 on the last election. Ms. Silver stated the discussion on this item was not what was noticed on the agenda, and it would therefore not be proper for the Council to go forward with different action at this time unless by a 4/5 vote the Council determined that there was reason to add this as an urgency item to the agenda. The reason for the urgency would have to be stated. Cm. Houston made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Burton to add this as Item 4.9(a), and discuss the requirement that a 5% protest would make it go on the ballot or else abandon it. Following discussion, the motion and second were withdrawn, The Council agreed that it would be more appropriate to discuss this when the Preliminary Engineer's Report is presented to the Council at the next meeting. On motion of Cm. Howard, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 49 - 93 INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR CITY OF DUBLIN LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1993-1 (360-20) · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · CM - VOL 12 - 203 Regular Meeting May 10, 1993 Cm. 's Burton and Moffatt requested that the item related to the Heritage Center water testing be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Cm. Burton stated he was surprised at the amount of work Staff is able to make ~out of the heritage site. None of the things are necessary. This is just a stalling tactic and there is no justification for it. Mr. Thompson stated Staff's only recommendation was to test the water in the well because everything that we have done thus far has just been a record/paper check. This test would also indicate whether or not the water is usable on the site. BSK recommended 3 things, but City Staff was only recommending that we have the one test done. Cm. Burton stated he did not see any need to go through this exercise. If we wanted a well, this would be a different situation. Ms. Silver advised that the purchase agreement between the City and Dublin .Cemetery provides for the City to have a report such as this prepared. When the City purchases property, the City is liable for any contamination. If it is contaminated, the City would have liability for the clean up costs. Mr. Rankin stated it would be wise to proceed with this from a risk management standpoint One of the members of the risk management pool of which we participate acquired a former school site and later learned they inherited a $1 million liability. This would be wise, particularly since there are leaks within the vicinity of the site. Cm. Burton questioned what happens if we do find something. He felt we should just seal the well and leave it alone. Mr. Rankin pointed out that the amount for the testing is included in the park grant funding. Cm. Burton felt Staff was just trying to delay things. Mr. Ambrose advised that as long as the City Council goes on record as accepting the liability, Staff can move forward with this. Ms. Silver advised that whether the well is sealed or not, if the water is contaminated, the City could be required to clean it up. Cm. Moffatt stated he had learned in talking with one of the past presidents of the DHPA, they abandoned the well because it sits right over iron pyrite. It has never been used as potable water. Cm. Moffatt made a motion to not even go in and test the well, but rather just cap it off properly. We could take a sample and test it and we would protect ourselves from any liability. While we are sealing it up, we could test it. Cm. Burton made a motion to cancel the inspection of the well and proceed with the purchase of the Heritage Center. We should abandon the well and seal it. CM - VOL 12 - 204 Regular Meeting May 10, 1993 Cm. Moffatt made a motion to seal the well and take samples to see if there is any potential liability and if there is, bring it back to the City Council for further discussion. Don't test for potable or irrigation water. Mayor Snyder felt this would be opening a Pandora's Box. Cm. Houston asked if we test for hydrocarbons and find iron, if this is a bad thing if we find it. Mr. Thompson stated no, but it doesn't taste very gOod. We are more concerned about hydrocarbons rather than minerals. Mayor Snyder stated anytime you have a well situation in close proximity to a service station, once it gets into the well water, it is contaminated and someone is responsible for it. You have to go back to find out who is responsible. The older service stations cause the problems. The Regional Water Quality Board 'just dealt with one in Contra Costa County where they went back 30 years and found Phillips Petroleum responsible and the station has not even been there for 20 years. On motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by majority vote, the Council agreed to accept Staff's recommendation and authorized Staff to direct BSK to proceed with' testing of on-site well water at the Heritage Center at an estimated fee of $3,400 (600-30). We should investigate sealing this up. Cm. Burton voted against this