Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.01 Draft Minutes 07-12-1993 (2) f H- . . . . REGULAR MEETING - Julv 12. 1993 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, July 12, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:36 p.m., by Mayor Snyder. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Houston, Howard, Moffatt, and Mayor Snyder ABSENT: None * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (610-20) The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 28, 1993 (Mayor Snyder abstained) ; Accepted Improvements under Contract 93-02, Annual Street Overlay/North Avenue Bike Path, authori~ed final progress payment of $14,476.98 and retention of $22,607.28 to Les McDonald Construction, subject to receipt of retention invoice, and authorized Staff to make the necessary budget adjustment to reflect the increased SB 300 Grant Funds; (600-30) Approved the Warrant RegiSter in the amount of $816,973.66. (300-40) Cm. Houston requested that the City Treasurer's Investment Report be pulled. He indicated that he was happy to see Staff working into the higher yielding investments. He read in the newspaper that the Dean Witter U. S. Fund is a very good fund and will be netting the City approximately 1 % higher than what has been invested in the past. He asked if this was the start of a new policy. Mr. Ambrose indicated that Staff had been investing in the higher yields on a monthly basis. In following the Council's direction, Staff will not be able to invest in maturities longer than the defeasance date that the City wants to pursue. The yield on the shorter maturities will not be as great. Cm. Houston asked how long it would take to be fully invested in different instruments, six months to a year. #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 273 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992 -------------------------------------------------------------.--------- COPIES TO: '-III / ITEM NO. . . . Mr. Ambrose responded that a lot depends on the interest rates. Half million to one million dollars were being invested based on the interest rate and maturity date so that all of the City's portfolio was not locked in at once. It also provided more flexibility in terms of the portfolio. Cm. Houston asked if the City would be fully invested in one year. Mr. Ambrose responded that if things remained the same, yes. Mr. Rankin indicated that LAIF, due to the type of fund it is, is still outperforming a lot of treasuries with the shorter terms on them. Cm. Burton wanted to confirm that the mo~ey would be available in 1999. Mr. Rankin responded that was the intent. On a motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council received the City Treasurer's Investment Report as of June 30, 1993;(330-50) Cm. Burton requested that the Annual Sidewalk Safety Repair Contract be pulled. He asked about the grinding of sidewalks as compared to replacing the sidewalks and the difference between when the sidewalks would be ground or when the sidewalks would be replaced. Mr. Thompson indicated that grinding the sidewalks was much cheaper than replacing the sidewalks so the sidewalks would be ground until they became too thin, then the sidewalks would be replaced. Cm. Burton questioned on page 7 why is it described as a sideyard and the front of the house. Mr. Thompson responded that it was probably a corner lot, but the address of the house was always used even if the actual location of the sidewalk repaired was on a different street. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council accepted improvements constructed under Contract 93-07, Annual Sidewalk Safety Repair, and authorized final payment in the amount of $9,902.50 to Central Coast Surface Grinding; (600-30) * * * * PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF ST. RAYMOND'S CHURCH EXPANSION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (410-30) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Mayor Snyder indicated that two members of the City Council were also st. Raymond Parish members, but according to the City Attorney, there would not be any conflict of interest because the Councilmembers were not on the Parish Council o~ stood to financially profit from the #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 274 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992 . . decision. He asked how many people planned to speak. He also stated that the Council did not want to limit anyone from speaking, but if a person was going to say the same thing that had already been presented, that was not necessary. staff presentation by David Choy, Associate Planner. On June 7, 1993, the Dublin Planning Commission approved a request by st. Raymond's Church for Site Development Review approval to allow the construction of a new two-story ~ 20,400 square foot Parish Center/Classroom building with related site work and landscaping and Conditional Use Permit approval to allow expansion of the community facility use on the existing approximate 9 acre parcel. The proposed project includes a request to increase the current enrollment from 250 students to 315 students. The Public Works Department determined that the increase in student enrollment will generate additional traffic to the site. The Applicant is required to pay their fair share toward traffic improvements resulting from the incremental increase in traffic. The Applicant has voluntarily agreed to contribute $1,880 towards the Traffic Improvement Funds. At the Public Hearing held by the Planning Commission on June 7, 1993, several residents expressed a variety of concerns including loss of visual privacy; loss of views from adjacent single-family homes looking to the east; increased traffic due to the proposed increase in enrollment; and loss of property values. These residents object to the construction of a two story structure located behind their properties. The Planning Commission made several modifications to the conditions of approval in an attempt to address the neighbors' concerns. These included 1) Requiring the Applicant to raise the common fence by adding a wood extension for the eight properties located on the east side of Shannon Court not to exceed 8 feet in height; 2) Requiring the bottom two panels of all windows located on the second floor of the west building be fitted with opaque glazing; 3) Requiring the Applicant to modify the landscape plans by doubling the amount of planting along the western property boundary and replacing the trees with a tall hedge; and 4) Requiring the removable bollards utilized on the new turn-around bulb to be removed during the morning and peak afternoon hours to allow vehicular traffic to exit through the east portion of the property. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 10 foot sideyard setback for the st. Raymond's Church property. The proposed new building exceeds this requirement and is set back approximately 65 feet from the west side. The new two-story building has a maximum height of 37 feet. The Zoning Ordinance permits a maximum building height of 75 feet for schools, churches, and other buildings of an institutional character. A resident has raised the concern regarding potential conflict of interest associated with Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers who are members of the parish voting on the project. The City Attorney #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 275 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992 . . has advised that a Planning Commissioner or City Councilmember who was merely a member of the parish could legally participate and vote on an item without a conflict of interest. If the Commissioner or Councilmember was a member of the Board of Directors, or equivalent, or stood to financially profit from the decision, then he/she would need to declare for the public record their position and abstain from the discussion and voting on the item. Mr. Choy showed slides of property from different positions on the church property. Cm. Houston questioned the distance from the Parish Center to the fence. Mr. Choy responded 65 feet. Cm. Burton asked if there had been any discussions with the owners on their preference to hedges or trees. Mr. Choy indicated that the owner at 7949 Shannon Court had a pool and at the Planning Commission meeting expressed concern about leaves falling in his pool. It was proposed at the Planning Commission to put in hedges. The Condition has been worded so the Applicant will work with the property owners. Cm. Burton asked if any site photographs had been taken from the properties on Shannon Court. Mr. Choy responded no. Cm. Houston questioned if the metal bollards would be removed permanently. Mr. Choy indicated the bollards would be in place during school hours to prevent traffic going across the site, but the bollards would be removed during the morning and afternoon peak hours to allow vehicular traffic to exit through the east portion of the property. The Church was trying to eliminate the through traffic during the times the school was in session. Cm. Houston asked if any thought had been given to just having a drop off point on the east side of the property and the existing buildings so that there would not be a circulation problem in the back. Mr. Choy indicated that possibility had never been discussed. Cm. Houston asked how the traffic flow was controlled now. Mr. Choy indicated that cones were used now to control traffic flow. Father Richard Matgen, Applicant and Pastor of st. Raymond's Church, emphasized the strong contribution st. Raymond's Church makes to the Dublin community. There are many activities unrelated to the parish that go on at the parish site. The Dublin San Ramon Seniors meet weekly in Moran Hall. The Public Schools in Dublin use st. Raymond's #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 276 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992 . . facilities for the Middle School Crab Feed, Dublin High Senior Grad Nite, and Baccalaureate Services for the Public High School Graduation. The 12 Step Program, voting space, and the Walk and Prayer Service for Ilene Misheloff are a few of the other community activities that are held at st. Raymond's facilities. Many organizations, such as Shepherd's Watch, a support group for the unemployed, and a single parents' support group, and a young adult group sponsored through the Church are open to the entire community. The Church also participates in City programs such as Dublin Pride Week, with st. Raymond's School winning the Clean Sweep Award for 1993, Red Ribbon Week, Partners for Education Program, Dublin Chamber of Commerce, and Fire Prevention Week. st. Raymond's School provides a good alternative to public education and offers the community a choice in educating their children. The Youth Center, which is part of Phase III of the building, would provide a very good meeting place for the youth of the City in an environment that would foster good values. In conclusion, he stated there were many ways the Parish has contributed to the community and a new building would enhance that contribution to the City so he urged the Council to support the decision of the Dublin Planning Commission to allow the Parish to build the Parish Center. Mike Smith, co-chair of the st. Raymond's Building Committee, indicated that a mission statement had been developed a number of years ago. Four goals were developed including a goal to ensure there were adequate physical facilities to support the numerous functions that occur at st. Raymond's. Some of the functions are the religious educational program, the Parish administrative staff, the many organizations and committees that contribute to the community, and obviously, the school. A needs assessment was done to determine what was needed to provide an adequate physical facility. The needs assessment looked back at the history of the Parish. In 1859 st. Raymond's Mission was started and went until the turn of the century when it became inactive. On June 10, 1961 st. Raymond's Parish was formed and met at many different places throughout the community including Camp Parks. The religious education program now uses a number of places to meet. The many organizations and committees meet in many places on the parish site including the pantry of the Moran Hall, the living quarters of the Rectory, the dining room in the Rectory, and just about any place there is a vacant spot. The Parish Staff is currently housed in the Rectory in offices interdispersed with the Pastor and Associate Pastor's living quarters. The School is housed in portables which are temporary by nature. There is no adequate meeting places for activities like student council. The ventilation system is forced air. The portables useful life is ending. In 1988, there were 6,800 parishioners and roughly 2,000 families. Today it is 8,200 parishioners and about 3,400 families. The school has gone from 157 students that were kindergarten through fifth grade to 248 students from kindergarten through eighth grade. The parish organizations have gone from 45 to over seventy. The parish administration has gone from four full time administrative staff to ten. The religious education program in 1988 had 800. It has actually decreased a little due to the increased enrollment in the school. He felt the Parish needs are very real and need to be addressed. The proposed Center will greatly enhance the success of the programs described. The planned facility is not overdesigned. With the budget constraints, it is at the bare minimum. #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 277 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992 . . That is why it is important to construct the building as it was designed. It is definitely not a Cadillac. Cm. Burton asked when the present facility had been built. Mr. Smith indicated Moran Hall was built in 1966 and the temporary school was installed in 1986. Cm. Burton asked when the Parish would be coming into Phase III. Mr. Smith indicated there was not an exact date as more fund raising would have to occur. David Goldin of Mighetto Goldin Associates, the Architect, thanked the