Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.01 Approve 03-13-1986 and 03-24-1986 Minutes ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - March 13, 1986 / An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Thursdav, March 13, 1986 in the east meeting room of the Shannon Community Center. The meeting was called to ! order at 7:25 p.m. by Mayor Peter Snyder. + x + + ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt, Vonheeder and Mayor Snyder. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. + + + x GOALS & OBJECTIVES STUDY SESSION Staff presented a report representing a review of those goals & objectives adopted by the City Council at its last Goals & Objectives Study Session in March 1985; and which identified proposed Goals & Objectives for 1986. The City Council reviewed and adopted the following objectives with the additional comments and revisions noted: Program Area/Goal Proposed Objectives for Accomplishing Goal GENERAL GOVERNMENT Administration/ - To ensure the smooth 1. (85) DSRSD Services Study (includes all services) and efficient functioning of those services 2. (86) Civic Center Land Swap provided to the community. 3. (86) Study Insurance Program Alternatives 4. (85) Business License Ordinance 5. (85) Codification of City Ordinances 6. (86) Expand Employee Training Program 7. (86) Conduct Council Team Building Retreat 8. (85) Commrplete Volunteer Recognition Program 9. (86) Aggressively seek Grant Funding for Capital Improvements Additional Goals 10. Work with Viacom to provide Cable Television Service to the Arroyo Vista Project 11. Solicit employee input with respect to the various components of the Civic Center 12. Incorporate the City's logo into a finished stationery design 13. Investigate flextime staffing in the Development Services area Finance/ - To effectively manage the City's 1. (86) Prepare New 5-Year Capital Improvement Program financial resources; maximize City revenues; 2. (85) Accounting Procedures Review control expenditures; and develop an adequate 3. (85) Review of Charges for Services reporting system. 4. (86) Reorganize Finance Function 5. (85) Undertake Data Processing Study 6. (86) Prepare Report to Council on Development of an Equipment Replacement Fund Additional Goals 7. Review format of financial report to provide Council with information regarding inadequacy of budget as compared to expenditures Intergovernmental Relations/ - To work with 1. (85) Complete transfer of Arroyo vista ocher agencies on problems of area wide concern; 2. (85) Joint Meetings with Representatives from Other Agencies keep abreast of legislation which impacts the (includes any agency) City. Additional Goal 3. More aggressively monitor the activities of other regional agencies such as the County Public Relations/ - To effectively communicate 1. (86) Distribute 1 Community Newsletter and 1 Calendar commemorating and solicit input from the community on City 5 years of Cityhood. services and activities. 2. (86) Develop Program for Recognition of Outstanding Development Projects Additional Goal 3. Develop entry level brochure for new businesses and residents regarding the City 4. Incorporate Service Directory meeting tires into the Newsletter COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning/ - To develop plans for future growth 1. (85) Sign Ordinance and development; administer the zoning, 2. (85) Revise Zoning Ordinance subdivision and sign ordinances; analyze 3. (85) Camp Parks Annexation environmental reports and provide assistance 4. (85) Downtown Improvement Plan to developers. 5. (85) Community Development Handouts 6. (86) Streamline Planning Application Process 7. (85) Site Development Review Guidelines 8. (85) workshop with Planning Commission CM-5-52 Adjourned Regular Meeting March 13, 1986 9. Develop Annexation Fiscal Impact Review Procedures 10. Develop Environmental Guidelines Additional Goals 11. Prepare a report to Council on Park Bond Act eligibility for historic building funding 12. Report to Council on historic element of General Plan or ordinance LBuilding & Safety/ - To administer and enforce 1. (86) Revise Ordinance related to Fencing Swimming Pools City's Building, Plumbing, Electrical, 2. (86) Revise Ordinance related to Assigning Addresses Mechanical, Housing and Zoning Codes; to 3. (86) Develop Infraction System for Building 8 Zoning Violations ensure the safe construction and maintenance of buildings and structures and assist applicants in a timely manner. Engineering/ - To provide local review of 1. (86) Re-evaluate the priority of future underground utility projects subdivision and parcel maps; to perform 2. (86) Develop specific plan for extension of development to the west transportation planning and recommend of the City solutions to traffic safety problems; design 3. (86) Resolve agreement with Army regarding Dougherty Road capital improvements; and act as an advocate right-of-way for the City on all engineering related 4. (85) Coordinate I-580/Dougherty Road Improvements to minimize impact problems on adjacent property owners. 