Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.01 Approve 04-18-1990 and 04-23-1990 Minutes (2) ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING (Study Session) - April 18, 1990 An adjourned regular meeting (study session) of the City Council of the City of Dublin held jointly with the Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 18, 1990, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7: 03 p.m. , by Mayor Paul Moffatt. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Moffatt and Planning Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Okun and Zika. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Commission, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Staff advised that this study session was scheduled to discuss General Plan Policies and Land Use Concepts for East Dublin. Mayor Moffatt introduced Project Coordinator, Brenda Gillarde. Ms. Gillarde advised that this is one of the largest planning projects in Northern California and that the East Dublin General Plan Amendment/ Specific Plan/EIR Study (GPA/SP/EIR) was initiated by the City in the fall of 1988, following submission of a request to consider development of the 930 acre Dublin Ranch. The City Council determined that prior to acting on the request, a comprehensive study should be undertaken for the entire East Dublin area. The City retained the firm of Wallace, Roberts & Todd to prepare the East Dublin GPA/SP/EIR. Ms. Gillarde introduced Alison Massa with WRT. Ms. Massa advised •that the study area includes approximately 7 , 400 acres of relatively undeveloped land east of Dublin. The topography ranges from virtually level land adjacent to I-580 to steeply sloping hills in the upper, northern portion of the study area. Some grazing occurs in the hills and there are approximately 35 occupied residences on the property. Approximately 66% of the study area lies within Dublin's existing Sphere of Influence. The remainder of the planning area, including a portion of Doolan Canyon, lies outside the City's Sphere of Influence. Ms. Massa presented the Concepts Report which detailed five different land use options that could be considered for East Dublin. Some of the land use concepts would require minor modifications to existing policies; others would involve major policy adjustments to accommodate the level of development represented by the concept. The concepts were preliminary only and subject to further refinement. The area is quite extensive and varied and slides were shown of how the area currently looks. An underlying vision common to all the concepts was CM - VOL 9 - 89 Study Session April 18, 1990 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- �, COPIES TO: ITEM NO. 1 that East Dublin is seen as a living and working community. Each concept contained a substantial amount of retail use. The five concepts share a common vision of a dynamic community that provides opportunities for people to live and work as well as recreational opportunities. Within the community would be one or more business centers containing a mix of office, retail and other commercial uses. Residential neighborhoods of different types of housing would surround each center and would be connected by landscaped parkways and pedestrian pathways. An extensive system of open space corridors would provide visual relief from the urban landscape, as well as outdoor recreational opportunities. Cm. Zika questioned if, in figuring the housing deficit, does this assume the number employed compared to the number of dwelling units available. Where do earnings come into play and whether or not the units will be affordable. Ms. Massa advised that the report does not take into account questions of affordability, but does take into account the number of people in a household. Cm. Hegarty stated that if every community would strive to create a jobs/housing match, we would not have the commute situations that exist today. If one city accomplishes this and another doesn't, then one will obviously suffer. You then might develop a concept of one city creating jobs and letting another city build the houses. He felt the goal was to have as close a match as possible. Ms. Massa advised that in putting the concepts together, and in evaluating them, they looked at a number of factors besides the ratio of employed workers to housing units. There are some significant traffic impacts which would require some substantially greater infrastructure for roads and highways. Cm. Jeffery advised that one of the reports used in developing the land use concepts was the Economics Research Associates of 1988. She questioned who commissioned this report. Ms. Massa advised that it was a part of the overall East Dublin contract. Ms. Gillarde discussed the policy issues raised by the 5 concepts. Because this is a General Plan Amendment, the possibility of modifying. some of the policies. can be considered to accommodate different kinds of development in East Dublin than has occurred elsewhere in the City. There are 43 policies in the General Plan which can be applied to East Dublin; however, 6 were selected which most impact development in East Dublin. The 6 policies were then reviewed. Cm. Jeffery advised that with Concept 5 she was concerned regarding the agreement with Alameda County and what will be forced upon us by legislature regarding jobs/housing balance. CM - VOL 9 - 90 study session April 18, 1990 City Manager Ambrose advised that this is something we will have to discuss with the County. There is no question that this is a problem. Ms. Gillarde advised that the County fully acknowledges their agreement. The County has rethought their position and are actually in favor of a more mixed use. Cm. Jeffery indicated that when the agreement was made, there was no land that was set aside as a transportation center. Ms. Gillarde indicated that in discussions with the County, they are open to considering other uses. Cm. Hegarty questioned what type of height requirements were being recommended. Ms. Gillarde stated she thought it was 200' with regard to the Airport Land Use Commission referral. They anticipate no conflicts with this. There is a requirement to forward a developed plan to them and then they have a chance to comment. Cm. Hegarty stated he was concerned regarding spreading things out and using up all the land. Land can be preserved by building upwards. This is the time to carefully consider heights. When the original GP was adopted, the Council told people to bring their plans and concepts in regarding height and the Council would consider how high to go. There was flexibility built in. Cm. Mack felt the designation of a 600 acre business park on the Santa Rita property in Concept 5 was inconsistent with the first 4 concepts. Mayor Moffatt called a short recess and advised that when the meeting reconvened, audience members would be allowed to offer comments. All Councilmembers and Commissioners were present when the meeting was reconvened. Mayor Moffatt reiterated that no votes or consensus will be taken at this meeting, but the purpose of the meeting was for a study session only. Zev Kahn, 11708 Harlan Road stated he had concerns regarding parks and recreation