Planning Staff for all the hard work they had done with the Architect. He felt the Planning Department had been one of the more professional staffs he had encountered. He indicated the project has been in progress since 1988. st. Raymond's Church had provided the Architects with a needs assessment which categorized office space, school area, meeting rooms, and storage facility. After lots of meetings with the Church, it was determined that a large multi-purpose parish center complex that would have to be phased over time would be constructed. Although the property site is large, there are lots of trace faults running through the property so there were only three possible building sites on the property. Everything else had been found to be geologically not available for construction. This facility had to be the ultimate multi-purpose center which encompassed the religious education programs, the kindergarten through eighth grade school, and meeting rooms, as well as it had to be efficient and cost effective. And it had to respect the environment in which it is in both within the complex and within the context of the neighborhood. It is an interesting site in that almost any building built from a public street is invisible. Even though the Architect knew the building could be ten feet from the residents and 75 feet high, from day one this design has always had the shallowest possible roof pitch with an asphalt shingle roof. It has always been one story at the building edge and stepped back from the second story to essentially provide a residential character more in keeping with the area. In 1992, when the Parish got ready to apply for a Use Permit, the City after re-reviewing the seismic geological report had required a $30,000 study which found ten trace faults so a line was established by the Church's soil engineer with the concurence of the City of Dublin's consultant that represented a point of "no build." Hence, the building was redesigned and moved closer to Moran Hall and the Church. If the Parish Center was restricted to one story, the portables would have to be removed and the school closed for a year. The Church accepted the conditions of the Planning Commission to have opaque glazing on the bottom two panels of all windows located on the second floor of the west building, more hedges or trees added to the landscaping along the western property boundary, raising the common fence by adding a wood extension upon the property owners' consent, and removable bollards utilized on the new turn-around bulb. He felt the Church has been trying to be good neighbors, but he cautioned that there was only so much that could be done architecturally. He urged the Council to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation. #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 278 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992 . . Cm. Burton indicated one of the properties on Shannon Court in the backyard the land was two feet above the church property and the deck was another two feet above so from their backyard the parking lot can be seen. From the Church side the fence is 6 feet, but from the property owner's side who has a deck, the fence is 2 feet. He recommended a 3 to 4 foot wood extension to the existing fence. Mr. Goldin indicated one neighbor did not like the idea of a fence extension because it would block his view of the sunrise. Another neighbor wanted higher fences. Raising the height of the fence would be an easy way to give someone privacy, but he was not sure all the neighbors would agree to the fence extension. . Cm. Howard asked if the bottom half of the windows were to be opaque and if the windows opened. Mr. Goldin indicated the window was in three sections with the middle section opening. The panel opens out at an angle not more than 30 - 40 degrees. Cm. Howard asked if the bottom third opened. Mr. Goldin responded that it did not open. The window would be sand blasted on the inside so the outside would be clear and appear to look normal. Cm. Houston asked about the lighting in the parking area. Mr. Goldin indicated that there were two existing standard streetlights that would be replaced by three lower lights that would not be seen by the Shannon Court properties. The neighbors will see the illumination below the light, but they will never see the bulb. Vince del Grecco, President of st. Raymond's Parish Counsel, indicated that in 1961 the modern st. Raymond's Parish was established with a core of 60 families. Today the Parish consists of 3,400 families comprising 8,200 individual members. He felt that the story of any group is not a matter of numbers, but is a chronicle of the effects of hope that is nurtured by faith in the human heart. What drives it forward are the hopes and dreams for the future. In 1987, the hopes and dreams for the entire Parish were expressed in concrete terms through the Parish Mission Statement. The Mission Statement described what the Parish wanted to be. They wanted to strive to make themselves better persons; to create a better corner of the world; to show that someone cares; to provide Catholic education to all ages; to provide a welcoming atmosphere for all people through their openness and hospitality; and to recognize and celebrate our diversity. The Parish needed a physical location to make their dreams come true. He asked the Council to allow the Church to build their Parish Center. Mr. Grecco submitted two set of petitions signed by thousands of their supporters, one group was Dublin Residents and the other was non-Dublin Residents. "Petition to be :presented to the Dublin City Council...We, #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 279 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992 . . the Undersigned, are in favor of the proposed st. Raymond's Parish Center and urge the Dublin City Council to vote "Yes" and affirm the Planning Commission's Approval of this project." Clifford Erb indicated he was a resident of San Ramon and the brother of Richard Erb, who resides at 7937 Shannon Court and who was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Clifford Erb requested the following letter be read into the Minutes. '~ear Council Members, I am unable to be here tonight due to a previous business commitment. Fortunately, I was able to meet with most of you prior to my leaving town. I would like to recap the issues of this project that deeply concern me. I question the complete process in which" this project has proceeded. st. Raymond's had a window of opportunity in excess of two months to discuss details with Shannon Court Residents, but opted to give us only the legal minimum 10 day requirement of notification. There is no law against being a bad neighbor, but it should come as no surprise to them that we are vehemently opposed to the two-story building. Once the original building had to be relocated due to seismic concerns, they use the "cookie cutter" method to place that same two-story building behind my single story residence. The only modifications made were by the planning department, requiring opaque