motion, stating he felt it was a waste of time. Cm. Moffatt added that we should keep costs down to a minimum. He questioned if these were firm bids. Mr. Thompson advised that Staff can write the contract on a not-to- exceed basis. Cm. Burton requested that the item dealing with recreation program fees be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. The action would allow Staff to set the prices on the recreation fees and he did not feel this was appropriate. It should come back to the Council. Some of the fees are increasing so much we are disqualifying some people from being able to participate. Staff is proposing to go from $45 to $125 on the playgrounds program. We should have some provision for a scholarship program. Ms. Lowart stated there is currently a resolution on file that states recreation programs and fees are adopted through the budget process. Admissions and rental of facility fees are the only fees currently adopted by the Council. It would be quite cumbersome to come before the City Council for all programs. Staff is asking that the Park & Recreation Commission be given authorization to approve the fees as long as they don't exceed the cost of the service. CM - VOL 12 - 205 Regular Meeting May 10, 1993 Cm.' Moffatt felt that disadvantages families cannot pay the fees. He asked if we have any type of revenue source to adjust the prices. Ms. Lowart advised that we do not currently have anything like this in place. The direction of the Council has been to recover the costs. Mr. Ambrose advised that it is very difficult to set a fee for some of the classes when instructors pretty much set the fee and we negotiate the split. It is a cumbersome process and would be functionally very difficult to bring each one before the Council. Ms. Lowart stated when you review the benefit compared to the price, it works out to be a very reasonable $ .50 per hour. Cm. Burton asked if it would be possible for the City to find sponsors; i.e., a service Club that could give the City $1,000 toward the program. Ms. Lowart advised that she had had a student work on a mock scholarship program. If the Council is interested, Staff could have the Park & Recreation Commission review the policy that has been developed. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 50 - 93 ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATION PROGRAM FEES AND CHARGES (950-20) The Council also directed Staff to find a method for sponsoring a scholarship program. * * · , PUBLIC HEARING-EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT & RELATED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION (420-30) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Planning Consultant Brenda'Gillarde presented the Staff Report and explained that what was before the Council at this meeting is the Planning Commission's recommendations for approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan - Alternative 2 with Modifications. The Planning Commission agreed with all of the modifications previously recommended by the City Council except for the transit spine, which they felt should remain two lanes through the Town Center. The Commission also made minor additions to two policies on schools that were not previously considered by the Council. These policies were included under the Specific Plan section. CM - VOL 12 - 206 Regular Meeting May 10, 1993 Ms. Gillarde discussed the items requiring Council action. 1) Certification of the Addendum and the Final EIR. The California Environmental Quality Act requires the City Council to consider the Addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. 2) Approving the Agreement with the County of Alameda. Staff recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution approving the agreement with the County of Alameda and the Surplus Property Authority. 3) Adopting the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, Making Findings, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Planning Commission concurred with the Council's recommendation to change the GPA to reflect the Draft Environmental Impact Report Alternative 2 with certain modifications. Ms. Gillarde discussed the 8 modifications to the GPA contained in the Staff Report. With regard to'the SP, the Planning Commission concurred with all of the proposed Council modifications except one, and had added two other minor modifications, also discussed in the Staff Report. The Planning Commission concurred with the other modifications to the SP, which were: 1) Modify certain grading policies to create greater fleXibility; 2) Modify the language requiring a grid-type street pattern; 3) Add language to create greater flexibility in the design guidelines; 4) Modify the text regarding residential uses within the Livermore APA; 5)Consider some General Commercial uses in select Campus Office areas; 6) Add language clarifying average intersection level of service; and 7)' Modify the SP map to extend the General Commercial area between Dublin Boulevard and the Transit Spine and redesignate the area north of Gleason Road from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential. CEQA stipulates that a public agency cannot approve a project for which an EIR has been prepared which identifies one or more signifi- cant environmental effect unless the public agency makes one or more written finding for each of those significant effects. Each finding must be accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for the finding. There are three possible findings: 1) Changes have been incorporated into the project which Substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effect. 