issues. He questioned how the amount of land was figured and also, how the school yards related to park uses. Schools and school yards have been indicated as recreational areas. If there are not enough parks, you will severely restrict the people who will eventually live there. He did not see any real park areas on the maps. Mayor Moffatt advised that specific questions would not be addressed tonight, but would be added to the list of concerns to be studied. Ms. Massa briefly explained that the General Plan says only to expand park space in the extended planning area. They took the upper end of the Quimby Act dedication requirement, which is 5 acres per thousand CM - VOL 9 - 91 Study Session April 18, 1990 residents. They also introduced the notion of school parks. They are not cutting back on the acreage devoted to parks, but rather combining. , Another idea common to all the concepts is the idea of a Citywide sports park, shown in 3 of the concepts on flatland along Tassajara, adjacent to the proposed Alameda County government center. Mary Beth Acuff, 8048 Via Zapata expressed concerns that Dublin is under the gun to produce affordable housing. She felt that of all the concepts presented, only #4 gives enough flexibility for the City to negotiate so that some lower income housing is built. It is extremely important to consider architectural planning for height, open space, etc. , and flexibility must be built in. Therese Swan, 6931 Langmuir Lane pointed out that many companies are laying people off, and questioned why Dublin would want to build another business park. All this will do is drive down property values. Not enough businesses are moving into this area. Larry Anderson with BART stated he was very encouraged by the focus of the plan on pedestrian network and provisions that will encourage transit. Park & Ride facilities have been placed near I-580. He was concerned about the configuration of a roadway, in that Dublin Boulevard seems to move away from the BART station. Adolph Martinelli with Alameda County reminded the Council and Commission that the Santa Rita property has a different status from the other property. This is subject to an initial agreement which is very sensitive related to tax transfers and land uses. The County is not opposed to alternative uses, but it is a very sensitive issue. The County would support mixed use on the property, particularly to work toward jobs/housing balance. He felt a policy should be added to look at vertical land uses, particularly on the western portion of the study area. He also pointed out that the Triad Business Center in Livermore is shown on all the plans, but BART is not shown. Circulation will be a controlling factor, even more than open space and jobs/housing balance. This is a long term plan which will take many years to build out. Dublin is blessed with geography and timing and Dublin can become the focal point of the entire region. Marjorie LaBar, 11707 Juarez Lane indicated that several assumptions made in the report jump out at her as being downright dangerous. She was concerned with water shortage and the fact that we may not be .able to get all of our allotment from the State of California. To assume this kind of growth with an unstable water supply is dangerous. She suggested a concept 6 that would take into affect the airport buffer zone, amount of water available, and a 30% slope development restriction. She also felt that the financial figures might need to be redone. Everyone should know up-front what it will cost to meet Level of Service D. She was concerned with development height and conflicts with the flight zones. Ted Fairfield, P. 0. Box 1148, Pleasanton stated he was glad to finally be at this point in the process. It appears we are headed toward the real thing. He represented 2400 acres of the property. CM - VOL 9 - 92 Study Session April 18, 1990 u � Concept 3 has been referred to as the developers option. It does have problems, but overall is a good plan. He discussed the various concepts and felt that #4 takes away a little of the flexibility. We must keep in mind that we are looking 20 years into the future. What is done now will somewhat put a cap on what is ultimately done. We cannot change our minds years from now. All the infrastructure will be built as one of the first phases of development. There will be some very heavy front-end costs. Ownership and use of open space is somewhat in question. There are a lot of nice thoughts for the land. This will be an evolutionary process. Putting in a band of 5 acre ranchettes as a buffer might be desirable. With regard to the riparian corridors, they hoped that these are counted for density purposes. This will be a substantial issue as the study progresses. He felt personally that there are too many schools on the site, and based this on other communities in which they have done plans. In summary, he felt that everything is headed in the right direction. Trevor Patterson, 5661 Doolan Road expressed concern that he was deleted from the ownership pattern page. He questioned how much area in width is included in the riparian corridor. He pointed out that Concept #3 takes out his house completely. He also asked if Cottonwood Creek had been mapped. Ms. Massa advised that the riparian corridors were approximately 200' wide and also that Cottonwood Creek has not been mapped. Marty Inderbitzen, 62 West Neal Street, Pleasanton stated he represented Doolan property and Lin properties along with Ted Fairfield. One of the notable things is that there is a substantial amount of property owned by a few property owners. This gives a chance for the property owners to participate in the future development of the City of Dublin. This area of the Valley represents Dublin's opportunity to grow to maturity and a chance to become the real jewel of this Valley. It is exciting. With regard to the ALUC, Dublin needs to be cognizant of this commission, but he did not feel that they could impose any restrictions. Bobbie Foscalina, 5200 Doolan Road quoted various ABAG statistics and felt that the plans presented would throw Dublin's jobs/housing ratio out of balance. She questioned if the area could absorb this much commercial development or housing. The Council should be concerned because each of the concepts conflict with the General Plan, and all the plans seem to lead to a LOS D or F, which are unacceptable. She felt there should be an additional plan which would leave Doolan Canyon undeveloped which would also keep infrastructure costs down for the rest of the area. Most of the residents of this canyon are not interested in being developed into Dublin. Bill Diehl, 22916 Espada, Salinas congratulated everyone involved in putting these plans together. He urged Dublin not to be timid in the future. Developers are becoming very sensitive. It is difficult to look 20 years into the future, but the key has to be flexibility. Whatever land concept is chosen, you may discover that some of the things may .be inappropriate. He urged the City to go forward. CM - VOL 9 - 93 Study Session April 18, 1990 Doug Abbott, 8206 Rhoda Avenue stated he was troubled by this whole process. Since he assumed that a lot of