windows that open only part way. The original building already had a 10 foot set-back on the second story, you can see this by looking at the original site drawings. The architect's statement that '~e created a better design than what had previously been worked on" is bogus. A proposed project by a church should bear as much scrutiny as that of any other business or residence. I don't feel that this was the case. As most of the council have seen from our yards, a two-foot extension on any of our fences will not mitigate the monstrosity of the proposed 37 foot two-story building. What was the purpose of the commission requiring two~foot extensions? Did they even realize that a two-foot extension on most of our fences would barely cover the bottom floor of the new structure. Two of the commissioners did, and they voted against the project. I don't think that the Council should be hesitant to send this project back for reworking. The project was narrowly approved 3-2, and had three church members not been voting, I am confident that we would have prevailed. I feel that if redesigned, the project could be enhanced so that we can keep our views and privacy, and the church can have its school and the parishioners could enjoy improved traffic circulation at the site. I think its great that the parishioners strongly about the school project. But to live in its shadow 365 days a year. situation should not be minimized. at st. Raymond's feel so unfortunately, they won't have They may out number us, but our #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 280 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992 . . Please don't pity st. Raymond's, they could have avoided any costly redesigning if they had consulted us in the first place. I request that the Dublin City Council send this project back to planning and make provisions for Shannon Court Residents input. I would be happy to give my time to work towards a mutually beneficial solution. Respectfully, Richard Erb" Mike Woods, 7949 Shannon Court, stated he and his family were not opposed to the school being located and constructed on st. Raymond's property. He indicated he was not a member of st. Raymond'S parish, but both he and his wife had been raised and married in the Catholic Church. He felt parochial schools play an important role in building a strong community. But he was strongly opposed to the two story school building. It would overlook his backyard, erode his privacy, and create noise levels from the increased traffic. He felt it would lower property values and add to their liability because of the swimming pool on his property. He wanted the current plan to be tabled until a new one story school study could be planned and resubmitted to the Planning Commission. He felt the Planning Commission should have ruled that a one story school study be conducted. He also felt the Planning Commission had already decided to approve the proposed plan prior to conducting the Planning Hearing on June 7, 1993 due to the fact that 3 of the 5 Planning Commission members were parishioners of st. Raymond's and the outcome was heavy in favor of st. Raymond's. If the Dublin City Council felt it must vote on the plan as proposed tonight and will not recommend a study of a one story school alternative, then he requested and indicated that he could speak for the majority of the residents of Shannon Court that st. Raymond's be required to construct a soundwall between the residents of Shannon Court and st. Raymond's. A two foot cap on their backwalls would not provide any additional privacy or noise reduction. He did not want more landscaping because the landscape that was there was not well cared for. He urged the Council to hold off making a decision and consider a one story option. Cm. Burton asked what kind of screening he preferred. Mr. Woods wanted a brick soundwall like what is on the freeways. Cm. Burton asked if the Parish Center built a one story and it would be 20 feet from Mr. Wood's house, wouldn't it bother him. Mr. Woods responded that would not bother him. Cm. Howard asked for what the second story would be used. Mr. Goldin responded that the second story would be unoccupied for the first year or two. It would contain four 1,200 square foot rooms to be used by 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grades. Cm. Howard asked if it would be mainly used during the week daytime hours and not be used in the evenings. Father Matgen indicated it would also be used in the evenings. #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 281 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992 . . Linda Jeffery, former Mayor and Councilmember, stated she was still very interested in her community. She indicated that she was not a member of the st. Raymond's Parish and did not live on Shannon Court. She was very interested in the fairness of the whole issue. Every time new development was proposed, the people who lived on the perimeter would say "I don't want this built next to me." She stated there were no guarantees. She felt what the church was asking for was fair. It was within the zoning and within the plan that had been developed as a community. There are no guarantees that a piece of property will have a view. The Church has tried to accommodate the neighbors. The land where the Shannon Court residents reside used to belong to the Church. To be responsible, the Church sold the land for the money to be able to provide for the current Church. She felt the Council should extend the fairness to the Church that the Council has extended to all development that has occurred in Dublin. As long as it is within the zoning, that it be allowed. What was being asked for by the Church was fair. Dennis Shaefer indicated that he lived on Shannon Court but not on the properties adjacent to the Church. He lived across the street. He was concerned about the fault lines. He did not feel it was safe to have a two story building built there. If there was an earthquake, how would the children get out from the second floor safely. He ~ndicated there were not any other schools that were two story. He felt a single story would be easy to evacuate, but a two story would not be. About the good neighbor policy, he objected to the iceplant that had been dead for two years. Shannon Court and Shannon Park were beautifully landscaped. He also liked Cm. Houston's idea to route the traffic to the east side to minimize the noise. Cm. Burton asked the Architect what was being done for the seismic construction for the two story school. Mr. Goldin stated that Title 24 of the California Administrative Act allows for the construction of a two story school. Not one single child would be put in jeopardy. A line had been determined that should be respected as a no build and the placement of the Parish Center avoided that line. Everything that can be done seismically for the zone is being done. Cm. Burton asked if any special designs had been incorporated to' handle the problem of earthquakes for two story buildings. Mr. Goldin indicated that earthquakes were strange animals. Part