2) Such changes are within the responsiblity and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been, or can be, adopted by such other agency. 3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. State Law requires a City to adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure that the changes or conditions imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects of a project are enforced and implemented. The mechanism by ~which this is achieved is called a Mitigation Monitoring Program. In summary, Ms. Gillarde explained that the Council was requested to consider the following items and take the appropriate action: CM - VOL 12 - 207 Regular Meeting May 10, 1993 1) Planning Commission recommendations for the GPA and Specific Plan. The Commission recommended minor changes to a policy and program on school availability and also recommended that the Transit Spine remain two lanes in the Town Center. Council Action Required: Determine whether these changes should be incorporated into the GPA and SP documents. 2) Addendum and Final EIR. The Addendum describes the potential environmental effects of the modified GPA and SP. The Addendum concludes that the revised project does not create any environmental impacts that are not already discussed in the Draft EIR. The final EIR consists of the Draft EIR (Part I and Part II), a letter from DKS Associates, and Responses to Comments. Staff finds that the Final EIR has been prepared consistent with all CEQA requirements. Council Action Required: Consider the Addendum and the Final EIR, and adopt the resolution certifying the Addendum and the Final EIR for the Eastern Dublin GPA and SP. 3) Agreement with the County of Alameda. The County and City Staffs have modified the draft property tax exchange agreement to accommodate consideration of allowing some General Commercial uses on certain County owned area designated Campus Office. Mr. Ambrose stated the modified draft agreement would be beneficial to both agencies. Paragraph 15(b), page 19 wording was changed. There is now flexibility in the revised agreement. Council Action Required: Review and adopt the agreement. 4) Adoption of the Eastern Dublin GPA and SP. The resolution adopting the Eastern Dublin GPA and SP contains 4 parts: a) adoption of the GPA and SP; b) adoption of findings; c) adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and d) adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program. Council Action Required: Review the resolution and exhibits. Adopt the resolution adopting the GPA and SP, making findings, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program. Ms. Gillarde discussed various minor typographical corrections which needed to be made. Cm. Houston discussed the small parcel near Gleason Road which has been relocated across to Dublin Boulevard to allow adequate acreage after setbacks and road takeaway, etc. This will leave sufficient acreage for large type retailers. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the APA is deemed unconstitutional, if the land will revert back to residential or agricultural. Ms. Gillarde advised that text will be added to the plan stating if the APA is deemed to be invalid, the land will remain residential. it remains valid, the land will revert to agricultural. If Planning Director Tong discussed page 160 of the Specific Plan. The County is concerned with the first sentence of the City requiring a development agreement for individual projects in order to implement · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Regular Meeting May 10, 1993 the Specific Plan. The County suggested we add language which allows for other appropriate agreements. Staff has no problem adding such language to allow for other appropriate agreements. Cm. Burton discussed the transit spine, the size of the median strip and what happens to the traffic if we allow no left turns. He questioned the width of the sidewalks, and also discussed the setback requirements. Planning Director Tong stated building 10' back from the public right- of-way would be the guideline. Cm. Burton questioned why not have the buildings up t© the property line. He was nervous about having the property owner being set back 10' unless someone fixes their property up and does something positiVe. Otherwise, we'll end up with the same situation as currently exists on Village Parkway. Ms. Gillarde stated all the setback language is contained in the guidelines