thought was put into the General Plan, why not develop a concept that conforms. Each one of the concepts presented asks for exceptions to the General Plan. Dublin's General Plan should mean something and should protect existing residents. Carolyn Morgan speaking for Donna Ogelvie, 5184 Doolan Canyon felt it was premature to have these meetings since LAFCO has not made their decision and won't until next month. The costs for infrastructure are staggering. She questioned how this will be funded and who is going to pay for it. The drought of the last few years is a major concern. Why not leave Doolan Canyon as 5 and 10 acre parcels and use them as a buffer. She also was very concerned regarding traffic circulation. Carolyn Morgan felt that Dublin was leaving itself open for tons of complaints regarding schools and other proposed uses under an airport path. She also pointed out that she saw no reference in the report related to the transfer of development credits. About 4 months ago, they asked permission to submit their own plans. She questioned the percentage of costs for infrastructure compared to the percentage of housing for just Doolan Canyon. The newspaper reported that housing in Doolan Canyon would be under $200, 000. She did not feel this could be done. She questioned Congressman Stark's proposed legislation and also the County's policy. She also questioned why Doolan Canyon was even included in the plan. Ed Freiling, 7773 Woodren Court stated that it appeared that the Council and Commission is finetuning and he questioned if he was even on the same channel. He asked what these plans will do to property values. Also, what will an influx of 40, 000 to 80, 000 people have on the drug situation, the water supply, and various other health issues. He felt that that many people will bring social diseases. Glenn Brown, Stedman Associates, 1646 North California Boulevard, Walnut Creek stated he wanted to make a pitch for higher use of the flatlands, as this allows more preservation of the land. Some high rise development will pull people off the freeway and get them into the office uses. He questioned the 400' noise buffer zone as it distracts visibility from the freeway. High density residential might be better kept closer to the freeway as a way of keeping infrastructure costs down. Dublin needs to have freeway visibility. Don Redgwick, 1632 Loganberry Way, Pleasanton (Dublin Ranch owner) stated he was the owner of 160 acres in the Sphere of Influence. He felt the proposed Doolan Canyon Road should be moved to the east and the existing road could be left in a rural sense which would leave them out of the costs of infrastructure. He discussed the economics of housing versus jobs market. The housing element can pay for itself quite easily if it is a mixture of low cost as well as upscale housing. Mr. Redgwick passed out 2 letters to the Council and Commission and stated he favored Concept #3 as having a higher percentage of single-family residences and lower percentage of CM - VOL 9 - 94 Study Session April 18, 1990 multiples. It also has a better jobs/housing ratio than the others. He felt that Concept #3 was clearly the best choice. John DiManto, San Jose Construction advised that he represented property at the northeast corner of Tassajara Road and I-580. His company has been business park commercial developers for many years. Combinations will ultimately be appealing to developers. If you create a high profile area, you can mix sizes, shapes and heights along the freeway all the way to Livermore. He felt it was important to show the connection to Santa Rita Road on future plans. Harvey Scudder, 7409 Hansen Drive advised that traffic is absolutely solid on the freeway from Tracy into Dublin. If you place this many additional cars on the freeway, plans need to be done to accommodate all these cars. He felt that everyone on the Council and Commission should observe this traffic volume on a weekday. Bob Beebe, General Manager of DSRSD stated he felt it would be quite straight forward to serve this area from an engineering standpoint. Zone 7 is now serving the area and does not feel that water will be a problem for many years. Mayor Moffatt announced that the public comment portion of the meeting was closed. Ms. Gillarde stated General Plan Policy #1: Consider residential development proposals (including support facilities) on moderate slopes, with multi-family densities typically considered on flatter land. Cm. Snyder felt that if we change the concept to preserve the land, then densities must be reconsidered. Cm. Vonheeder felt this is one of the ways in which we can work toward achieving a greater housing balance. Cm. Zika felt the policies should be compared to the various concepts. Cm. Hegarty stated the City had talked extensively about the 30% slopes. If there were pockets that could be developed, the Council would consider this. He felt there was nothing wrong with the existing General Plan as it provides flexibility. He expressed frustration at seeing all the colors on the map, when in actuality, when the development plans come in, these will change. He felt the policy related to the 30% slopes should be maintained. On a case-by- case basis, some modifications could be made. Cm. Vonheeder felt that there could be an increase in density on moderate slopes of up to 30%. Cm. Jeffery stated she had no problem considering higher densities on other than flatlands, provided there was a right place for it. We can preserve the look of the Valley and still allow for some development. She indicated no problem with height, unless it blocks the hills. CM - VOL 9 - 95 Study Session April 18, 1990 1 M Ms. Gillarde stated General Plan Policy #2 : Approval of residential development in the extended planning area will require determination that . . . proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the ridgelands. Cm. Jeffery stated that in some areas, you have to do some cutting for roads, but disfigurements can be mitigated and put back to a natural state. Cm. Hegarty mentioned that he liked a term that he had once heard John DiManto use, and that was to "sculpture the hills" . Often times, development can actually improve the visual impacts. Ms. Gillarde stated Policies #3 and #4 : Maintain slopes predominantly over 30% (disregarding minor surface humps and hollows) as permanent open space for public health and safety. Prior to planning and/or building permit approval of more than 9, 000 (22%) of the potential jobs in the Extended Planning Area, one or more Specific Area plans shall be developed to designate sufficient land for housing in reasonable relationship to existing jobs and jobs being proposed; and to demonstrate how needed municipal services will be provided. Ms. Gillarde indicated that before you can approve x number of square feet, you must have housing for the workers. Acting City Attorney Silver indicated she was not aware of any specific legislation regarding jobs/housing requirement balance. Cm. Zika asked what is reasonable and who determines this. Mr. Tong indicated that this is a policy decision. The City needs to make a good faith effort to obtain a balance. Cm. Vonheeder felt the law was