Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.01 DraftCCMin 4/5,12,19 SPECIAL MEETING - APRIL 5. 2005 A special joint meeting of the Dublin City Council and Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 5, 2005, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart. · ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hildenbrand, McCormick, Oravetz, Zika and Mayor Lockhart. Planning Commissioners Biddle, Fasulkey, King, Wehrenberg and Chair Schau b ABSENT: None. · PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the Council, Staff and those present. · PA 04-040 Fallon Village (Formerly Eastern Dublin Property OWners - EDPO) Mr. Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director, presented a brief outline for the purpose of the Special Joint Meeting. He explained that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the project description for the Fallon Village development so that Staff can use this as a basis for preparing environmental documentation as well as to move forward with the review of the Specific Plan and General Plan amendments for the project. At the end of the meeting Mr. Peabody hoped that both, the City Council and the Planning Commission, are able to understand and agree with the direction that Staff proposes to take in evaluating this project. Mr. Peabody introduced Charity Wagner, Associate Planner, to make a Staff presentation. Ms. Wagner gave a powerpoint presentation outlining the previous approvals for the project and the current proposed changes by the Applicant. She once again reiterated that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the project description for creating environmental documents. Additionally, the Council and the Planning Commission CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL .JOINT MEETING w/PLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 2005 PAGE 140 4.1 would also discuss three major specific points regarding the proposed changes to the development plan of the project. They are: 1. Designation of Land Use in the Airport Protection Area 2. Conservation of Eastern Drainage Area 3. Changes to Land Use Densities The project description describes the overall parameters of the project which includes the maximum number of units for the project and maximum floor area ratio for the commercial and retail space. Setting the parameters for the project is important to evaluate the proposed project and to accurately create the environmental documents. The project area is about 1120 acres located east of Fallon Road consisting of 13 contiguous parcels and 11 property owners. The Supplemental ElR adopted in 2002 contained a mitigation measure that required a preparation of Resource Management Plan (RMP) before the development of the site. The purpose of the RMP was to access the impacts of the approved project on the biological resources of the entire project area. In September 2004, City Council accepted a report on the Resource Management Plan. Referring to Attachment 3 of the staff report, the proposed Stage 1 Planned Development Amendment, Ms. Wagner pointed out that Staff is seeking Council/Commission direction for Staff to use this plan to set up the parameters for the project description. Ms. Wagner described the three major points of discussion (mentioned above) in detail. 1. In 1993, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan designated areas north of Dublin Blvd for residential land uses. However, it stipulated that if these areas were determined to be under the Airport Protection Plan area, they would then be designated areas for Future Study. In 2002, the Airport Protection Plan was adopted and the areas were designated as Future Study Areas. 2. One of the recommendations of the RMP was to conserve the eastern drainage area. The Applicant's proposal (Attachment 3) consolidates some of the smaller corridors as well as modifies the land uses around the corridor to allow greater density to maintain the same number of units throughout project area. 3. The Applicant is proposing to increase the number of units to 582 units throughout the project area. . The Airport Protection Area was previously studie.d for residential uses. The Applicant is proposing to redistribute the residential uses (previously studied for the APA) throughout the project area. The Applicant is also proposing to change land uses within the project area. The areas previously designated as Future Study areas will now be designated as General Commercial/Commercial Office as well as areas designated as CITY COt/NCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING wlPLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 2005 PAGE 141 Industrial will now be designated as General Commercial/Commercial Office. Additionally, the proposed Stage 1 development plan proposes to increase the commercial square footage by over a million square feet for a total of 2.5 million. Councilmember Oravetz wanted to know the meaning of 'Airport Protection Area'. Mr. Peabody responded that the Airport Land Use Commission is required to prepare an Airport Land Use Plan. The Plan includes certain zones (clear zone, etc) for the areas near the airport relating to aircraft operations and also the fact that residential uses are discouraged from being developed in these areas. However, it is common in Airport Land Use Plans to have Commercial uses in these zones. Councilmember Oravetz asked if Public/Semi-Public Land use designation could be added to the proposed plan. Mr. Peabody responded that the purpose of the meeting is to approve a generalized project description for preparing EiR documents. Staff would study the project area based on the project description and evaluate the different land uses that would be suitable for the area and at that time the Public/Semi-Public land use will also be studied for its appropriateness in the area. Commissioner Schaub asked if the reason for the Airport protection Area designation was due to the nature of the aircraft departure. Mr. Peabody responded that prior to the Stage 1 Plan adoption Staff would review the proposed amendments with the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to ensure that the proposed project is in line with the patterns established by the ALUC's Plan. Ms. Libby Silver, City Attorney, further provided clarification on the