which are advisory. None of the guidelines are mandatory. Mayor Snyder opened the meeting to public comments and stated comments would be limited to 3 minutes. The only areas of discussion should be relative to what Staff just presented. Bill Foster, 8171 Brittany Drive stated he had lived in Dublin for about 25 years. Dublin is really the emerald of this valley. Actually, his name should be Mr. complacency. About 30 or so years ago, Dublin's sphere of influence was recognized to be all the way to Bernal to the south and a very large amoUnt of land to the east. The northern boundary was Alcosta. Dublin was, at that time, seeking incorporation, but Mr. and Mrs. complacency didn't pay attention. Pleasanton took it all for themselves and we all know the rest. West Dublin development was approved by the City, but some people didn't like it. Mr. and Mrs. complacency didn't get involved because they thought the referendum would be defeated. We now have another expansion proposal opportunity. There is only one way to go. People shouldn't blame the City Council for being cautious. This time, Mr. and Mrs. complacency are now awake. Our neighbors will develop the land if we don't. He is a part of a special interest group; the APA. The Sierra Club is a special interest group, as are residents of Doolan Canyon. All these groups need to be listened to and responded to. We need, however, to keep the goal in mind. He urged the Council to pass the East Dublin plan. Carolyn Morgan, 5184 Doolan Road stated all the Council has done is take an eraser and erase the density. Why would Williamson Act contracts be cancelled early. She doesn't see the canyon waiting 20 or 30 years to develop. When this plan started in 1987, they dealt with Alison Massa and Rod Barger, who have now disappeared. She was assured by Cm. Moffatt that later in the process they would be able to speak. Staff has said they could have input if they pay. Tassajara is all chopped up, and it will look like Village Parkway between CM - VOL ~2 - 209 Regular Meeting May 10, 1993 Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard. People will not blame the property owners, but rather they will blame the City and WRT. We need to put transit orientation back into the plan. She is a NIMBY and quite proud of the fact. The Livermore Valley is her back yard. Doug Abbott stated he thought it had all been said. Whatever is said tonight is academic anyway. The City Council plays a mean game of politics. He and others don't play the game that well. They assumed the Council was really interested in their concerns. It appears they are only trying to avoid a referendum~threat. There have been a few cosmetic changes, but the landowners will be back in a few months to a year, so nothing has been accomplished. Their concerns, which they have had for 8 years have not been addressed. Frank Ruskey stated he had been in favor of growth on the west side. The plan that is being discussed for the east side, he doesn't like, but it is a plan and it is something to start with. We have got to make a move one way or another. He agreed that the City Council has been elected by the people to make the best judgement they can, tying in everything that they have to deal with. The economy requires that we move in one direction; we cannot stay and constantly decline and expect to survive. The Council has studied the plan far more than anyone in the City, so if they say go, go. If people want to go to another referendum, let them, because this is the people's right. He objected very strongly to the fact that government's minds are made up. He knew there is some rift going on between the Council and environmentalists. The city Council has already rendered its decision. He did not think the Council was open to the comments people have. The Council has already made the decision before even hearing from the people. Cm. Burton reminded Mr. Ruskey that the City Council had sat through hundreds of people comments. This is fine-tuning time. Mitzi Christopher stated she had lived in Dublin since 1989. There are a lot of complaisant members of the community. The West Dublin defeat pushed her to get involved. She supports East Dublin and feels it is a good move for the future of the City. She urged the City Council to go forward with the plan. Marjorie Labar questioned the City's intention regarding Doolan Road and LAFCO this year. She asked that the Council also please pay attention to the Planning Commission regarding the transit spine. This is the only part of the plan that makes good sense. If you can't walk downtown easily, people won't do it. She currently does a lot of walking around town. Dublin Boulevard signals make it extremely difficult to get across the street; particularly if you are pushing a shopping cart or a baby stroller. We should keep the grid patterns. She discussed the viability of the City of Davis' downtown and also College Avenue in Berkeley as an idea that can work. Curves look lovely on a map, but not when you are on foot. CM - VOL 12 - 210 Regular