5. (86) Develop master transportation plan for eastern annexation area CULTURE AMID LEISURE Recreation/ - To enhance the quality of life 1. (86) Determine disposition of parks and park responsibilities for Tor all residents by providing recreational those parks in the City currently owned by DSRSD and other special interest programs; improve 2. (86) Acquire,Kolb Park and the Fallon School Multi-Use Room from the the utilization of existing recreation Murray School District facilities; develop new recreation facilities. 3. (86) Complete and adopt the Park Development Plan 4. (86) Complete construction of Armador Lakes Mini-Park 5. (86) Complete construction of Kolb Park 6. (86) Complete renovation of the Fallon School Multi-Use Roan for Senior Center use 7. (86) Hire a Senior Center Director to initiate senior programs 8. (86) Complete the Shannon Center Building Improvement Plan and implement recommended renovation 9. (86) Complete renovation of Shannon Park 10. (86) Commence construction of Dolan Park 11. (86) Develop teen program utilizing the assistance of Dublin teens 12. (86) Work with Murray School District to secure permanent space for the Afterschool Playground Program 13. (86) Investigate the need for additional outdoor recreational -j facilities at Dublin High School 14. (86) Adopt new rental policy for Shannon Center 15. (86) Conduct 85% of classes offered 16. (86) Increase weekday utilization of Shannon Center by 258 of 1985 17. (86) Expand the preschool program by one-third of 1985 i 18. (86) Resolve conflict for Nielsen Afterschool Playground Program Additional Goals 19. Prepare report on adding one elementary school to Afterschool Playground Program 20. Prepare report on City undertaking field scheduling 21. Prepare report on opening the Library on Sunday 22. Investigate opportunities for assisting in the promotion of historical and cultural activities in Dublin PUBLIC SAFETY Police/ - To deter crime, respond to calls, apprehend criminals, enforce traffic regula- 1. (85) Increase level of Traffic Enforcement tions and educate the public in order to 2. (86) Implement Neighborhood Self-Help Program enhance community safety and security. 3. (86) Develop Truancy Program with Dublin High School Additional Goals 4. Promote narcotic education programs in the primary school grades 5. Report on commercial lighting standards Animal Control/ - To ensure public health and 1. (86) Work with adjacent communities to identify long term solution i safety by providing animal licensing, for the animal shelter enforcement and shelter services; and vector contro Disaster Preparedness/ - To plan, prepare and 1. (85) Complete Emergency Response Plan train emergency personnel to handle disasters 2. (86) Coordinate Hazardous Spills Response with Alameda County in an effective and expeditious manner in order to protect persons and property. TRANSPORTATION Maintenance/ - Th maintain and improve the 1. (85) Pavement Maintenance System overall quality, condition and appearance 2. (85) Develop Street Tree Policy of public facilities and property. 3. (86) Maintain 3 Day Routine Response on Service Requests CM-5-53 Adjourned Regular Meeting March 13, 1986 Transportation/ - To assess and attempt to 1. (85) Bus Shelters meet where possible the need for public 2. (85) Address commuter parking problems transportation in the community. 3. (86) Resolve issue of Downtown Bart Station Additional Goals 4. Provide City Staff support in those areas needed to implement local transit system CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION Contract Review for the following areas: 1. Building & Safety 2. Engineering 3. Police 4. Animal Control 5. Vector Control 6. Public works Maintenance 7. Paratransit Services CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS In addition to the Capital Improvements identified in the 1983-88 Capital Improvement Program, the City Council requested that the following items be given consideration in the new Five-Year Program: 1. A data processing system to address various needs of the departments, particularly Development Services 2. The installation of benches along the bike path on San Ramon Road as well as conduit for potential future lighting 3. Investigate possibility of obtaining holiday decorations for the City streets Councilmember Jeffery brought to the Staff's attention that the lights at the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Village Parkway have been on during the day. Staff indicated it would contact PG&E to correct the problem. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. x x x + t Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk + + + + xxx++xx+xxx+x+xxxxxxxxxxx+xx+xxxxxxxx+x+xxx+++x+xxxxxxxx+x+xxx++xx+xx+x+x+++xx+++xxx+xxx+xx++x+•r+xxx CM-5-54 Adjourned Regular Meeting March 13, 1986 REGULAR MEETING - March 24, 1986 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, March 24, 1986 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7 :35 p.m. by Mayor Peter Snyder . ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt, Vonheeder and Mayor Snyder. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alleg- iance to the flag. SIGN ORDINANCE Mayor Snyder announced that the draft sign ordinance would not be considered at this meeting. A public notice was prepared indicating that the public hearing would be held at this meeting, but due to the length and volume of the report, it has not yet been completed. Mayor Snyder apologized for the delay and asked if anyone in the audience had come to address this particular topic . No one indicated they had. PRESENTATION Mayor Snyder read and presented a plaque to John Alexander for his service on the Dublin Planning Commission . Mr . Alexander resigned his position as Chairman in December due to health reasons . CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions : Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 10, 1986; Approved Financial Report for Period Ending February 28, 1986; Denied claim submitted by George William Filstead and directed Staff to notify the claimant and the insurance carrier; Agreed to support the Diablo Valley Foundation for the Aging proposal as a one-year pilot project; Authorized Plummer Babbitt Civil Engineering, Inc . , to replace William Black & Associates as Engineer of Record for Tract 4415; &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& CM-5-55 Regular Meeting March 24, 1986 Authorized Staff to advertise Contract 86-4 for bids (Traffic Signal, Sierra Court @ Dublin Boulevard; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 27 - 86 FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS PARCEL MAP 4050 Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 28 - 86 APPROVING PA86-012 STREET NAME CHANGES FOR CREEK SIDE DRIVE AND 12 STREETS WITHIN TRACTS 5072, 5073 & 5074 Approved a parade permit and waive the permit fees for "Hands Across the Valley" , May 25, 1986 ; Regarding the Civic Center site, authorized Staff to proceed with grading and street improvement plans & authorized Staff to negotiate a contract for landscaping design work; Adopted t RESOLUTION NO. 29 - 86 AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A CLAIM WITH THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1986-87 Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $198, 228 . 28 . VILLAGES AT ALAMO CREEK - RAFANELLI & NAHAS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING & SUBDIVISION MAP (TENTATIVE MAP 5511 ) PA85-041 .1 & . 2 Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Rafanelli & Nahas are proposing a planned development with 1, 165 multi-family and single family dwelling units , a convenience food store and a 5+ acre ..neighborhood park site along Dougherty Road near Amador Valley Boulevard. Major issues involve : The proposed Villages were summarized as : Village I : 60 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 4 . 9+ Gross Residential Acres (GRA) . Two and three bedroom units at 957 to 1, 055 gross square feet, 13 two story buildings . (Density = 12 . 2 DU/GRA) Village II : 248 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 17 . 1+ GRA. One, two and three bedroom units at 748 to 988 gross sq. ft . , 19 two—story buildings and 8 three story buildings . (Density = 14 . 5 DU/GRA) &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& CM-5-56 Regular Meeting March 24, 1986 Village III : 216 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 15 . 0+ GRA. One, two and three bedroom units at 748 to 988 gross sq. ft . , 18 two story buildings and 6 three story buildings . (Density = 14 .4 DU/GRA) Village IV: 152 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 10 . 7+ GRA. One, two and three bedroom units at 748 to 988 gross sq. ft . , 10 two—story buildings and 6 three story buildings . (Density = 14 . 2 DU/GRA) Village V: 192 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 13 . 6+ GRA. One, two. and three bedroom units at 748 to 988 gross sq. ft. , 15 two story buildings and 6 three story buildings . (Density = 14 . 1 DU/GRA) Village VI : 146 single family lots on 26 . 8+ GRA. One and two story, three and four bedroom units at 1, 418 to 2, 075 sq. ft . (Density = 5 . 8 DU/GRA) Village VII : 151 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 11 . 8+ GRA. Tentatively planned two and three bedroom units at 957 to 1, 055 gross sq. ft . , 29 two story buildings . (Density = 12 . 8 DU/GRA) Total = 1, 165 DU on 99 . 9 GRA, overall Density = 11 . 7 DU/GRA The Planning Commission ' s recommendations regarding Village VII would adjust the above information in the following manner: Village VII : 71+ single family lots on 11. 8+ GRA. Tentatively anticipated to be developed with one and two story structures being three and four bedroom units at 1, 400+ to 2 , 075+ sq. ft. (Density = Maximum 6 . 0 DU/GRA) Total = 1, 086 dwelling units over 99 . 9 Gross Residential Acres, overall Density being adjusted 10 . 