that you should strive for a 1/1 ratio. Cm. Mack indicated she would like to see the policy changed. Cm. Zika felt the policy is vague enough that we can do what we want. Cm. Jeffery stated she did not see a problem with the way it is written. Cm. Snyder felt this was a statement that Dublin may never even have to deal with, if housing is in place before the jobs are created. The area needs to be economically viable and this allows for flexibility. Cm. Mack asked if the City had ever considered trailer parks as a way of providing affordable housing. Mayor Moffatt indicated that specific uses were not being discussed, but this type of comment would be more appropriate at a later time. Cm. Okun felt that other types of housing must be considered. CM - VOL 9 - 96 Study Session April 18, 1990 1 M Ms. Gillarde stated General Plan Policy #5: Regulate grading and development on steep slopes. Cm. Snyder indicated that there were extensive discussions during the development of the General Plan relative to this. There is a possibility that there may be ridgelines that would be more attractive developed than undeveloped. Some can be enhanced. Cm. Vonheeder stated that another issue that comes into consideration is that ridgelines are not clearly defined; and from what locations. Some can be enhanced by grading. Cm. Jeffery felt that defining ridgelines is almost as difficult as defining affordable housing. Cm. Hegarty added that basically, he saw nothing wrong with a house on a hill, if it is done correctly. Ms. Gillarde stated Policy #6: Strive to phase development and road improvements outside the Downtown Specific Planoarea so that the operating Level of Service (LOS) for major street intersections shall not be worse than LOS D. Cm. Vonheeder indicated she had a problem with the policy beginning with "Strive" . She felt it should simply being, "Phase development. . . " Cm. Snyder advised that Pleasanton has a stipulation in the NPID that does not allow anything beyond LOS D. If it is worse than this, it restricts future development. Cm. Jeffery discussed the BART station location. Ms. Gillarde advised that Staff will next find common threads and come back to the City Council and Planning Commission regarding land use. The final plan will be a synthesis of all the plans. Cm. Vonheeder indicated she liked the parks concept. * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10: 00 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CM - VOL 9 - 97 Study Session April 18, 1990 REGULAR MEETING - April 23, 1990 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, April 23 , 1990, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7: 34 p.m. , by Mayor Paul Moffatt. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Moffatt. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 9, 1990; Authorized Cm. Jeffery to attend the FAIR Steering Committee Meeting in Jackson, Mississippi on May 10-13 , 1990 at an approximate cost of $650; Authorized Staff to advertise Contract 90-07 City Entrance Signs and Facilities Identification Signs for bids; Received the Winter 1990 Recreation Report; Accepted the NEC Telephone System and Voice Messaging System and authorized release of the final payment in the amount of $10, 526. 53 ; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 45 - 90 APPROVING THE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT AND A MUTUAL RELEASE AGREEMENT WITH DICKMAN-NOURSE, INC. AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO MARE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $363 , 733 . 10. * * * * CAMP PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA - CLOSURE & CONVEYANCE City Manager Ambrose advised that the City had received a letter from Congressman Pete Stark indicating that he is interested in introducing some legislation to close Camp Parks and to relocate it to an area in the hills to the north or east of its present location. The land would then be conveyed for public purposes only to other agencies. Of CM - VOL 9 - 98 Regular Meeting April 23, 1990 the 2 , 268 acres indicated in the draft legislation, approximately 750 is located in the City of Dublin, with the remaining acreage located in Contra Costa County. Staff identified 7 possible public uses in addition to the uses identified in the draft legislation. In addition to considering public uses, Staff felt the legislation should also provide for use of a portion of land for private purposes. Since nearly 3/4 of the Camp Parks facility is located within the City of Dublin, the location of only public uses which require municipal services may place a drain on the City financially. Staff recommended that a mixture of public and private uses be considered. Private uses would generate the tax revenue needed to serve not only private land uses, but also public land uses where required. Mayor Moffatt questioned if under the federal use, they supply the fire and police services themselves. Mr. Ambrose advised that this was correct. We are not responding as a primary responder on any calls on the Camp Parks property. The County property is outside of the Camp Parks ownership. Cm. Jeffery indicated she thought the Council had taken a stance against locating a national cemetery and felt this should be restated. She also had concerns by what they mean by armory. Cm. Snyder stated it is currently on Dougherty Road and this would just allow it to continue. It doesn't have any connection to Camp Parks and it functions as a separate operation. Cm. Jeffery felt that if we suggest certain uses, perhaps an armory would not be appropriate to be located so near. Mayor Moffatt felt that if a cemetery were located closer to the Contra Costa County line, it would be more appropriate. Mr. Ambrose advised that the original issue came up when there was a property exchange contemplated with San Leandro. Cm. Jeffery expressed a more general concern over what the land should be used for. The Valley needs so many kinds of things. Also, there is not land available for affordable housing and this would be a possible way of putting some in. With our national debt, perhaps the Federal Government would be willing to let some of this land go to private uses in order to get some money. Cm. Vonheeder stated that while it would be nice, we can't realistically have it as a big park. She felt that it must have some kind of mixed uses to be viable. If it is all public uses, it will have a major drain on Dublin. Cm. Hegarty felt we should make our response very strong. This land has a great deal of potential and the right things must be put in the proper places. They could bankrupt us by putting in the wrong kinds CM - VOL 9 - 99 Regular Meeting April 23, 1990 7 y of uses. We must make absolutely certain that what comes out of the legislation is beneficial to Dublin, as we have to protect ourselves. It is a good move, but it must be monitored very closely. Cm. Jeffery opened for discussion the possibility of some potential land exchanges or trades. Mr. Ambrose felt the closest potential would be in the East Dublin planning area. Cm. Snyder felt you would get a better mix of uses if you could work out some kind of a trade. Mayor Moffatt questioned if