Meeting May 10, 1993 Mark Evanoff with Greenbelt Alliance discussed the need for wastewater capacity and infrastructure. The Tri-Valley Wastewater group probably won't be getting off the ground. LAVWMA is putting land use agreements up against waste capacity. We should incorporate these policies into our plan. We should work with other jurisdictions; this is a wise fiscal stand to take. Special assessments should not exceed 1% of the assessed value once improvements are in place. With regard to justifying overriding considerations, there is no documentation that this project will fly financially. If you go with phasing the project, and need to cut back, you can. Zach Cowan spoke on behalf of the Doolan Road residents. The major sponsoring property owner has essentially been calling the shots for the last several years. He felt the City will be facing another General Plan Amendment within 6 months. He lives in a grid neighborhood and it works. Hewondered how much time and money had been wasted. The Council should be clear that the APA is valid. It will be valid until overturned by a court. They cannot live with the project and cannot live with the EIR. If the City certifies the EIR, they offered several suggestions which were discussed in a letter presented to the City Clerk. They suspected that the findings were not the City's findings, but rather the sponsoring property owner's findings. Mitigation measures which rely on permissive policies are useless. According to the EIR, this project provides more jobs than housing. This finding is not supported by anything. Donna Ogelvie stated she helped co-found the John Knox nursery school. She lived in Dublin for years. When they went to Doolan Canyon to live, they were seeking a rural lifestyle. She felt there is a place in the valley for all the things to happen. Development should be close to the City. In 30 years, if we say we need to put people in Doolan.Canyon, we still have the space available. In the meantime, it is now quiet and peaceful and the air quality is wonderful. She felt very pained about the process that has gone on in the last 10 years. It has cost them hours and hours of their time and lots of money. It doesn't have to be done now. She urged the Council to please slow down. Janet Lockhart stated what she had heard from previous speakers was that efforts that the community has made so far have been unmeaningful. This is not true. If nothing else, getting people involved has been a real benefit for all. Referendum threats were made early in the process. Residents are not interested in a referendum. Those outside need to realize that just because the City Council does not agree doesn't mean they haven't been heard. It is not fair to say they haven't been heard simply because they don't agree. Our community is most important and they support the CitY Council's efforts. Ed Diemer said he came to Dublin in 1988. This has been quite an educational process. A lot of people viewed as special interest groups are actually specialists. Landowners are not necessarily looking out for Dublin's best interest. It seems there has been some CM - VOL 12 - 211 Regular Meeting May 10, 1993 regression on the APA. He felt the Council has been mislead that it is about to fall. This is not true. Those trying to protect the airport have tried to make things simple. It has gone through due process of law. The real issue should be tackled; what to do with the land. 'The main issue seems to be an attitude of don't rock the boat. John DiManto questioned with regard to the trade off if this leaves them with parallel land or if there is a void in their own property. He was concerned that they will be introducing some major tenants very soon. He asked about the trade off dimensions. They will be filling out that northeast corner. Mr. Tong responded that the switch would result in approximately 15 acres immediately north of Dublin Boulevard, east of Tassajara Road and which would facilitate a large retail use. Mr. DiManto urged a favorable Council vote. George Butler stated an area he would like to see changed is the future study area. He would like this to be designated as permanent open space. Some people think small is not good. Size has nothing to do with quality of life. One could look at Oakland and Piedmont as examples of this. Over the weekend he walked between Dublin Boulevard, Amador Valley Boulevard, San Ramon Road and Amador Plaza Road just to see how well we are doing now in our existing boundaries. He saw over 20 signs indicating space available. We should better manage.what we have now before we grow. There should be a definite greenbelt between Dublin and Livermore. Eloise Hamann, a resident of Inclined Place stated it ain't over yet, no matter what happens tonight. She felt they will have to trust the City Council, and the Council should be aware that their work is just beginning. Growth should not take place too rapidly. Bobbie Foscalina stated she disagreed with Staff and what they call phasing. She considered it to be growing in a