9 DU/GRA. The subject proposal was formally submitted to the City on May 23 , 1985, following six months of interaction between the applicant and Staff . During the latter portions of that period, and subsequent to the formal application submittal, Staff and the applicant jointly coordinated initiation of the preparation of a variety of project related studies : 1 ) Botanical and Wildlife Resources Report, prepared by Leitner and Leitner; 2 ) Roadway Traffic and Parks RFTA Noise Analysis Study, prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates; 3 ) Traffic Impact Analysis - Circulation Draft, prepared by TJKM, Transporation Consultants ; and 4 ) Horticultural Report, dated September 20, 1985, prepared by Hort Science, Inc . , Analysts and Consultants . Public hearings on the project were held before the Planning Commission on February 18, 1986, and March 3 and 17 , 1986 . The Commission recommended the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the project and approve the Planned Development PD Rezoning and Tentative Map in a modified format which would adjust Village VII from a 12 . 75+ DU/GRA multiple family residential project to a 6 . 0 DU/GRA single family residential project . &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& CM-5-57 Regular Meeting March 24, 1986 The Expanded Initial Study for the Villages at Alamo Creek dated January 30, 1986, provided an indepth analysis of the General Plan Land Use Designations and Development Policies that apply to the subject property. The major remaining issues have been reduced to concerns involving the following three areas : A) General Plan Policies This issue area involves General Plan Policy determinations that must be made by the City Council regarding the residential densities of Villages I and VI . The consensus determination of the Planning Commission at the February 18, 1986, Commission hearing was to allow Village I to remain at the 11 . 7 DU/GRA density. The Commission also expressed a desire not to impose restrictions on Village I that would serve to subsequently alter the type of dwelling units proposed (i .e . , extensive use of three bedroom dwelling units in four-unit building groups ) . The "action" by the Commission will necessitate confirmation by the City Council, as only the Council is empowered to make the General Plan Policy Determination. Ron Nahas stated he was appealing the Village VII requirements, and did not want to remove any further 3 bedroom units . No tentative map has been submitted for this Village and a maximum density of 152 units is requested. It would be brought back to the Planning Commission and City Council . The Planning Commission conditioned its approval of the balance of the site to Village VII as single family. Rafanelli & Nahas wish to maintain flexibility and the Planning Commission condition removed all their flexi- bility on this site . The Planning Commission' s recommendation on Village VI was to allow the 5 . 8 DU/GRA density proposed for Village VI to stand as proposed and direct, a change in the use of Village VII from 12 . 8+ DU/GRA (multiple family residential ) to a maximum single family residential density of 6 . 0 DU/GRA. This change would shift the total Gross Residential Acreage in the project devoted to single family residential uses from 25+ acres (out of 99 . 9+ GRA, or 25+0 ) to 37+ acres (37+°s ) . B) Density and Product Type The applicant ' s proposal for Village VII was 151 multiple family apartment/ condominium units on 11 . 8+ GRA, for a density of 12 . 8 DU/GRA. The Planning Commission ' s recommendations for Village VII was single family residential with a maximum density of 6 . 0 DU/GRA, which would result in a maximum of 71 units . The Planning Commission indicated that the reason for the recommen- dation was to assure compliance with the General Plan. In particular, the Planning Commission felt that the dwelling units on the west side of the creek, Village VI and Village VII , should both be single family residential . The applicable General Plan Policies were : &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& CM-5-58 Regular Meeting March 24, 1986 - General Plan Residential Designation: Medium Density with required mixed dwelling types including single family detached and permitting up to 25 units per acre on portions of the site. - 2 . 1. 