the intent in the draft was to reverse the process. Would Dublin have first choice of any property expendable? Mr. Ambrose advised that this was his understanding. The other condition is that Stark proposes the development of a committee to determine the amount of land to be conveyed to the communities. He wasn't sure how the committee would work. It could be very cumbersome. Cm. Jeffery felt that with all the potential agencies involved, it would take a long time to get results. She felt perhaps we should just suggest how the land in Dublin is to be used. Cm. Snyder discussed Delaware Senator Roth's bill which does a reversal of the current Federal Law. It gives rights to local agencies. Mr. Ambrose advised that with regard to land conveyed to any other agency, Dublin should have a voice because we will be impacted. Mayor Moffatt questioned how agencies could make trades. Mr. Ambrose discussed the case of the Dublin Sports Grounds. If we wanted to trade for another facility, we could not do this because we would have to pay full market value. You would almost have to put together some future land use plan and then work from that. Cm. Vonheeder felt that the Federal Government does not convey land without holding onto some kind of a string. Cm. Snyder discussed Land Transfer Development rights. Mr. Ambrose advised that the comments would be forwarded and requested clarification that a cemetery might be okay somewhere else. Cm. Snyder felt the only thing the Council was saying is that it is not appropriate at this location. They are not against a cemetery, but not in a prime location. CM - VOL 9 - 100 Regular Meeting April 23, 1990 Bill Meyers with the Presidio commented on the issue of the cemetery and advised that the current position is that Camp Parks is not a viable location for a cemetery. Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff will draft an appropriate letter stating the Council's comments and concerns. PUBLIC HEARING - VILLAGE PARKWAY @ POST OFFICE REPEAL 94' PASSENGER LOADING ZONE & ESTABLISH 20-MINUTE PARKING ZONE Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Staff advised that April 9, 1990, the City Council conducted a public hearing regarding the removal of the passenger loading zone on Village Parkway in front of the Post Office. The Council directed Staff to prepare a draft Ordinance establishing a 20-minute parking zone at this location. No comments were made by members of the public relative to this item. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an Ordinance repealing a passenger loading zone and establishing a 20-minute parking zone on Village Parkway. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE RELATING TO SOILS REPORTS Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Public Works Director Thompson advised that Senate Bill 423 , which became effective January 1, 1990, allows a City to reject soils reports that are felt to be inadequate or to require corrections or amplifications to the reports. This power was not part of California Law prior to the passage of SB 423 . The proposed new amendment is more detailed than the existing City regulation and also mimics the new State Law. Staff time involved in the review of soils reports is paid for by the developer. The City Attorney has confirmed that the City can also require review by a consultant hired by the City and can require that the developer pay that cost under the City's adopted fee schedule Ordinance. No comments were made by members of the public relative to this item. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. CM - VOL 9 - 101 Regular Meeting April 23, 1990 On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an Ordinance amending certain provisions of Chapter I of Title 8 of the City of Dublin Subdivision Ordinance No. 19-83 . * * * * PUBLIC HEARING-PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE ENABLING A CURBSIDE RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that State Law requires cities to develop a recycling plan and to reduce the amount of waste generated from the City. The law currently contains strict penalties for cities which do not divert 25% of the solid waste now collected by January 1, 1995. The law identifies source reduction, recycling, and composting as methods of achieving the goal. In order to implement a residential curbside recycling program, it is necessary to amend the City's Solid Waste Management Ordinance. The amendment will establish reporting requirements and protect recycling transporters from unauthorized scavengers. In addition, it will allow for the collection of a fee by recyclers. Mr. Rankin advised that under the proposed Ordinance you will still be able to address those situations where an operator was not a recycler. A recycler would be required to get a permit and therefore, no matter what they are hauling, without a permit they would not be authorized to operate within the City. Also, the Ordinance very clearly states that a recycler is only authorized to transport source-separated recyclable materials. Staff had concerns that in the future, the economics might not be the same if the market changes. Mr. Rankin advised that it would be 210 days into the agreement before they would be required to develop a commercial program. At that time, the City could discuss any Ordinance modifications. Mr. Dave McDonald advised that Mr. Rankin had correctly explained their position and that they will abide with Staff's recommendation. Mr. Frank Ruskey, Dublin resident, advised that he was all in favor of recycling, but he should not have to pay. Cans and paper are worth money and if the City went out to bid, the City would be paid, instead of paying. Newspapers are a big program for the Boy Scouts. The City should go out to bid to individual companies, as it is a highly competitive field and cans would bring in $ . 20 per pound. Mr. Ruskey stated he could suggest more than one name of companies who would do this. He felt that Staff should do more homework and find out whats the best situation for Dublin. There are a million things that the City could use the money for. City Manager Ambrose advised that the Ordinance under consideration is an enabling Ordinance, and public comments such as Mr. Ruskey's would be more appropriate under the next item of business when the Council CM - VOL 9 - 102 Regular Meeting April 23, 1990 discusses the actual implementation of a recycling program. This Ordinance only enables the City to develop a recycling program. Mr. Brian Tyme, Dublin resident, stated he had been here for about a year and a half. When he used to rent a home, he got to participate in the free garbage pickups. He now lives in the Cottonwood Apartments, and stated that it was his understanding that he would not be included right off the bat in a recycling program. He felt that since he is included in the population, he should be included from day one. Recycling is a great idea which should have been done a long time ago. He felt that perhaps separate bins could be included in complexes such as his. He felt people who reside in apartment or condominium complexes should not be treated like second class citizens. Everyone who lives here contributes in one way or another to the tax base. Mr. Ambrose advised again that this comment would be more appropriate under the next item of business. Zev Kahn stated he wished to comment on the portion of the amendment allowing collection of a fee for recyclers. He requested that this be delayed until after the next item was considered because he felt that the die would be cast. As a homeowner, he felt that if he has to pay a fee, commercial users should also pay. It is not fair for businesses to not take their share of the responsibility. Mr. Ambrose again stated that all this Ordinance does is allow for collection of the rate. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. Cm. Snyder referred to Section 5-415 of the Ordinance related to ownership of source separated materials. He felt the wording reminded him of the warning on pillows that say, "remove under penalty of law" . He felt this should be clarified. As long as the material is at their home, they own it. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an Ordinance (with Cm. Snyder's clarification) amending Ordinance No. 2-86 related to Solid Waste Management. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING IMPLEMENTATION OF RECYCLING PROGRAM MANDATED BY STATE LAW Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that pursuant to City Council direction, Staff has solicited a comprehensive proposal from the local garbage company for the provision of recycling services. The report includes a proposed agreement which would provide for the implemen- tation of residential curbside recycling beginning in September, 1990. It is proposed that the recyclables be collected on the same day as CM - VOL 9 - 103 Regular Meeting April 23, 1990 the customer receives their regular garbage service. The customer will be required to place the recycling bins at the curb, whereas regular garbage service does not require cans to be placed at the curb. Bins will be used to allow customers a convenient way to separate clear glass, mixed color glass, and PET/Plastic/tin/aluminum. Customers will either bag or tie newspapers next to the bins. Phase Two will be for Livermore-Dublin Disposal (LDD) to research a program designed for multi-family and commercial/industrial users. Due to the configuration of these units, a different type of collection bin would need to be utilized and the project would require working with the property owners or landlords to implement the final program. LDD has also agreed to evaluate the provision of a residential waste oil collection program as part of the recycling services. Mr. Rankin advised that it is anticipated that compostible materials comprise a large volume of the trash now generated from the community. LDD has agreed to work with the City to evaluate the addition of this type of program in the future. LDD has recommended proceeding with the implementation of the recycling program in September even though the actual increase in the garbage rate would be effective July 1, 1990. The Contractor will use this additional time to procure the necessary equipment and to develop public information items. In December of last year, the Council requested that Staff evaluate the implementation of garbage rate collection on the property tax bill. Staff considered this option, however, given that the recycling provider has access to the garbage billing system, it is not advantageous to further complicate the matter with a separate billing through the property tax system. Mr. Rankin indicated that in discussions with LDD, Staff has been advised that approximately 8% or 435 single family residents do not currently have garbage service. These residents would not receive the recycling service, nor would they be assisting the community in addressing the State mandated requirement to reduce solid waste. One method of addressing the issue of nonsubscribers would be to develop a mandatory garbage service ordinance. Staff noted that in some cases where property maintenance complaints related to garbage have come in, many times the individuals do not have regular garbage service. Mr. Rankin advised that it does not appear that a program can be operated solely on the scrap value. LDD is assuming the market risks. The company can modify the agreement on an annual basis, based on the CPI. LDD initially proposed an agreement which would be in effect through September, 1995. Due to the significant capital investment, they were not receptive to a shorter term. Staff suggested that the term be extended to March 31, 1996 which coincides with the expiration of the City's current ten year garbage franchise agreement. The intent is to have consecutive terms for both agreements. CM - VOL 9 - 104 Regular Meeting April 23, 1990 1 � Mr. Ambrose advised that City Staff had talked a lot with other communities. Some have gone out to bid and most are still paying for picking up recyclables. Mayor Moffatt asked if the $1.25 was a monthly fee. Mr. Rankin responded that the $1. 25 is per month, per single-family residence. Cm. Jeffery questioned why it was so difficult to determine a program for multi-family residents. Mr. Rankin advised that LDD has some idea about how to implement the program, but no one else has developed this type of a program. They must check space available, and this would have to be done with a number of property owners or homeowners associations. The truck to be used in single-family pick-ups is being proposed to be used 100% of the time. They must look at what type of vehicle they will be able to use and if it is possible to share a truck with another operation within OSC. Cm. Jeffery asked if Staff had considered the option of having large bins located somewhere in the City. Mr. Rankin advised that there are currently bins within the City. This type of a program would offer convenience and hopefully help the City to meet the required goals. Mayor Moffatt asked what happens when people overfill the containers. Mr. McDonald advised that they have not found this to be a problem. If someone has extras, they would pick them up and work with the customer. They would not leave. a mess on the street. With regard to the Boy Scouts collection bins, they have found from experience that this has very little impact on these types of programs. People who support the Boy Scouts tend to continue to support them. Frank Ruskey questioned what the 25% reduction figure related to. Mr. Rankin advised that the yardstick was developed by the State Legislature and they are still working on the requirement. They anticipate that there would be growth and would allow you to reduce the waste stream based on that growth. This is just a first step in meeting the goal. Richard Heckler, Jade Circle felt that success is dependent on a painless process and if a fee is required, then so be it. He felt the City should be realistic, however, in that a certain amount of people will find this objectionable and will not participate. Placement of large bins should be done to allow people to take their stuff for recycling. Also, he pointed out that it is very difficult to get rid of motor oil. CM - VOL 9 - 105 Regular Meeting April 23, 1990 Eliot Healy questioned the