of the freeway stood up and part of the freeway collapsed. This building would be a flexible building. It is a wood structure which is one of the safest places to be in a'major earthquake because it moves. Unlike the freeway in the 1989 earthquake, it was reenforced concrete construction that failed at the joint because things don't bend, they break. This building will bend, not break. Bruce Stewart, a resident of Shannon Court whose property was not adjacent to st. Raymond's, stated as a Dublin resident and a father, he did not oppose the construction of a school for children. They were all #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 282 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992 . . concerned about children. But the houses on Shannon Court were their own hopes and dreams. He wanted to see everyone succeed. He wanted the people of Dublin to continue to be served by st. Raymond's. He acknowledged and admired the work done by st. Raymond's Parish in the community, but all he requested was a little consideration. He wondered if there were other alternatives. He would like to see some time spent considering whether there really are alternatives to the two story structure. Adam Dutra, a resident of Pepper tree Road and a member of st. Raymond's Parish, indicated that his house was built before the houses on Shannon Court and the building of the houses on Shannon Court blocked his sunrise. He acknowledged that some visibility would be lost with the construction of the Parish Center, but no one guarantees there will be visibility where you live. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Burton asked where the 8 foot fence would be built, from the side of the houses or the side of the road. Mr. Choy responded it would be built from the side of the houses which would be the uphill side of the grade. Cm. Burton questioned what was in the resolution in regard to the landscaping and working with the neighbors. Mr. Choy responded that within Exhibit D on page 5 which was the Site Development Review Resolution, Condition #23 said "the landscape plans shall be modified to reflect the installation of tall hedges, such as Raphiolepis indica - India Hawthorn, within the parking lot, along the western property boundary. The Applicant shall work with these property owners to develop an effective and attractive screening plan." This would give the Applicant and the property owners the flexibility to place either the hedges or the trees along that common property line. Cm. Burton asked who would pay for the 8 foot fence. Mr. Choy indicated the Church would pay for the fence extension upon the consent of the property owners. Cm. Houston asked about the number of trees to be planted or was it subject to negotiation. Mr. Choy responded that in Exhibit A was a Preliminary Landscape Plan wi thfour trees along each property. The Planning Commission doubled the amount. The City's minimum requirement would be 15 gallon trees. Cm. Moffatt asked if the landscaping would be done with the landowner's agreement. Mr. Choy indicated it would be better if all the landowners come up with a consistent plan. #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 283 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992 . . Cm. Burton asked if the fact that neighbors and the Applicant would be meeting to discuss landscaping or fence design should be put in the resolution. City Attorney Silver stated if the Council wanted it to be binding, then the Conditions could be modified. Cm. Burton felt it was not presently clear as far as the landscaping and fencing was concerned. Mr. Choy asked if the City was requiring the Applicant to have a landscape plan approved by the property owners prior to allowing them to obtain a Building Permit or if the City was asking them to work with the property owners to develop a plan. If the Applicant was required, what could happen was the project could be delayed because one property owner absolutely wanted to have an oak tree and would not approve the landscape plan. Cm. Burton indicated he did not want to give anyone person the right to stop the project at that stage. Mayor Snyder asked for clarification .on page 5 on line 4 of Exhibit D. Mr. Choy responded that it should read "a cost estimate of the work and materials proposed, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director. Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect." Cm. Houston wanted to eliminate the bollards in the bulb area and use cones instead. He felt utilizing the east side of the property would be better. Cm. Burton indicated that there would be an 8 foot fence above the homes ide of the properties and a serious effort would be made to work with the neighbors on the type of landscaping that would be as dense as it could be. em. Houston requested that the removal of bollards be included in the Conditions. Mr. Choy indicated that page 3 Condition #4 in Exhibit D could be modified to say "the proposed bollards shall be removed to allow vehicular traffic to exit through the east portion of the property." Cm. Houston explained that there had been a system of using cones to restrict traffic, but he felt a full flow would be better to help the neighbors. Cm. Howard felt during the nighttime the bollards should be used because cones could be knocked down. Cm. Howard would prefer to keep the bollards and have them removed during the peak hours and put them back in during the off hours. #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 284 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992 ~ . . Cm. Houston felt the cones were easier to set aside, but if the bollards were locked in and the person who was to remove them wasn't there, a lot of congestion would be created. Cm. Moffatt would like to free up the language so that the Applicant could use either cones or bollards. Mayor Snyder felt the concern was that the circulation follow a circular pattern and not an in-and-out pattern. Edy Coleman indicated that the cones were in place because of the safety issue so that during the school hours, other traffic could not move around that area, but the cones were down during pick up and delivery of the children. Cm. Burton asked if the condi tion could say "bollards / cones" and leave it to the discretion of the school administration. Mr. Choy agreed that modification would give the school the flexibility to use either the bollards or the cones and still require them to keep the traffic open during the morning and afternoon peak hours for pick up and drop off. Cm. Houston hoped that when the final build out was done, the east part of the property could be utilized for primary parking and circulation. Mayor Snyder asked for clarification of the Mr. Wood asked for a freeway type soundwall. used. He asked what really was going to be effective height was going to be. fence or wall situation. The term "fence" had been there and what the actual Mr. Choy responded that at the direction of the Planning Commission, Condition #3 in Exhibit C page 3 had been worded to say " the Applicant shall