2 Neighborhood Diversity As a policy decision, the City Council should determine 1) the appropriate number of single family dwelling units to be developed, and 2 ) the amount of level lot area and rear yard area that are acceptable for the single family units . C) Parkland Dedication Requirements The City Manager prepared a memorandum regarding the Villages Development Park Dedication Proposal , and Staff recommended that the City Council consider a compromise park proposal based on the memorandum, with the City Council revising the memorandum as needed. If the City Council concurs with this approach, the memorandum should be put in final form and adopted by the City Council, and a Condition should be substituted for Condition #23 in Exhibit B - Draft Resolution regarding the Planned Development and Condition #26 in Exhibit C - Draft Resolution regarding the Tentative Map . Cm. Hegarty indicated that the last storm did considerable damage to some of the trees , and it appears that some of the trees will be lost . Kevin Gailey reported that the applicants have indicated that they want to save as many of the mature trees as possible . Mr. Gailey explained the lengthy study that was done addressing every tree on the property. Severe erosion has taken place at the south end of the creek. Ron Nahas indicated that this was a culmination of 2 years of work and presented slides of developments that incorporated creek settings and water into their themes . Discussion was held with regard to the commercial site . The site may need to be enlarged, but this will be addressed with the Site Development Review process . Ron Nahas indicated they plan to approximately double the amount of parking first proposed. The situation with the Pleasanton Housing Authority is now in transition and they have been unable to communicate very effectively with the existing commission. Mr . Nahas expressed concern regarding potential enactment of fees placed on them during the building permit stage of their development. They would like to have some assurances that other levies on the project that they are not aware of would not be put on the project . They have requested some limitations be put on the quantity of improvements in the park. Mr. Nahas expressed concern regarding the mounding & grading of the landscaping in the park. They spoke in favor of the general direction of the resolution to the park issue proposed by City Staff as they can control the timing. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& CM-5-59 Regular Meeting March 24, 1986 Paul Kelly, Department of Fish & Game stated he wished to expand on comments that were sent to the City in February. He recommended that this project not be approved. The mitigation measures in the original study are okay as far as they go, but there are other problems . Many creek restoration projects have bad track records . No alternatives were given and he felt that the project needs a focused draft EIR which would address alternatives such as a bypass channel . The creek should be preserved. Cm. Jeffery stated that some improvements must be made and they are dictated to the City by other agencies . Sheila Brady, Planning Consultant to the City, explained the findings in the initial study. Margaret Tracy of Livermore explained that the policy of Zone 7 is to keep flood control channels open. Ms . Tracy also expressed concern related to where children in this project would attend school . Mayor Snyder reported that there are 2 schools within a mile of this project that could adequately handle the children in this area. Cm. Jeffery questioned the fencing policy of Zone 7 and felt that it would be very desirable to have meandering trails throughout the development. Judith Bolson, San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club, stated she was pleased to see development focusing on creek development and appreciated the care taken regarding the trees on the site . She stated that she sees a potential problem with straightening the path of the creek to oxbows . She cautioned that down road there may be serious problems in that the creek may try to cut back to its natural path. They try to urge that no straightening at all take place as it causes erosion up and down stream. The other consideration she discussed was habitat values along the creek, and asked that alternatives be looked at so that the creek does not have to be a major flood controller . Bev Ortiz, Friends of Creeks & Urban Settings stated she concurred with preceeding points . Even the degraded habitat provides tremendous wildlife habitat . Once the habitat is altered, the majority of the wildlife simply dies rather than move on . Once you change a creek location, you create problem elsewhere . Ms . Ortiz suggested the Council look at all the alternatives available . John Page , Ohlone Audubon Society felt the Council should look much harder before making a decision . .. City Attorney Nave ask Mr . Kelly what census has been taken of this creek regarding animals, fish counts , what specific birds, what specific mamals commonly known as wildlife, etc . Mr . Kelly indicated that approximately one year ago he had spent about an hour at the site . He reported that he has been with the Department of Fish & Game for 10 years and relies on consultants . He reiterated his request that a focused EIR be done which would require more time being devoted to this area. The creek will be mainly for flood control purposes rather than to support wildlife . &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& CM-S-60 Regular Meeting March 24, 1986 Mr . Nahas indicated that the Department of Fish & Game has issued permits and they have been renewed. Staff has requested comments on numerous occasions and this process is a part of the record. There has been no attempt to avoid input. Consultants have been over every foot of this land and everything is documented. Mr. Nahas indicated they would be more than happy to meet with Mr. Kelly regarding specific mitigation measures . Mr . Gailey reported that the services of a very reputable biologist had been used in order to avoid having to go with a focused EIR. They have actually spent more time in developing mitigation the measures than they would have with an EIR. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.. Staff recommended that the City Council resolve the issues regarding General Plan Policies , Density and Product Type and Park Dedication Requirements . With regard to General Plan Policies on mixed housing, Cm. Jeffery felt that this project answers concerns which were originally discussed and provides a good mix and what is presented is appropriate . Cm. Jeffery disagreed with the Village VII condition put on by the Planning Commission. Discussion was held regarding lot size on the single family units as well as density flexibility on Village I . Cm. Vonheeder felt that the addition of 3 bedroom units is something that is currently lacking in the area and felt the project provided a good mix. Cm. Hegarty indicated he wished to give maximum flexibility on Village VII . He would not press for a pool but would like to see one in the single family area. If a pool is put in, it should be in the CC&R' s that residents would pay for the maintenance and upkeep . Cm. Moffatt questioned if sound insulation had been considered in the multi-family areas . Staff responded that noise consideration had been addressed and mitigation measures had been built into the project. Cm. Vonheeder felt that school fees were the real issue and that the School Board feels that this project will generate a major impact . Actually there are 2 schools that were closed that could accommodate the number of children involved. Regarding the Park Dedication Proposal , Mayor Snyder stated that irrigation was not addressed in Mr . Nahas ' letter . Mr . Nahas stated this was an oversight and that irrigation is intended. With regard to fencing, City Manager Ambrose advised that continuity along the site would be an asset to the project . Discussion was held with regard to park access from one side of the creek to the other . Mr . Nahas indicated that there is a pathway along the side of the creek. A bridge across the Zone 7 creek was discussed. Staff &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& CM-5-61 Regular Meeting March 24, 1986 indicated it had gotten some estimates from some bridge builders . Mark Rafanelli indicated that they would be willing to finance up to $50, 000 for a bridge in exchange for some of the paved walkways . Mayor Snyder felt that access to the park was needed. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed that a bridge should be given high priority compared to the walkway system, working within the designated $686 , 875 . Uniform lighting on the walkways was discussed. Regarding the roofing issue, Mr . Nahas indicated that they planned to use the same materials as were used at Amador Lakes . He asked that roofing product be more closely defined. Cm. Hegarty stated that the roofing materials at Amador Lakes were not what he had originally anticipated, and requested that Rafanelli & Nahas give the roofing treatment as much consideration as possible . Planning Director Tong indicated that Staff had looked at various types of roofing materials and suggested that a 300 lb weight material be used as opposed to the 220-225 lb weight now being proposed. Mr . Tong passed out excerpts from Sunset Books guide related to roofing & siding. Mr . Nahas said he was willing to specify 275-325 lb. premium weight asphalt shingles on the multi-family structures . As Mr . Nahas had previously stated, single family values do not hinge on size of lot. The market place has changed in the last 10-15 years, in that it is most common now for 2 people to work and large yards become very difficult to maintain . Mr . Nahas stated they would endeavor to have at least 800 of the lots contain 1, 000 sq ft rear yards, and the remaining 20% in the 900 sq ft range . On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed that rear yards in the single family portion of the development be a minimum of 1000 sq ft for 80% and a minimum of 900 sq ft for 20%, and determined that the roofing shingle weight should be a minimum of 275-325 lbs . "Parkland shall be dedicated or in-lieu fees shall be paid, or a combina- tion of both shall be provided prior to issuance of Building Permits or prior to recordation of the Final Map, whichever occurs first, in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance . The parkland dedication required is approximately 9 . 774 acres to 10 . 485 acres , depending on the total number of dwelling units (0 . 