contiguous manner and as infill occurs. The way the plan is worded, someone on the outskirts could fund and encumber the whole eastern Dublin area with roads and infrastructure. Then, if the project doesn't work, the whole area is in trouble. Jim Stedman, representing the Pao Lin property, stated they had said before that the town center area is a good idea. However, the transit spine street needs to be 4 lanes. He strongly recommended 4 lanes. With regard to setbacks on the transit spine, the guidelines now suggest that building be 18' back from the curb. This is not the best plan for the City. He requested that wording be changed to say minimum setback of zero, but allow greater setback. With regard to a comment made aboUt flexibility, page 79 states the guidelines are advisory only. They agree with this. He asked that the GPA and SP be approved. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. · · · · · I · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · CM - VOL 12 - 212 Regular Meeting May 10, 1993 Cm. Burton stated the Council had been both praised and criticized tonight, which points out the fact that you can't satisfy everybody. This has indeed been a long process. The APA will have certain uses that are allowed and he questioned if the Council could establish a zoning. Instead of reverting to agricultural, can they allow uses approved by the APA? Mr. Tong stated the APA has been adopted by the ALUC. I They have designated the uses that they would not allow (residential), but they have not said you should have some other types of uses. In our draft plan, we are asking that it be designated residential. If it is found inconsistent with the APA, we need to have some designation in that area. Agricultural would accomplish this. Cm. Burton stated he did not understand why we are putting in residential when we know it doesn't qualify in the APA. He stated he was also concerned at the last meeting regarding commercial on Mr. DiManto's parcel. He also asked about the development agreement language on page 160 of the Specific Plan. Mr. Tong advised that Staff suggested a phrase be added, "or other appropriate agreements". Cm. Burton stated he did not feel it would be possible to have light rail passing on 14' medians in the transit spine. He felt it is a mistake to have 10' setbacks from the sidewalk. He felt it should be 8' and then leave it up to the property owner. Mayor Snyder reminded Cm. Burton that the wording is advisory. Mr. Tong agreed that the language has been modified so that the guidelines are strictly advisory. Cm. Burton stated 2 lanes don't make sense. Someone making a left hand turn will stop traffic. He hoped the City Council would agree to go with 4 lanes and leave a 14' median strip. Mr. Tong stated the resolutions had been prepared and drafted as 4 lanes. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Houston, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 51 - 93 CERTIFYING THE ADDENDUM AND THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN . I · · · · [] · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · I · · · · · · · · Regular Meeting May 10, 1993 On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 52 - 93 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF ALAMEDA AND SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY (WITH MODIFIED AGREEMENT ATTACHED) On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted, with amendments discussed RESOLUTION NO. 53 - 93 ADOPTING THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN; MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PROCEDURE FOR DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY (670-80) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Public Works Director Thompson advised that the City has received inquiries and letters of interest from several parties related to the sale of 3 remnant parcels from the Dublin Boulevard Extension property acquisitions. As no provisions exist in the City's statutes for the diSposal of real property, the City Attorney felt that specific procedures should beadopted. Mr. Thompson gave a recap of the specific details of the proposed procedures and advised that they are in conformance with general provisions of the Government Code. Cm. Burton asked if his understanding was correct that it would always come back to the Council for a final decision. Mr. Ambrose advised that the only case where it would not is if it is less than $5,000. In that case, it would not come back to the Council. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance amending Title 2 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code procedure for disposal of surplus real property. CM - VOL 19- - 214 Regular Meeting May 10, 1993 PUBLIC HEARING REVISION TO FEE SCHEDULE FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMITS (820-55) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Public Works Director Thompson presented the Staff Report and advised that the annual revenue from encroachment permits is approximately $7,000. This revenue does not cover the City's cost to issue the permits and inspect the work. Based on the proposed fee schedule, the estimated revenue from encroachment permits would become approximately $17,500. Mr. Thompson stated Staff had had conversations with representatives of PG&E and Pacific Bell regarding their concerns raised at the April 26th public hearing, and these concerns were addressed in the Staff Report. Staff was also directed to contact other agencies for permit fee information as a comparison. The Cities of Pleasanton, Livermore and San Ramon and the County of Alameda were asked for their fee schedules. Staff felt that the proposed Dublin fees are comparable to those of the three other cities. Alameda County's current fees are significantly higher. Mr. Thompson stated the existing encroachment permit fees were adopted in 1984. In 1990, revisions were made to the fees for oversize vehicle permits in accordance with a newly adopted State Law, and a fee for the use of the San Ramon Road banner poles was added. No Other changes have been made, and the existing fees for encroachment permits do not cover the City's actual cost for issuance or inspection. The new fee schedule addresses: Basic Permit Fee; Plan Checking Fee; Resurfacing Surcharge; Inspection Fees; Oversize Vehicle Permits; San Ramon Road Banner Poles; Possibility of Fee Reduction or Waiver; and Bond Schedule. Cm. Burton questioned with regard to residential driveway construction, what about a subdivision with a lot of driveways. Mr. Thompson stated this would be covered under the subdivision agreement rather than the encroachment fee schedule. Cm. Moffatt stated he was concerned about sidewalk repairs. Under this fee schedule, the owner of a house who needs repairs would have to get a permit. He asked if it would be possible to consider any City-mandated repair to have no fee attached. Mr. Thompson advised that when we start this up next year, Staff will come to the Council with a policy and the Council can decide at that time. For people who go along with the program, the Council could consider a minimal fee or no fee. Cm. Moffatt felt we should not encumber an added fee just because the sidewalk is starting to crack or split° CM - VOL 12 - 215 Regular Meeting May 10, 1993 Mr. Ambrose stated Staff could look at'what some of the other communities are doing in this regard. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. The Council agreed to look at some type of policy to review City- mandated sidewalk repairs for adjustment on the fee schedule. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Houston, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 54 - 93 APPROVING REVISIONS TO THE FEE AND BOND SCHEDULES FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMITS AND OVERSIZE VEHICLE PERMITS OTHER BUSINESS Eastern Dublin Impacts on Pleasanton (420-30) Mr. Ambrose referenced a letter just received from the City of Pleasanton related to traffic impacts of the Eastern Dublin GPA & SP. The City Manager indicated they would be interested in meeting within the next 30 days. Mr. Ambrose asked if the Council was~.interested in designating someone'to attend discussions. Cm. Burton felt there was no way to solve all the traffic problems. Dublin's plan is not the only contributor. Cm. Moffatt suggested that the Tri-Valley Transportation Council work on this particular problem. Actually, they are working on this already and trying to come up with some solutions. Mayor Snyder suggested that Mr. Ambrose talk to Ms. Acosta to obtain more information. Correspondence Addressed to Council (610-80) Cm. Howard referenced a letter received from a San Francisco resident related to recognizing Mitzi Christopher and her physical therapy business. She questioned if the City Council as a whole would answer the letter, or if each individual should respond. CM - VOL 19- - 9_16 Regular Meeting May 10, 1993 Buildinq Permit Fee Schedule Increase (440-20) Cm. Houston questioned what had been worked out for Mr. Wallen related to his building permit fee in light of the new fee schedule recently adopted. Mr. Ambrose stated Staff had discussed this with the City Attorney and the only thing he can do is ask for a fee waiver or come in and ask for the effective date to be'changed. The question is when does the fee become effective. Cm. Houston stated he did not like this interpretation; this is unfair.. Ms. Silver suggested that Staff be directed to bring back a revised resolution stating the fees are effective on the date the application is made rather than when the permit is issued. Mayor Snyder stated he was not aware of and questioned the situation being discussed. Ms. Silver advised that it was not appropriate for the Council to discuss this issue at this time. Cm. Houston asked Staff to get a copy of the correspondence to the other Councilmembers and they could then discuss it at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. ATTEST: · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · [] Regular Meeting May 10, 1993