capacity of the bins and if any assistance would be offered to the elderly. Staff advised that they are 12 gallon bins and measure 20" x 15" x 12" high. The bins are small and stackable. Mr. McDonald advised that they have provisions for handicapped assistance. Dr. Kahn advised that grant dollars were mentioned, but with no details. He questioned if Dublin had looked into this. Mr. Rankin advised that there was a program on the Peninsula which turned out to have a very low cost and had grant money from San Mateo County. Each community is now required to do this. The grant dollars were used for pilot programs. During the last 5 years, there have been a number of pilot programs, so it is pretty well established on how to do a program. Dr. Kahn indicated that he would be opposed to having to pay to give someone else a chance to make money. He wished the Council could find a way of crediting the resident to offset some of the costs. Hand held scanners with bar codes on bins could be considered; then those who don't recycle would be the ones who have to pay the fees. It is not fair to have to pay to recycle. With regard to oil, all the car shops and oil changers have their oil picked up, so their must be some kind of deal that we could make to allow citizens to take theirs there also. Dr. Kahn pointed out that trash compactors save volume. Mr. Ambrose stated that the City has been concerned regarding motor oil for a long time. No one who takes it will allow the City to publish their telephone number. Mr. Ruskey advised that his company has to pay $ . 08 per gallon to have their oil picked up. Mr. Rankin advised that local providers have a concern regarding liability. They become the waste generator of record. We hope to develop a program that won't require a second vehicle. Regarding the concept of a credit, the entire community does benefit and it is an expense to the program. The landfills have only a limited number of years left. Mr. Ambrose advised that communities which don't have landfill space are paying infill fees in order to transport their garbage to Alameda County. Mr. Tyme asked about the possibility of using separate bins for multi- family units. They could possibly be separated into 4 categories. He questioned if Staff had considered this. Mr. Rankin advised that it had been considered conceptually only. Initially they considered a smaller 90 gallon bin because space is typically limited. Trucks are designed for a smaller area. CM - VOL 9 - 106 Regular Meeting April 23, 1990 Mr. McDonald advised that there are a number of approaches for multi- family units. You can go with a front loader or you can divide the container into 3 slots and divide the truck into 3 bins. There is a lot more to getting the multi-family situation going. Cooperation is needed. In particular, it is an education process to make sure tenants separate the material. Mr. Ruskey felt that with regard to capitalization of the equipment, it should be spread to other users than just the City of Dublin. It is not fair that a special vehicle gets charged only to Dublin. Mr. McDonald advised that it is a $100, 000 vehicle, which will be dedicated for exclusive use in the City of Dublin. They will be serving about 1, 000 homes each day. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. Cm. Snyder advised that Staff had been working on this for a long time. He was glad that at least some of the community was present to voice some of their concerns. Without some form of a subsidy, this type of a program cannot work. Markets have to be developed, and there just isn't enough space to get rid of all this stuff. We are only talking about a 5% reduction and we are mandated to increase this to 25%. We must look at reality in order to get a program started. Cm. Snyder discussed the Union City and Albany programs. He stated he understood the concerns about multi-family pick-up, but it is a very difficult thing to deal with. With regard to the oil collection, the City is mandated to find the sources of waste oil which finds its way into the storm drains. We must develop a program to develop catch basins, which will cost communities substantial dollars. Most waste oil collectors now pick up the oil and test it for any signs of contamination. If even a little anti-freeze is found in it, it must then be handled as hazardous material. $250, 000 has been budgeted by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority for education programs. It is very important that all of us get behind this program. Cm. Jeffery complimented Staff on the timing of this issue being right after "Earth Day" . Cm. Vonheeder felt that households that are already recycling will not get any additional recognition. Their profits will simply be reduced by $1. 25 per month. Unfortunately, not everyone recycles now. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 46 - 90 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH LIVERMORE DUBLIN DISPOSAL AND OAKLAND SCAVENGER COMPANY TO IMPLEMENT THE DUBLIN RECYCLE AMERICA PROGRAM With regard to the issue of mandatory garbage service, Cm. Snyder felt that this is appropriate under these conditions. CM - VOL 9 - 107 Regular Meeting April 23, 1990 Cm. Jeffery advised that speaking from experience, it is not pleasant to live next door to someone who doesn't have garbage service. Cm. Vonheeder felt this was something that must be considered. Mr. Rankin advised that Staff would review this with the City Attorney's Office. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE RATES TO IMPLEMENT RECYCLING & HHW COLLECTION PROGRAMS MANDATED BY STATE LAW Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that in accordance with City Council direction, Staff has negotiated an agreement with Livermore- Dublin Disposal for a Household Hazardous Waste collection day. The intent was to recover the cost through an adjustment to the garbage rates by a rate adjustment of $0. 20 per month per single-family customer for household hazardous waste collection and $1. 25 per month for curbside residential recycling. Rates would take effect July 1, 1990. No comments were made by members of the public relative to this item. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 47 - 90 AMENDING A SCHEDULE OF SERVICE RATES FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT STATE MANDATED PROGRAMS AND DESIGNATING THE POINT OF COLLECTION FOR SINGLE FAMILY COLLECTION * * * * DUBLIN HIGH SCHOOL STADIUM RENOVATION - AWARD OF BID Public Works Director Thompson advised that on March 12 , 1990, the City Council authorized Staff to advertise Contract 90-05, Dublin High School Stadium Renovation for bids. The City received 2 bids, with the low bidder being Collishaw Construction with a base bid of $660, 510 and a total bid, with alternates, of $1, 032 , 010. In reviewing the bid results with the School District, the School District Staff felt that the bid cost of the track resurfacing ($275, 000) could not be justified compared with the anticipated amount of use the track would receive. The total bid price excluding the track surface and including a 10% contingency is $832 , 711, with the City's share being $559 ,775 and the CM - VOL 9 - 108 Regular Meeting April 23, 1990 School District's share being $272 , 936. The City is also responsible for all design and inspection costs, which are estimated at $81, 520. Mr. Thompson advised that Staff will delay the baseball fields until later in the year. Cm. Vonheeder questioned if at some future point they could go back and put in the all weather track. Mr. Thompson advised that they could do this. We will leave the base work and they could rebuild it, but it would still be pretty expensive. Cm. Jeffery advised that the track is used by local runners. School Board Trustee Barr advised that they will be looking at the priorities at their next meeting. City Manager Ambrose advised that the City is working against a tight timeline; we want to get it done before football season. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 48 - 90 AWARDING CONTRACT 90-05 TO COLLISHAW CONSTRUCTION, INC. DUBLIN HIGH SCHOOL STADIUM RENOVATION ($832,711) authorized the Mayor to execute the Agreement; and authorized transfer of funds in the amount of $250, 421 to this project from unallocated reserves, of which $75, 126 will be offset by a contribution from the Dublin Unified School District. * * * * COMMUNITY GIFT CATALOGUE 1990-91 Administrative Assistant Texeira advised that Staff had developed a Community Gift Catalogue with the purpose being to provide citizens, community service clubs and/or local businesses an opportunity to make a special contribution to the community. Donations are tax deductible and would be formally received by the City Council and appropriately recognized. City Manager Ambrose advised that the Dublin Fine Arts Foundation is putting together a program to recognize doners who give $100 with some type of a plaque displayed at the Civic Center. Cm. Snyder advised that it will be an engraved ceramic tile. Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that a concept will be presented at the next City Council meeting with a location outline. CM - VOL 9 - 109 Regular Meeting April 23, 1990 On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 49 - 90 PRE-ACCEPTING GIFTS RECEIVED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 1990-91 CITY OF DUBLIN COMMUNITY GIFT CATALOGUE and agreed to give recognition to donors: $199 and under - a thank you letter from the Mayor and certificate acknowledging the gift; $200-$999 - a thank you letter from the Mayor and commemorative plaque; $1, 000-$4 ,999 - a thank you letter from the Mayor and large plaque to be presented at a City Council meeting; and $5, 000 and up - a large plaque presented at a City Council meeting and a permanent plaque at the site of the donation. * * * * RESOLUTION OF INTENTION FOR 2-LANE ACCESS ROAD CONNECTING TO THE HACIENDA INTERCHANGE AND PARALLEL TO I-580 Senior Planner Carrington advised that in order to facilitate the opening of the Hacienda Road interchange and to expedite additional access from the downtown areas of Dublin to Tassajara Road, a 2-lane access road has been proposed from the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way east to Tassajara Road. The Hacienda Interchange is partially constructed at this time and Federal Highway and CalTrans regulations require that a road parallel to I-580 north of the Hacienda Interchange running from Tassajara Road to Dougherty Road must be construction and open to traffic prior to the opening of the interchange. The 2-lane road will offer several benefits to Dublin's circulation and traffic flow. No precise schedule has been established for construction of the road although through a cooperative effort between Alameda County and the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, it may be possible for the road to be constructed within the next 2 years. Preliminary costs for design, improvement and environmental mitigation of the road will be approximately $3 million, including the 2-lane roadway link between this access road and the Hacienda Interchange. Financing agreements between the various parties will require separate action by the City Council. Public Works Director Thompson showed slides of the alignment, a 2- lane 40' paved street with most of it being in a 55' right-of-way. Cm. Snyder questioned if there was a reason for not doing a plan lane for the full width. Mr. Thompson advised that we would get into a lot more environmental issues with a 6-lane road. We want the land use to eventually guide where the streets will go. CM - VOL 9 - 110 Regular Meeting April 23, 1990 On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 50 - 90 STATING INTENTION TO ESTABLISH A RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR A 2-LANE ACCESS ROAD CONNECTING TO THE HACIENDA INTERCHANGE AND FROM DOUGHERTY ROAD TO TASSAJARA ROAD AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 14, 1990 . OTHER BUSINESS Alameda County Transportation Plan Commission City Manager Ambrose reminded the Council of the Transportation Plan Commission meeting on April 26, 1990 at 4 : 00 p.m. , in the County Public Works office. * * * * Alameda County Fair Parade Cm. Vonheeder advised that the Exchange Club is organizing the Fair parade on June 23rd. She asked that the City Council consider if there is anything special they want to do. * * * * Post Office Cm. Vonheeder advised that she had been contacted by Paul Cooper, former Mayor of Pleasant Hill related to a similar situation that exists in his community regarding the Post Office. Their problem relates to Concord/Pleasant Hill. They had problems similar to ours with Pleasanton with the census. He suggested the possibility of jointly pursuing this with the legislators. Mayor Moffatt advised that he had contacted Carol Miller, Field Director of Operations. He understood that the Post Office does have a method of developing criteria for a Post Office within a city. It was felt that there was no problem getting Dublin recognized, but we need to contact the right people. Cm. Jeffery suggested that we outline the steps we have taken and forward them to Pleasant Hill. Mayor Moffatt felt we should wait until we have results to share with Pleasant Hill. * * * * CM - VOL 9 - 111 Regular Meeting April 23, 1990 Civic Plaza No Parking zones Cm. Vonheeder questioned why "no stopping" signs were put up on the Civic Center driveway. Public Works Director Thompson advised that Staff is currently reviewing this to see if they are needed on the east side. We would retain them on the Civic Center side due to safety concerns. * * * * Alameda County Housing Authority Cm. Hegarty stated that since his former position on the Alameda County Housing Authority had not been filled, he would be willing to resume serving on this Authority due to the change in his job situation. He would resume service in June. * * * * CLOSED SESSION At 10: 10 p.m. , the Council recessed to a closed executive session in accordance with Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) to discuss pending litigation, City of Dublin vs. Alameda County (Open Space Element & Livermore-Amador Valley Planning Unit) . * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10: 40 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CM - VOL 9 - 112 Regular Meeting April 23, 1990