raise the common fence by adding a wood extension, upon property owners' consent, for the eight properties located on the east side of Shannon Court (7913, 7925, 7937, 7949, 7961, 7973, 7985 & 7997) adjacent to the st. Raymond's Church site, and the four properties west of the playground (7800, 7796, 7797 Woodren Court and 7834 st. Raymond Court) for a maximum fence height of 8 feet, as measured from the grade on the uphill, higher, side." It does not distinguish how high the wood fence extension would be. Mayor Snyder asked if the present fence was a wooden structure. Mr. Choy indicated it was a 6 foot block concrete wall. Cm. Burton wanted a solid wall which would give a visual and sound barrier. Mr. Choy asked if the Council would like to modify the condition to add "The Applicant shall raise the common fence by adding a solid wood extension." Cm. Burton agreed that was what he had in mind. #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 285 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992 . . Mayor Snyder wanted to know what was meant by "solid wood." Mr. Tong responded that what was built along San Ramon Road was a heavy timber soundwall. Staff and Planning Commission was suggesting a wood extension not be a solid wood or heavy timber soundwall, but instead be a good neighbor wooden fence construction. Mayor Snyder asked if it would be 1 x 6. Mr. Tong agreed a 1 x 6 groove or something comparable. He indicated that there were several alternatives such as the open weave type lattice extension, solid good neighbor type 1 x 4 wooden fence construction, or a heavy timber soundwall type. Mr. Goldin indicated that the Church, had agreed to built whatever extension was decided, but there were some property owners that may not want the extension at all. They were hoping that the property owners that did not want the fence extension would not be forced to have it. The Church wanted to work with the neighbors on what they wanted whether it be visual, sound, or visual and sound. Staff did not want each neighbor to have a different extension on top of the fence. Cm. Burton wanted to build a fence 8 feet from the side of the homes and extending the present wall up to 4 feet and let the choice be with the Applicant and the property owners. Cm. Howard felt there might be people that did not want the solid wall so that she felt the extension would be a better idea to allow flexibility for those that wanted the extension and those that did not want the extension. Cm. Burton felt it should be a solid wood extension at the top of the precast fence. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, (with the addition of "/cones" to Condition #4 in Resolution No. 88-93) and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 93 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DEeLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFleANeE FOR PA 93-022 ST. RAYMOND'S CHURCH EXPANSION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST AT 11555 SHANNON AVENUE and RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 93 UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION APPROVING PA 93-022 ST. RAYMOND'S CHURCH EXPANSION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF THE COMMUNITY FACILITY USE ON THE EXISTING APPROXIMATE 9 ACRE PARCEL #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 286 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992 . . and RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 93 UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION APPROVING PA 93-022 ST RAYMOND'S CHURCH EXPANSION SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO STORY ~20,400 SQUARE FOOT PARISH CENTER/CLASSROOM BUILDING WITH RELATED SITE WORK AND LANDSCAPING AT 11555 SHANNON AVENUE and denied the appeal request. * * * *. PUBLIC HEARING - REVISION TO DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE IN REGARD TO PARKS & RECREATION AREAS AND FACILITIES (660-20) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Staff presentation by Recreation Director Lowart. In 1988, the Dublin City Council adopted Ordinance No 16-88 establishing Rules and Regulations governing use of Parks and Recreation Areas and Facilities. This Ordinance was incorporated into the Dublin Municipal Code as Chapter 5.100. Staff prepared revisions to Chapter 5.100. In Section 5.100.090 language has been revised and expanded upon to indicate that it is clearly prohibited for unauthorized private use of parks for a profit. In Section 5.100.110 and 5.100.120 clarifying language has been added. "Including safe and sane fireworks" was added as being prohibited in parks. Changes to Section 5.100.140 deals with the use of skates and skateboards in the parks. Skates would be prohibited in areas reserved for pedestrian use. Skateboards would be prohibited except in areas designated by the City Council. At the present time, there is not an area which has been designated or is suitable for use by skateboards, but in the future Parks Master Plan, there will be an area designated for skateboards. Ms. Lowart showed pictures of damage to walls at the Civic Center due to skateboards. Changes to Section 5.100.150 prohibits consumption of alcoholic beverages at the Dublin Senior Center. The Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed the proposed revisions and recommends adoption by the City Council. Cm. Moffatt questioned why use of alcoholic beverages would be eliminated at the Senior Center. #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 287 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992 . . Ms. Lowart explained that there was an ordinance governing the Parks and Recreation Areas and Facilities, as well as a Facility Use Policy. The Facility Use Policy already prohibits the use of alcoholic beverages in any City facilities except Shannon Center and the Civic Center. This would be bringing the Ordinance in line with the Facility Use Policy. It was at the request of the Senior Advisory Committee and the Seniors themselves that there be no alcoholic beverages. Cm. Howard indicated it could be changed if the Senior Center was rented out for other uses than as a Senior Center. Cm. Burton received a complaint from a Pleasanton resident about there being no place in Dublin where non-residents could set off the fireworks they bought in Dublin. He would like to have the Park and Recreation Commission look into a place where the fireworks could be set off. Cm. Howard asked where did he suggested setting off the fireworks. Cm. Burton indicated some major parking lot. Since Dublin has such a good time with the fireworks, he felt the City should make accommodations for others. Mayor Snyder asked if those selling the fireworks would pay a fee. Ms. Lowart indicated that would be a separate item outside of the present ordinance being looked at. Cm. Burton felt there should be a place where people could shoot off the fireworks and there would be a clean up cost. Cm. Houston suggested the matter be given to the Parks & Recreation Commission to discuss. Mayor Snyder questioned whether State Law would