issue. She explained that there is a State Law that establishes the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) in each County and through this Law the ALUC establishes an Airport Land Use Plan which designates the Airport Protection Area. When the City of Dublin adopted the General Plan Amendment and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for eastern Dublin in 1993, Council had to refer that to the ALUC pursuant to State Law. Similarly, if the Council amends the General plan and the Specific Plan for the proposed area, it would again refer the amendments to the ALUC for approval. She pointed out that going by past experience, the ALUC will not approve residential uses in the Airport Protection Area. Mayor Lockhart expressed concerns regarding losing the Industrial zoned areas to Commercial zones. She stated that Staff should take into consideration services provided by the Industrial uses and retain the use in the proposed Plan. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING wlPLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 2005 I'AGE 142 Councilmember Zika had similar concerns. He expressed the need for some Light Industrial uses in the area. Additionally, he asked the reason for the increase in the residential unit. Ms. Wagner responded that the Applicant's intent is to reallocate the density studied in 1993 throughout the project area. Councilmember Zika commented that his basic concern was that the Applicant was proposing to increase the number of units in addition to the reallocation. Furthermore, he was concerned that with the increase in traffic conditions, if Central Parkway were not extended beyond Croak Road, it may cause severe traffic impact. Ms. Wagner responded that the recent amendment to the City's General Land Use Plan indicates the possible extension of Central Parkway. However, according to the proposed Stage 1 Plan, Central Parkway proposes to align with Dublin Blvd through Croak Road. To alleviate Council's concern, Ms. Wagner suggested that an alternative traffic plan may need to be studied by Staff for the project area. Commissioner Fasulkey expressed concerns regarding the location of the Elementary School. Ms. Wagner pointed out that the Commissioner was looking at the 2002 approved Plan. In fact under the current proposal (Attachment 3 to staff report) the Elementary School has been relocated closer to the residential areas. Mayor Lockhart asked how many schools the School District required in the project area. Ms. Wagner responded that based on a recent report by the District the proposed plan shows two elementary schools which would satisfy the demand by the residential uses in the project area. Commissioner Biddle asked if the Central Stream Corridor was clean. Ms. Wagner responded that the corridor was an open space corridor and does not have water running through it. She further elaborated that the RMP accessed the biological habitat in the project area and concluded that it would be most appropriate to conserve and designate a large conservation corridor for the habitat in the project area as opposed to the much smaIler corridor in the 2002 Plan. Councilmember McCormick asked if the 200 + acres of Open Space will be conserved for the habitat and if it would have accessible trails. Ms Wagner responded that the Open Space area would have trails around them but would be conserved largely for the habitat in the area. Councilmember McCormick asked for the acreage of all the Neighborhood Parks. Ms. Wagner responded that all of the proposed Neighborhood Parks in the project area meet the minimum park size requirement of 5 acres as per the City's Parks Master Plan. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING wlPLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 2005 PAGE 143 Commissioner Schaub wanted to know if the intent for the open space designation was similar to the Tassajara Creek project. Ms. Wagner responded that she is not familiar with the Tassajara Creek project, however, the intent for the designation for this project is to carry out the recommendations of the RMP to create one large corridor for the conservation of the endangered species. There was a discussion regarding drainage issues from individual parcels. Ms. Wagner indicated that the issue will be reviewed during the Stage 2 process but the Applicant is available for any specific questions. Mayor Lockhart asked if the areas designated for parks and neighborhood squares would meet the demand generated by the residential uses. Ms. Wagner responded that Staff met with the Parks and Community Services department and have confirmed it that the proposed acreage for parks will satisfy the demand from proposed residential uses. Commissioner Schaub expressed concems regarding the open space designation. He stated that the areas in the proposed plan that are designated open space are barren land. However the area north of Croak Road, which is currently agricultural, will be converted to Low Density residential. His concern was that the City in alIowing this designation may lose an area which has more character for being open space. Mr. Peabody, once again, reminded Council/Commission that the purview ofthe meeting was to discuss the parameters to consider while preparing the EIR documents. The discussion regarding the different land uses for each parcel may be discussed during the Stage 1 hearing. Setting the parameters will enable Staff to review project appropriateness for the area. Ms. Silver explained the project process for the benefit of Commission/Council to better understand the purpose of the meeting. Mter a brief discussion about the process and the purpose of the meeting, Mayor Lockhart stated that she would like to support Commissioner Schaub's concerns regarding the location of the open space corridor. Ms. Jeri Ram, Planning Manager, elaborated on the analysis conducted for choosing the location for the open space corridor. She explained that during the RMP study, one of the considerations by the biologists was the viability of the habitat in the area. Based on the location of these species it was determined that the proposed corridor location would be ideal for these species to travel and survive in the area. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAl, JOINT MEETING w/PLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 2005 PAGE 144 Jerry Haag, Urban Planner and the EIR Planner for the project, had two points regarding the proposed conservation area: 1. The trees planted along Croak Road are not native trees. 2. Grazing areas are prime habit for stock ponds and is a breeding area for tiger salamander and additionally, the proposed open space corridor, although degraded, may be one of the richest in biological reserves. Commissioner wehrenberg's concerns were: 1. The acreage allocated for the two elementary schools may not be sufficient to meet the demand of the increased residential units. There may be a potential encroachment into the land designated for parks. 2. While increasing the square footage for commercial use, consideration should be given to designate light industrial uses keeping in mind the overall intent of the project which is to create a Village atmosphere. Councilmember Hildenbrand suggested that consideration should be given to increase the acreage for schools and parks in view of the increased density so as to meet the demand that this increase in density will bring. She stated that she liked the location of the elementary school next to a park but it may not be sufficient considering the density around the area. Mayor Lockhart pointed out that with the proposed increase in residential units; there is no designation in the project area for retail uses. This will create more traffic since the residents in that area may have to travel to other areas for the retail uses. Ms. Wagner explained that the parcels closer to Central Parkway and Croak Road have been designated as Village Commercial for such uses. Council member Oravetz pointed out that the original plan from 2002 had a Junior High and the current proposal does not. Ms. Wagner explained that Staff is working with the School District to evaluate their requirement and hence the Junior High has been intentionally left out. Mayor Lockhart suggested everyone to make their final comments prior to inviting the Applicant to speak. Commissioner wehrenberg stated she had nothing further to add besides the two concerns she had expressed earlier. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING wlPLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 2005 PAGE 145 Commissioner King had no further comments. Commissioner Fasulkey wanted to make sure there is flexibility in the project description. Councilmember Oravetz had no further comments. Council member Zika stated that he would not support the increase in the residential units. He wanted everyone to understand these were the maximum number of units and there is no guarantee they would get it. Additionally, he wanted to ensure the inclusion of Light Industrial uses in the area. Commissioner Biddle asked if it would be possible to see the grading plans a little later in the project and stated concerns with respect to grading ratios to the City's policy on grading above the 770 feet contours. Ms. Wagner responded that the plans would be presented when the Stage 2 process is reviewed. Commissioner Schaub stated that he would like to understand the objectives of the Airport Protection Plan. Councilmember Hildenbrand had no further comments. Councilmember McCormick reiterated her open space concerns regarding aesthetics. She also supported Council member Zika's concerns regarding desnsities. Mayor Lockhart's concerns were: 1. Retain the Light Industrial uses in the area 2. Evaluate the need for retail uses in Northern section of project 3. Open space and the housing numbers The Council and the Commission unanimously agreed on the project description and directed Staff to use this as a basis for preparing the environmental documentation. Mayor Lockhart asked Jeff Lawrence from Braddock & Logan, the Applicant, to make his presentation. Mr. Lawrence thanked everyone for their time. He indicated that Braddock & Logan is very excited about this project. Braddock & Logan evaluated all the uses and their location while evaluating the project. He stated that the retail use suggestion was a good one and would ensure that Braddock & Logan Study locating for such uses so that there is CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING wlPLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 2005 PAGE 146 compatibility of land uses and minimum traffic impact. He described the rationale behind Braddock & Logan's proposal. Councilmember Hildenbrand asked how the area designated as Rural Residential in 2002 translated to 582 units for redistribution. Mr. Lawrence responded that in 1993 the areas were designated as residential with mixed densities and in 2002 they were redesignated as Rural Residential and areas for future study. Mayor Lockhart asked for the areas designated as Low Density how many units are there per acre. Mr. Lawrence responded that it is 4 to 5 units per acre. Mayor Lockhart also asked if the redistribution involved a mix of housing types. Mr. Lawrence responded that there is a mix of High, medium and medium high density homes. Mayor Lockhart thanked Mr. Lawrence for his time. On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Vm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to the proposed project description with the noted concerns, and directed Staff to use this as a basis for preparing the Environmental documents. . @JOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Minutes taken and prepared by Planning Secretary, Renuka Dhadwal. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk .~ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING wlPLANNING COMMISSION April 5, 2005 PAGE 147 SPECIAL MEIITING - APRIL 12. 2005 A special joint meeting of the Dublin City Council and Parks & Community Services Commission was held on Tuesday, April 12, 2005, in the Regional Meeting Room ofthe Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart. . ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council members Hildenbrand, McCormick, Oravetz, Zika and Mayor Lockhart Commissioners Cain, Flores, Guarienti, Jones, and Muetterties ABSENT: Commissioner Smith . STUDY SESSION - FACIUTIES FEASIBUTY STUDY 7:03 pm (File # 210-30/215-30) Parks & Community Services Manager Paul McCreary presented the Staff Report and advised that the 2004-2009 Capital Improvement Program included funding for the design and construction of a Recreation and Aquatic Complex in Emerald Glen Park. The City retained the services of The Sports Management Group to conduct a feasibility study, financial analysis and conceptual space plan for the new Recreation and Aquatic Complex. The Sports Management Group is concurrently conducting a programming study of the new Community Centers planned for Shannon and Emerald Glen Parks. After the presentation and discussion facilitated by The Sports Management Group, in which the Council and Parks & Community Services Commission will consider various development options for both parks, the City Council will provide direction to Staff regarding preferred sizes and space components for both proposed community centers, design and construction components and priorities, and remaining steps in the public input process. Lauren Livingston, The Sports Management Group, made a PowerPoint presentation and outlined the community needs assessment, which was done in order to determine community interest in and demand for various potential community, recreation and aquatics facilities. Focus Group sessions and web surveys indicated that most residents felt that Dublin was an excellent community; there was a high need for increased social, recreational and aquatic opportunities; the need for east-west connectors which could be CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL MEETING April 12, 2005 PAGE 163 bridged by facility distribution; resident's in the east feel underserved by public facilities; new faciJities would have a high demand for use; residents had a willingness to pay fees for use of new facilities; and facilities should be multi-generational, family-friendly and welcoming to all. Ms. Livingston discussed space programming objectives and operational cost recovery considerations of programming for recreation center space, including multi-purpose classrooms, gymnasium, fitness room, multi -purpose gym (MAC), dance studio, group exercise studio, childwatch/activity room and special events room; and aquatic center space, including various pool sizes and configurations with recreational options such as a lazy river, slides and play features. The Council, Commission, Consultant and Staff discussed the pros and cons of various pool size and configuration options at Emerald Glen Park, and what would best suit Dublin residents. Indoor pools, although very desirable, would be much more expensive than outdoor. Dublin's climate and the need for a year-round swimming for adults and children was discussed. A year-round pool would require professional staffing other than teen lifeguards currently used during the summer, which affect the cost recovery plan. Ms. Livingston reviewed the three development options for Shannon Community Center, Emerald Glen Recreation & Aquatic Complex and Emerald Glen Community Center: Option #1, Modified Master Plan; Option #2, Expanded Aquatics; and Option #3 Indoor Pool & MAC Gym. The various options provided and idea of what could be built with the available budget, as well as what it may cost if other unique, state-of-the-art components were added to the facilities. The Council, Commission, Consultant and Staff discussed various programming and funding options regarding Shannon Community Center and the physical constraints of the site, such as space, hills, creek, trees and parking support. A minimum of 150 parking spaces would be required. The creek had a minimum setback and the hill could not be cut in to. All agreed that no trees should be removed. The general consensus was that the majority of the need for childcare was on the east side of Dublin, so the Shannon Center should be used more for special events, such as weddings and banquets without any type of gym accoutrements. Tim Sbranti, Dublin resident, advised that he was speaking on behalf of St. Raymond's Church and referred to a letter previously submitted to the Council and Commission in which St. Raymond's Church requested that some type of multi -use space, such as basketball or volleyball, be included in the Shannon Center programming for use during CITY COlJNCIL MINlJTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL MEETING April 12, 2005 PAGE 164 typical non-use hours. Independent of the St. Raymond's church letter, Mr. Sbranti expressed concern about the lack of gym space for sport program activities, and advised that he supported community centers which included multi-use space for athletics. The Council and Commission discussed the various options and, by consensus, agreed that Option 2 with the modification of removing the 6~lane pool and including an indoor pool, would best suit the community. Option 2, as it pertained to Emerald Glen Park, should include the lazy river, outdoor play pool, 25x25 competitive pool and indoor pool (natatorium). By having this combination of pools, including the Dublin Swim Center pool, there would be enough for the forecasted population build-out of 60,000. The Council and Commission discussed the pros and cons and different parameters surrounding a MAC gym, and several expressed an interest in keeping the option of a MAC gym in the future. Mr. McCreary asked the City Council to provide Staff with detailed direction regarding its preference of Option 2. On motion of Vm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Oravetz and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to proceed with Option Z including Shannon Center with a larger community room, support space, and two preschool classrooms; and at Emerald Glen Park a smaller community room, support space, two-court gym, and a licensed childcare or second preschool facility. Mr. McCreary requested direction as to the construction priority of Shannon Community Center and public involvement in the design process. Cm. Hildenbrand made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Oravetz, to include the public in Shannon Center's design process only, not in the space components and building size. This motion failed after discussion due to NO votes cast unanimously. The Council and Staff discussed the various options and agreed that the reopening of Shannon Center needed top priority and expeditiously and efficiently as possible. The building has been pre-programmed, the basic footprint of the building would remain the same and the rest of the park would remain undisturbed, so not as much public involvement would be necessary. The neighbors would primarily be interested in the exterior of the new building. The surrounding residents would be well·notified of the Commission and Council meetings, and they would be able to comment on the exterior architecture during those meetings. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL MEETING April ]2, 2005 PAGE 165 On motion of Vm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand, and by unanimous vote, the Council gave Shannon Community Center the highest priority and directed Staff to commence with the design process, alIowing public comment during the Commission and Council public hearings. Mr. McCreary asked for Council direction as it related to determining the preferred space components for the Emerald Glen Park Recreation Center and Aquatic Center, and if any of those components should be built as indoor facilities. The Council discussed the preferred components at Emerald Glen Park, such as the larger recreation pool and the natatorium, but not a MAC gym. On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to prepare a cost analysis of operational costs, financing and construction for Option 2, including the larger recreation pool and natatorium, but excluding the MAC gym and prepare a Staff Report for final Council approval. . ADJOURNMENT . 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Minutes taken and prepared by Fawn Holman, Deputy City Clerk. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 1- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 SPECIAL MEETING April!2, 2005 PAGE 166 RE6ULAß, MEETING -APIUL 19. 2005 A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, April 19,2005, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was calIed to order at 7:04 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart. .. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: Council members Hildenbrand, McCormick, Oravetz, Zika and Mayor Lockhart. None. . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the Council, Staff and those present. .. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 25 -MAY 1,2005 AS MQSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL AND WEST NILE VIRUS AWARENESS WEEK 7:05 p.m. 3.1 (610-50) Mayor Lockhart presented a proclamation designating the week of April 25 - May 1, 2005 as Mosquito and Vector Control and West Nile Virus Awareness Week to Jim Kohnen, Dublin representative on the Mosquito Abatement Board and John R. Rusmisel District Manager, Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District. Mr. Rusmisel advised that 2005 would be a big mosquito year in the area because of the heavy rain season and outlined ways that residents could reduce the mosquito population in their yards in order to reduce the spread of West Nile Virus. . PRESENTATION BY POIJCE SERVICES ON TIlE CRIME PREVENTION UNIT 7:12 p.m. 3.2 (580-40) Community Safety Assistant Rose Macias presented the Staff Report and provided a brief overview of the Crime Prevention Unit and describe the major crime prevention CITY COUNCIL MINtlTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING April 19, 2005 PAGE 167 programs currently in place that are available to those who live and/or work in the City of Dublin. . CONSENT CALENDAR 7:25 p.m. Items 4.1 through 4.6 On motion of Vm. Zîka, seconded by Cm. Oravetz and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved (4.1) Minutes of Adjourned Regular Meeting of April 4, 2006, and Regular Meeting of April 5, 2005; Adopted (4.2 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 69 - 06 APPROVING UTILITY RELOCATION AGREEMENT WITH SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY FOR THE I-580/FALLON ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Adopted (4.3 600-60) RESOLUTION NO. 60 - 05 APPROVING TRACT 7283 fiNAL MAP, TRACT IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR REAR YARD LANDSCAPING and RESOLunON NO. 61 - 05 ACCEPTING IN LIEU PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES AND CREDITS FOR TRACT 7283 Adopted (4.4 600-35) RESOLunON NO. 62 - 05 A WARDING CONTACT NO. 05-04, SENIOR CENTER FURNITURE, TO ONE WORK PLACE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING April 19,2005 PAGE 168 Authorized (4.5 600-35) Staff to advertise for bids for Contract No. 05-05, 2004-2005 Annual Street Overlay Program; Approved (4.6 300-40) the Warrant Register in the amount of $1 ,368,453.89. . REQUEST FROM THE MOUNT DIABW ROSE SOCIETY FOR FEE WAIVER UNDER THE CIVIC CENTER FACIUTY USE POUCY 7:25 p.m. 5.1 (200-10) Public Works Director Melissa Morton presented the Staff Report and advised that the Mount Diablo Rose Society is offering to provide caretaking services for the City's rose garden at Emerald Glen Park, as well as pruning demonstrations and instruction, in return for a fee waiver for use of the Civic Center for monthly meetings and the Annual Rose Show. Barry Hoffer, President of the Mount Diablo Rose Society, thanked the Council for its consideration of their offer of stewardship of the roses in return for facility fee waivers. It would be a mutually beneficial arrangement. Dolores Moffatt, Consulting Rosarian for the Mount Diablo Rose Society, outlined the services that the Society would provide the City in exchange for waived facility fees. Vm. Zika asked the Rose Society to keep the Public Works Department apprised of any special needs the roses might require, such as dusting, and inquired as to whether there was time available in the Regional Meeting Room to accommodate the Society's request. Advertising the Society's pruning seminars and Rose Show in the City's recreation brochure would also be a good idea. Public Works Director Morton advised that the Public Works Department would work with the Rose Society to keep abreast of the health of the roses. On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the Council granted the fee waiver for use of the Civic Center for the Annual Rose Show and monthly meetings in return for caretaking services of the City's rose garden at Emerald Glen Park. . CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING April 19, 2005 PAGE 169 REQUEST FOR FUNDING FROM CHIW ABUSE LISTENING, INTERVIEWING AND COORDINATION CENTER SERVICES (CALICO) 7:35 p.m. 5.2 (580-40) Police Chief Gary Thuman presented