009 acres/dwelling units x number of dwelling units ) . The subdivider/developer shall receive 5 . 0 acres of credit for the parkland dedication. The subdivider/developer shall provide certain improvements to the dedicated parkland. The dedicated parkland and associated improvements shall satisfy the developer ' s total park dedication requirement . The improvements shall be installed to the City ' s satisfac- tion within 30 months of the recordation of the Final Map or issuance of Building Permits . The items to be provided shall be as specified in the &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& CM-5-62 Regular Meeting March 24, 1986 Compromise Park Proposal portion of the Memorandum from the City Manager to the City Council regarding Villages Development Park Dedication Proposal dated March 20 , 1986, as revised and adopted by the City Council . " On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to substitute the .above statement for Condition 423 in the resolution regarding the Planned Development and Condition #26 in the resolution regarding the Tentative Map. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to change the condition related to Village VII back to the original concept . Staff reported that on Exhibit C, Tentative Map, Page 5, #21, the wording Martin Canyon Creek should be changed to read Alamo Creek. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 30 - 86 ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING AND TENTATIVE MAP 5511 REQUESTS FOR A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 1, 165 + DWELLING UNITS, A FIVE-PLUS ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SITE, A COMMERCIAL SITE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AS A CONVENIENCE STORE AND COMMON OPEN SPACE PARCELS COLLECTIVELY PROPOSED OVER A 135 + ACRE PROPERTY FRONTING ALONG DOUGHERTY ROAD, EXTENDING SOUTHERLY FROM THE ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LINE ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF DOUGHERTY ROAD FOR 4 , 200 + FEET, COLLECTIVELY REQUESTED UNDER PA 85-041 . 1 AND . 2 VILLAGES AT ALAMO CREEK - RAFANELLI & NAHAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted, as amended RESOLUTION NO. 31 - 86 APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS & GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING CONCERNING PA 85-041 .1 VILLAGES AT ALAMO CREEK - RAFANELLI & NAHAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted, as amended RESOLUTION NO. 32 - 86 APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 5511 CONCERNING PA 85-041 . 2 VILLAGES AT ALAMO CREEK - RAFANELLI & NAHAS REAL ESTATE SITE DEVELOPMENT On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and introduced an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance . &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& CM-5-63 Regular Meeting March 24, 1986 RECESS A short recess was called. All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened. POLICE PATROL VEHICLE PURCHASE On March 10, 1986, the City Council authorized Staff to seek bids on 8 police vehicles . Pursuant to the adopted purchasing ordinance, the sealed bids were opened on Friday, March 21 , 1986 . The bid specifications requested price quotations on a 1986 Dodge Diplomat CHP police cruiser. The documents allowed the substitution of a comparable vehicle . One bid was received from Shamrock Ford of Dublin based on a 1986 Crown Victoria. The Police Chief reviewed the specifications and found this vehicle to be comparable to CHP specifications . Cost comparisons between purchasing throught the State program vs . Shamrock Ford were discussed. The net cost of the single bid received is within approximately 1% of the State program. The purchasing ordinance indicates that on-going maintenance may be a factor in awarding the bid. The CHP program offers an 85, 000 mile major parts warranty. The Ford vehicles would be covered under a 100, 000 mile warranty. In addition, Ford Motor Company has instituted a very cost effective on-going maintenance program. The service contract provides for scheduled maintenance. services every 5, 000 miles . The one-time charge for this service is $1, 795 per vehicle . Staff also reviewed a vehicle maintenance cost proposal submitted by MCE Corporation. Based on current salaries , the 3-year cost for comparable maintenance by MCE would be $2, 930 . Delivery is anticipated after July 1, 1986, and the expenditure will be included in the 1986-87 budget . Mayor Snyder questioned if the City would be able to take advantage of the gas guzzler tax exemption through the IRS . Captain Shores indicated he would investigate . Mayor Snyder questioned if the cars would have an AM radio. Captain Shores indicated that the radios will be deleted. Mayor Snyder asked if the City could check into the possibility of getting silicon radiator hoses even though there is usually a 25 vehicle minimum order required. Perhaps they could be installed by special request. Staff will check into this . On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council awarded the bid to Shamrock Ford ( 8 vehicles-$102 , 554 . 