prevent use of alcoholic beverages in that facility because the Senior Center property is owned by the School District. Libby Silver indicated it was possible. Mr. Ambrose stated that another reason to prohibit alcoholic beverages was because of the nature of the Senior Center being a drop-in center, it did not lend itself well to rental usage as the Civic Center and Shannon Community Center. Ms. Lowart indicated that Staff would research the school district issue and bring back to the Council. Cm. Houston asked if prohibiting the sale of any article or thing included advertising. Ms. Lowart responded that prohibiting advertising was already included in the Ordinance under Section 5.100.090 (B & C). #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 288 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992 . . Cm. Houston asked if a scoreboard could be put up at the Sports Park and advertise Coca Cola. Was that prohibited? The advertising would pay for the scoreboard. Ms. Lowart indicated it was not prohibited. Mayor Snyder asked if the Civic Center was specifically considered a park in item 4 Section 5.100.140 Operation of bicycles, skates, skateboards, and autos - Prohibited acts. Ms. Lowart indicated the Civic Center was included. No comments were made by members of the public on this topic. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an Ordinance amending Chapter 5.100 - Dublin Municipal Code Parks & Recreation Areas and Facilities. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING CITY-WIDE STORM WATER UTILITY FEE (1000-20) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Staff presentation by Public Works Director Thompson. In July 1991, the City Council approved a Storm Water utility Fee which would be charged to all property owners in the City in order. to offset the cost of the Federally Mandated National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. The program is designed to reduce urban stormwater runoff pollutants which enter the storm drain system and eventually deposit in the south San Francisco Bay. These pollutants do permanent damage to the birds and marine life of the Bay. Dublin's funds go to supporting the Countywide effort, street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, and a little over one half staff person to carry out the local information/education program and make industrial site inspections. The fees are based on an Equivalent Runoff Single-Family Residential Unit (ERSFRU) of 1. Duplexes have an ERSFRU of 1, Condominiums have an ERSFRU of 0.6, and multi-family and commercial properties have an ERSFRU of 9 per acre. The fees are collected by Alameda County through the property tax bills and passed on to Dublin less collection fees. Mr. Thompson indicated that over 10,000 educational brochures had been sent out, one-fourth of the industrial site inspections had been done, and Staff had responded to several spills. He indicated there was an #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 289 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992 . . error on the Resolution on page 3 where the fee amount should be $14.80 instead of $15.50 and the total cost would be $166,401 rather than $173,107. Cm. Moffatt asked for what the money was used. Mr. Thompson responded that $67,000 was for street sweeping, $7,000 for catch basis clean-up, $66,000 to the County to administer NPDES Program, and $44,000 for brochures and one half staff person to make industrial site inspections. Harvey Scudder, 7409 Hansen, a retired U.S. Public Health Officer, indicated that the City needed to get a handle on the problem. The first hour of rain storm launders the surface and is equivalent to full strength sewage being washed into the drains. If it is a hard rain, then it is the first half-hour. He indicated that a study was done in residential Piedmont where a large number of homeowners used pest spray once a month that gets washed into the drain system. This was of no interest to agriculture or anyone else. It was unregulated. He stated that sewage could not be treated unless it was collected. Public education was one way to deal with the problem, but it was a terrible problem. Mayor Snyder agreed if the problem of storm drain run-off could not be solved, the next step would be to go to treatment plants. Cm. Moffatt asked if Dublin was involved in a study program using porous cement. Mr. Thompson indicated that Dublin was involved in a program where porous concrete with a sand base under it was used to filter out the first pollutants of a light rain. Mr. Ambrose stated that this was a grant the City received through the County. It was an experiment to see if the idea could be used elsewhere. Mayor Snyder responded that when the concrete was removed, it would have to be treated as hazardous material. Mr. Thompson indicated it would mostly consist of oils and gasoline and it could be used as road bed material. Mr. Scudder stated the City did not want to transport it to Kettleman Hills at $500 a ton. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Moffatt felt the 98 cents increase was alright to contribute to this type of problem. Cm. Houston stated that due to what has happened with the State, the City now had a budget surplus. He did not feel the City should have to #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 290 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992 . . raise taxes on the people. He felt the City had the money and it was a good use of it and it would benefit every homeowner in the City. Cm. Houston moved to abandon the storm Water utility Fee. Mr. Ambrose cautioned the Council as the big unknown by the state Budget was the fact that the Budget compromise was predicated on the 1/2 cent sales tax passing in November. If that tax is defeated, the City may be back to square one. Having the $826,000 surplus will not be known until November 2. Cm. Houston felt the state would not take $800,000. Mr. Rankin indicated that in the Legislative Bulletin, there was another proposal at the state Capital to impound local funds in July 1994 to force parties to sit down and review how"local government is provided. Mr. Ambrose stated that the proposal would include all property tax and all sales tax. Mayor Snyder indicated that he understood what Mr. Houston was saying and the Council had the public in mind, but he cautioned that the NPDES was a federal program which would place $10,000 a day fines for every day the City was in noncompliance. He felt it would be far cheaper to continue the current Storm Water utility Fee rather than take risks now. Cm. Burton indicated that he agreed with the principal of not keeping the money and if it could, the City should try to save from taxing the people. Cm. Burton asked what would be the extent of the loss. Mr. Ambrose indicated that the budget compromise is predicated on the half-cent sales tax. It is possible the Legislation could start the whole process over again. The City of Dublin was fortunate on the State using AB 8 and not basing the reduction on local property tax. But he