the Staff Report and advised that CALICO is a multidisciplinary forensic interview center that provides a supportive environment for interviewing children and facilitates a collaborative response to child abuse in which the needs of the child take precedence. CALICO is requesting a funding contribution in the amount of $2,300 for FY 2005-06 for services provided to City of Dublin victims of child abuse. Karen Meridith, Alameda County District Attorney, explained how the County and Child Protective Services worked together with CALICO and the abused children during the interview process and encouraged the Council to fund the program. Vm. Zika requested that CALICO provide more background and statistical information to the Council during next year's budget cycle, if they planned to make another funding request. On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm. Oravetz and by unanimous vote, the Council approved funding request and authorized inclusion of $2,300 in FY 2005-06 Budget. .. REQUEST FOR SUPPORT FOR TIlE U. S. MAYORS CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT 7:49 p.m. 5.3 (530-10) Assistant City Manager Joni Pattillo presented the Staff Report and advised that the U.S. Conference of Mayors was encouraging cities in the United States to support the U.S. Mayors Climate protection Agreement by adopting a resolution committing to reduce global warming pollution, both in municipal operations and in the community. The City Council will consider adopting a resolution that included those commitments that the City of Dublin could support. Mayor Lockhart noted that many of the items listed in the sample resolution were things Dublin was already accomplishing. This would be an opportunity for cities that were CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING April 19, 2005 PAGE 170 already working toward climate control to let Congress to know what they were accomplishing and that it would not be such a giant step to join the Kyoto Protocol. On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 63 - 05 ENDORSING mE U.S. MAYORS CUMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT and authorized the Mayor to sign the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. . REQUEST FROM mE ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE HOMELESS CONTINUUM OF CARE COUNCIL TO CONTRIBUTE FUNDING TOWARDS A HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (HMIS) 7:54 p.m. 5.4 (430-20) Housing Specialist Julia Abdala presented the Staff Report and advised that the HCCC was requesting funding from all cities in Alameda County in order to provide a required 20% match to a grant that HCCC received from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) of $384,000 for IT 2005-2006. The grant was received to fund the new HUD-mandated Homeless Management Information System. Megan Schatz, Alameda Countywide Homeless Continuum of Care Council, gave a brief presentation on HCCC's mission and encouraged the Council to support their efforts to implement the new HUD-mandated Homeless Management Information System. Vm. Zika requested that, in the future, more background and statistical information be submitted to the Council with funding requests. Ms. Schatz advised that the new system would provide the City with exactly that type of information. On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Vm. Zika and by unanimous vote, the Council approved funding to the Alameda County-Wide Homeless Continuum of Care Council; and approved Budget Change in the amount of $1 ,946. . CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING April 19, 2005 PAGE 171 PUBUC HEARING NONRESIDENTIAL DEVEWPMENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AND FEE RESOLUTION, PA 01-039 8:01 p.m. 6.1 (430-80/390~20) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Pierce Macdonald presented the Staff Report and advised that on October 19,2004, the City Council directed Staff to proceed with preparation of a draft Fee Ordinance and/or Fee Resolution for the provision of affordable housing related to commercial development in the City. An ordinance establishing the impact fee and two fee resolutions have been prepared for City Council consideration. One resolution, would not exempt 'pipeline projects.' The second resolution would exempt 'pipeline projects.' Pipeline projects were defined as final project applications deemed complete before the effective date of the Resolution. Staff recommended that the City Council introduce the Ordinance adding Chapter 7.86 of the Dublin Municipal Code establishing a Nonresidential Development Affordable Housing Impact Fee; and take action on one of the following items: a) adopt Resolution adopting a Nonresidential Development Affordable Housing Impact Fee Amount for Future Development in the City of Dublin without Exemptions - OR - b) adopt Resolution establishing Nonresidential Development Affordable Housing Impact Fee Amount for Future Development in the City of Dublin with Exemptions. Ms. Macdonald further advised that of the 45 property owners sent a public hearing notice, only one developer, Mike Durkee with IKEA, had commented via phone call that they did not know how much the fee was going to be. Mayor Lockhart advised that she had received a fax just prior to the Council meeting from IKEA stating that they did not believe that they were subject to the fee because of their Development Agreement. Ms. Macdonald advised City Attorney had proposed additions to verbiage in the third paragraph of both resolutions to fully state: "Whereas, jn August, Zool the CÎty undertook a study to prepare a report on nonresjdentJ"al development as linked to increased demand for affordable housjng. The report, enHt1ed Üty of DubJjn NonresMentÙI Development Affordable Housjng Impact Fee Study, has been updated by Üty Staff as of March 25, ZOOs, and is herejn as Exhjbjf A ("Report"). The Üty relies upon and incorporate the Report; and" CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING April 19, 2005 PAGE 172 Ms. Macdonald advised that Staff was also recommending a change to the Staff Report to correct the footnote in Chart 3-1, page 13, found in Attachment 4. "Services & Accommodations" in Chart 3-1 should have a footnote of "4" instead of "5." Footnote 4 should reference "Services & Accommodations" instead of "Hotel/Arts & Entertainment." This change was needed to reflect changes made to the fee category names and descriptions in the updated Fee Study. Cm. McCormick referred to IKEA's statement that they were not subject to the fee because of their Development Agreement, and noted that there were Development Agreements associated with several of the listed pipeline groups. City Attorney Elizabeth Silver advised that any associated Development Agreements had been reviewed and the footnotes on the pipeline project list indicated if a project might be subject to the fee. Whether or not lKEA was subject to the fees was not material to the Council's action tonight. Staff had attempted to indicate which projects would potentially be subject to the fee if the Council went with the recommendation to include the pipeline projects. The fee would not be effective until 60 days after adoption. Additionally, a project would be exempt from the fee if it were to get its building permit before the fee was effective because the Council adopted a resolution in 2001 which allowed the Council to require payment of a fee if it was adopted before a building permit was pulled for these types of projects. City Manager Ambrose noted Staff did not anticipate receiving a construction schedule from IKEA until after their Board of Directors meeting in May. The Council and Staff engaged in a discussion about the current business climate compared to this time last year and agreed that large-scale office was not being built at this time. Vm. Zika advised that he would not support the resolution with exemptions because those facilities provide the jobs that require affordable housing. Cm. Oravetz asked the City Attorney about the potential of being sued by the pipeline projects if the fee was adopted. City Attorney Silver advised that, if the Council adopted the resolution that included pipeline projects, the developer would need to submit an argument in writing for review. It could be that they would not be subject to the fee; although, at this time it is her opinion that all pipeline projects were subject to the fee. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING April 19, 2005 PAGE 173 Cm. Hildenbrand stated that those businesses in the pipeline should be exempt as a matter of fairness, as with the proposed Condominium Conversion Ordinance in which the property owners with current condo maps would be exempted. Additionally, small business owners of 20,000 square feet or less might not be able to afford additional fees and should be exempt as well. Mayor Lockhart expressed concern about how the fee would affect small businesses going into the downtown area and agreed that an exemption for businesses with 20,000 square feet or less should be considered. Cm. McCormick indicated that many of the businesses of 20,000 square feet or less, such as restaurants, employed people who needed affordable housing the most. Council and Staff discussed the proposal to exempt businesses of 20,000 square feet or less, as well as the status of the current priorities in the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan. The general consensus was that there had been significant progress with the implementation plan. No testimony relative to this issue was entered by any member of the public. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by majority vote (Vm. Zika and Cm. McCormick opposed) the Council waived the first reading and INTRODUCED the Ordinance adding Chapter 7.86 of the Dublin Municipal Code establishing a Nonresidential Development Affordable Housing Impact Fee and directed Staff to revise the resolution to exempt all projects in the pipeline and as well as future businesses of 20,000 square feet or less city-wide and bring both items back for Council consideration at its May 3, 2005 Council meeting. . RECESS 8:35 p.m. Mayor Lockhart called for a short recess. At 8:40 p.m. the meeting reconvened with all Council Members present. . CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING April 19, 2005 PAGE 174 PUBUC HEARING CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION ORDINANCE REGULATING THE CONVERSION OF EXISTING APARTMENI'S IN THE CITY TO CONDOMINIUMS 8:40 p.m. 6.2 (430-20) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Jeff Baker presented the Staff Report and advised that on February 1 , 2005, the City Council held a public hearing and reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation regarding condominium conversion. At that meeting, the Council raised concerns about the proposed ordinance and directed Staff to do further analysis. At its March 1, 2005 meeting, the Council reviewed a series of policy alternatives to address the concerns raised at the previous meeting and directed Staff to modify the proposed ordinance accordingly. The City Council will now consider the adoption of a Condominium Conversion Ordinance to regulate the conversion of existing residential apartment units held in single ownership to for-sale condominiums. Cm. Oravetz asked if public housing, specifically Arroyo Vista, were to be redeveloped to condominiums, was subject to the Condominium Conversion Ordinance and would the City of Dublin be subject to pay the relocation fee to the current residences. Housing Specialist Julia Abdala briefly explained the relocation requirements that would be required for public housing residents in the event that they were displaced. City Attorney Silver advised that the Housing Authority, not the City, owned Arroyo Vista. If the Housing Authority was considering the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of new buildings, it would not fall under the definition of the Condo Conversion Ordinance because it would not be taking an existing unit that was rented and converting it to a condominium. No testimony relative to this issue was entered by any member of the public. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. Vm. Zika stated that he would oppose the ordinance because a third of the units were exempted. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING April 19, 2005 PAGE 175 The Council discussed annual conversion percentages and a majority agreed to start at 7% annually, with the understanding that the percentage could be reviewed in the future and adjusted accordingly. The Council discussed the proposed financial relocation assistance and agreed that it should be based on average rent, although the payment should be paid 30 days prior to termination instead of the suggested 15 days. On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by majority vote (Vm. Zika opposed), the Council waived the first reading and INTRODUCED the Ordinance regulating the conversion of existing apartments in the City to condominiums with relocation assistance payments to be made 30 days prior to termination and a 7% annual conversion limit. . AUTIlORlZATION TO APPLY TO THE METROPOUTAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC) FOR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 3 FUNDING TO DEVELOP A CITY N WIDE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN 9:14 p.m. 8.1 (930-20) Public Works Director Melissa Morton presented the Staff Report and advised that the City of Dublin has submitted the City-Wide Bicycle Master Plan proposal for Transportation Development Act Article 3 funding which is available for certain pedestrian and bicycle projects. Upon approval by the MTC, funds in the amount of $45,144 would be available for this project in Fiscal Year 2005-2006. The development of a City-Wide Bicycle Master Plan has been identified as one of the City Council's high priority Goals & Objectives. Included in the Plan is an evaluation of existing bicycle conditions and the development of an integrated plan that would incorporate access to parks and open space areas. Mayor Lockhart asked if it was too late for pedestrians to be included in the plan. Public Works Director advised that the intent of the Master Plan was to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian coordination. Council and Staff engaged in brief question and answer session regarding the process and project costs. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING April 19, 2005 PAGE 176 On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm. McCormick and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 64 - 05 APPROVING REQUEST TO THE METROPOUTAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR THE ALLOCATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2005-06 TRANSPORTATION DEVEWPMENT ACT, ARTICLE 3, PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE PROJECT FUNDING . OTHER BUSINESS City Manager Ambrose advised the community that Dublin Pride Week kicked off last Saturday with a great Volunteer Clean-Up Day, and commended Staff, especially Jason Behrmann and Toni Walker, for doing an excellent job. The Council discussed Dublin Pride Week and agreed that Saturday's event was a huge success. Staff and those who volunteered, including the Lions Club, were to be commended. The nature walk was led by a naturalist from East Bay Regional Park District and was very educational. The E-Waste event would be held next Saturday. Cm. Oravetz advised that he would attend a Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority meeting and a League East Bay Division meeting this week. Vm. Zika discussed his recent attendance at a Planning Conference. Traffic calming ideas were discussed which he felt our Traffic Engineer should follow up on. Form-based zoning, a new concept in Planning, was also discussed. This concept encompassed many of the ideas Dublin has talked about regarding villages and pedestrian use. San Ramon has hired the impenitent expert to re-do their plan, and he requested that the expert be hired to meet with the Dublin Council, Planning Commission and Staff to discuss how the concept worked. Cm. McCormick advised that she attended the Earth Summit sponsored by the Go Green Initiative. . Mayor Lockhart advised that she had received a request today from Assemblymember Johan Klehs for a letter of support of AB 1623 from the City Council before April 25. CITY COUNCIL MINlJTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING April 19, 2005 PAGE 177 City Attorney Silver advised that the Mayor could make a motion to add this item to the agenda, along with a statement that the need to take action arose after the agenda for this meeting was posted and it must be acted upon before the next regular meeting. The motion to add the item to the agenda required a 4/5 vote. The item could be discussed after it was added to the agenda. On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. McCormick and by 4/5 vote (Vm. Zika opposed) the Council added the following item to the agenda as an emergency item based on the fact that it was received after the agenda was posted and needed to be responded to before the next regular meeting: CONSIDERATION OF LETTER or SUPPORT - AB 1623 9:25 p.m. 9.1 (800-30) Mayor Lockhart advised that Assemblymember Klehs was requesting a letter of support of AB 1623, which would add up to a $5 fee on motor vehicle registration in certain counties. The fee would raise up to $5 million, which would go to local Congestion Management Agencies for environmental impacts of motor vehicles, as well as management of traffic congestion, the SMART corridor, interchange improvements, HOV lane construction and/or improvements, and storm water runoff projects. Cm. Oravetz advised that he had not had the opportunity to read the report and did not feel that he had enough information to make an intelligent decision. Vm. Zika advised that he had read the back up materia!, and expressed concern that there was no agreement as to how the funds would be allocated. On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by majority vote (Vm. Zika and Cm. Oravetz opposed) the Council authorized the Mayor to execute a letter of support for AB 1623. Cm. Oravetz expressed a desire that the letter of support show that he and Vm. Zika opposed the request. . Mayor Lockhart advised that she had also received today a request for support from Assemblymember Klehs for AB 1612, Cigarette Butt Pollution and Litter Reduction Bill, and requested that the item be placed on the next regular agenda for consideration. . CITY COUNCIL MINtlTES VOLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING April 19, 2005 PAGE 178 ADJOURNMENT . 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:31 p.m. Minutes taken and prepared by Fawn Holman, Deputy City Clerk Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 111\ CITY COUNCIL MINIJTES YÜLUME 24 REGULAR MEETING April 19, 2005 PAGE 179