32 ) and authorized Staff to issue a purchase order based on the bid and authorized purchase of Ford recommended maintenance plan ( $14 , 360 ) . &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& CM-5-64 Regular Meeting March 24, 1986 SHANNON CENTER RENTAL POLICIES A need to revise the Shannon Center Rental Policy was identified in the 1985 Goals & Objectives . Staff relayed that there are areas that are continuously misunderstood by the public and in addition, there is pertinent information that applicants need to know that is not included in the current information. The fee schedule has also been restructured. An hourly rate is being proposed which incorporates all fees . An increase in the rental rates was not recommended, as it was recently determined that the fees charged for the use of Shannon . Center are comparable to rates charged for similar facilities . On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 33 - 86 ESTABLISHING THE FACILITY RENTAL RATES FOR THE SHANNON COMMUNITY CENTER AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 54-84 VALLEY ARTISTS INC . , GRANT APPLICATION The City has received an application for funding from the Valley Artists, Inc . , a non-profit organization comprised of local artists . The group is seeking funding for various projects . The groups 67 members are from Alamo to Fremont, with 200 of the group being Dublin residents and 41% of the group living within the boundaries of the Dublin San Ramon Services District. The Park & Recreation Commission heard testimony from the Valley Artists , Inc . , at their meeting of March 11 , 1986 . Although the Commission was supportive of the goals of the Valley Artists, they did not feel comfortable in recommending that the project be funded without a formal policy to support their decision. Dorothy Harder, President of the Valley Artists, Inc . , introduced their Vice President Sharon Nichols , Pat Marr their Program Chairman and Harvey Scudder . Ms . Harder indicated that their facilities are inadequate and they need support from the City to make it possible for membership to grow. Their public exposure is almost nil . They could triple their membership with support . Every Thursday they have a workshop whereby everyone comes and helps each other at the Senior Center. The Council felt that this was a worthy cause, but were concerned that no policy has been developed to deal with such requests . &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& CM-5-65 Regular Meeting March 24, 1986 On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to defer consideration of the request until development of the Fiscal Year 1986-87 Budget . The Council further directed Staff to develop policies related to funding non-profit groups . The Park & Recreation Commission should address the philosophical issues and the Council will address budget issues . OTHER BUSINESS Budget Hearings City Manager Ambrose indicated that dates needed to be selected in which to conduct meetings related to the 1986-87 Budget . Following discussion, the Council determined that Tuesday, June 17th would be the best date for the study session and then the budget hearing could be scheduled for Thursday, June 26th. Both meetings should start at 6 : 00 p.m. Staff was directed to arrange for a meeting location . Tri-Valley Citizens ' Committee Staff reported that the Alameda County Planning Department is proposing a Tri-Valley Citizens ' Committee to consist of 21 members . Seven would be Planning Commissioners (1 from each jurisdiction) , 7 would be citizen members (1 from each jurisdiction) , and 7 would be at-large members ( 1 from each jurisdiction) . The Dublin Planning Commissioner will be Brian Raley. Mayor Snyder indicated to Bill Fraley that the request that the Planning Commission make the 2 other appointments was inappropriate as the City Council makes appointments rather than the Planning Commission . The Planning Commission could certainly submit names to fill the 2 vacancies however. ABAG Resolutions Cm. Moffatt reported that the ABAG Resolutions needed to be discussed in order that he could report Dublin ' s position at the upcoming General Assembly. A bylaws change is being proposed whereby dues would be based on population and new city calculations will be based on subventions submitted to the State . Consensus of the Council was to not support the proposed change . &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& CM-5-66 Regular Meeting March 24, 1986 CLOSED SESSION At 12 :46 a.m. the Council recessed to a closed executive session to discuss pending litigation, in accordance with Government Code Section 54956 . 9 (a) , City of Dublin vs . The Sawmill and City of Dublin vs . McCartney . ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council , the meeting was adjourned at 1 : 05 a.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& CM-5-67 Regular Meeting March 24, 1986