cautioned that there would be some hit to the City of Dublin through the Motor Vehicle License Fees. He did not believe it could be said at this time that the eity had a $826,000 surplus for 1993-94. It was not a given. The City was not sure what the County will do. The City has received a letter from the County stating the County did not like the split the County got in terms of the sales tax and the County is trying to increase their share of the sales tax. The City could start to pay for services that they are not currently being charged for. There are a lot of unknowns. Further into the Fiscal Year, the City will have a better understanding of the kind of savings that initially appear. Cm. Burton asked where the City would be if it did not raise the fees? Mr. Ambrose responded that it would have to come out of reserves. The County Tax Collector must be notified before August to impose the fee on the property taxes. If the deadline is missed, the City would go an entire year without these revenues and the City would have to rely on reserves if the savings did not materialize. #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 291 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992 . . Cm. Houston indicated that the City had saved $125,000 by refinancing. Mayor Snyder cautioned that no one had been given the opportunity to say what they would like to pay for or this isn't what they would like to pay for. The prioritization was started last December and gave the community the opportunity to say what they wanted to pay for. He felt it was highly inappropriate to turn around and say on the first item that appears before the Council, that is the one the Council will fund for someone. No resident was given the opportunity to say how they felt. Cm. Burton seconded the motion to abandon the Storm Water utility Fee. The motion was defeated 2-3 with Mayor Snyder, Cm. Moffatt, and Cm. Howard voting no. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by majority vote (Cm. Houston and Cm. Burton voted no), the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 90 - 93 APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING STORM WATER UTILITY FEE * * * * GIFT FROM NORTHERN CALIFORNIA GRANTMAKERS (150-70) Recreation Director Lowart indicated that the City was recently awarded a $350 grant from the Northern California Grantmakers. The grant was designated for the City sponsored "Fun in the Sun" Playground Program and will be used for program supplies and to underwrite the cost of a field trip for the program participants. Per Government Code Section 37354, all gifts and contributions should be formally accepted by the City Council. em. Houston asked who the Northern ealifornia Grantmakers were. Ms. Lowart responded that it was a foundation based out of San Francisco that emphasized summer youth programs. On motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council accepted the gift, directed Staff to prepare a formal acknowledgment to the donors, and authorized Staff to make the appropriate budget adjustments to recognize the unanticipated revenue and an appropriation for the expense. * * * * #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 292 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992 . . OTHER BUSINESS HOUSING FOR RUSSIAN STUDENTS (515-60) Cm. Howard indicated a need for housing for 8 visiting Russian students and 1 adult for four weeks. Anyone interested could contact her for more information. * * * * SIDEWALK SALE APPLICATIONS (650-40) Cm. Houston expressed his appreciation of Staff's expediting of sidewalk sales applications. * * * * TRI-VALLEY NOW LETTER (610-80) Cm. Burton stated he was against the City getting involved with the ordinance in Pleasanton regarding picketing in residential areas. * * * * TRI-VALLEY AFFORDABLE HOUSING (430-80) Cm. Burton reported on the Tri-Valley Affordable Housing. Pending Legislation would allow cities to buy land and put in low income housing. Revisions are continuing to be added to the legislation. AB 51 and AB 764 were aimed at getting cities like Danville, San Ramon, and Pleasanton a chance to buy land and put all the low cost housing in Dublin. He felt it was dumping on Dublin. It was a serious matter. He was concerned about the added cost that went with low cost housing. Mayor Snyder asked the Planning Staff to fill in the Council with a brief report of what had been taking place at the meetings. Mr. Ambrose advised the eouncil to check their League Bulletin in regard to AB 51 which involved the whole issue of regional dictation with respect to housing. They are requiring ABAG to allocate multi-family zoning and density standards to cities; requiring cities to meet the State Housing Community Development approved density standards to obtain housing element approval; prohibit cities from disapproving housing projects unless HCD approves the housing element; creates a housing appeals board which allows developers to appeal denials to representatives of HCD, OPR, and others; creates a presumption that a city's General Plan is invalid if HCD does not approve its housing element; allow HCD to establish city by city performance objectives for low income housing; and require the reduction of deferral of development fees for affordable housing. It was his understanding that at the last Tri-Valley Housing Council meeting, Staff had been instructed to put together a letter on the behalf of the entire Tri-Valley Council to oppose this piece of legislation. #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 293 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992 . . * * * * AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (420-30) Cm. Burton referred to a letter received by Milton Righetti. He asked if there was a status that the City had to maintain. Mr. Ambrose responded that once the Council has a General Plan that is in effect, then the Council will have to address the issue of whether or not the Council will override the findings of the Airport Land Use Commission. Ms. Silver indicated that Staff would be bringing the plan back to the Council within 120 to 150 days after receiving the Airport Land Use Commission's finding. At that point the""Council has the opportunity by a 4/5 vote to override and determine that the Plan is consistent. Mr. Tong was not certain of the timing, but the next step was for the Airport Land Use Commission to formally notify the City of their findings. Once the Commission has formally notified the City, the Council will have to make the override. * * * * CLOSED SESSION (640-30) At 10:29 p.m., the Council recessed to a closed executive session to discuss Pending Litigation, City of Dublin vs. Butler, Government Code Section 54956.9(a) and Pending Litigation, City of Dublin vs. County of Alameda (Measure D), Government Code Section 54956.9(a). ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. * * * * Minutes prepared by Sandie Hart. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk #%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#% CM - VOL 11 - 294 Regular Meeting July 12, 1992