Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-27-1987 Adopted CC MinREGULAR MEETING - July 27~ 1987 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, July 27, 1987, in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Mayor Linda Jeffery. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Jeffery. Councilmembers Hegarty, Moffatt, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ALAMEDA COUNTY SENIOR HOUSING NEEDS TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT City Manager Richard Ambrose introduced this item, in which the Alameda County Senior Housing Technical Advisory Committee requested that the City Council adopt a Resolution endorsing in principle a general obligation bond issue to finance construction of housing in Alameda County for seniors and the disabled. Presentations were made by Ms. Sara Conners, Chairperson of the Senior Housing Needs Task Force, and Mr. Jack Shepherd, Alameda County Housing and Community Development Coordinator. Ms. Conners stated that the Task Force had been initiated 2-1/2 years ago when she heard of a plan for senior housing that was put into effect in Seattle, and she went to Mel Hing (Alameda County Administrator) to request assistance in developing a plan for Alameda County. During the ensuing period, she and the others on the Task Force worked with volunteers, the Mayors' Conference, and the Board of Supervisors toward solving the problems seniors have with finding and keeping apartments. The ultimate recommendation is for construction of 5,900 housing units in Alameda CountY; the short-range goal is for 1,900 units, which will be spread throughout the County. The Task Force is working with Jack Shepherd and will be coming back in December or january with more details. Mr. Shepherd said that he would be adding more detail to the work already prepared by the Task Force in order to develop the ballot measure. They will come back with a complete proposal, and a political committee will be formed. They expect the measure to be on the June ballot. The housing distribution will be County-wide, and views of the various City Councils are being solicited at this time in order to obtain all the needs of the community. *************************************************************************** CM-6-230 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 Cm. Hegarty asked whether the report would include more detail regarding the number of housing units to be located in Dublin. The seniors who were asked previously indicated a preference for mobile home parks over apartments. He suggested that Mr. Shepherd refer to the notes of the previous hearings. The current need for the entire County is 1,800 units, and input needs to be gathered from each city so that each city can be addressed separately. The report should show the differences among all cities involved. If the Task Force is looking for money, they should make sure the distribution extends to all. Mr. Shepherd stated that the study recognizes that needs are diverse and that these items would be discussed in the future report. Cm. Moffatt asked what the Seattle concept was. Mr. Shepherd answered that in 1981 the City of Seattle approved a general obligation bond issue of $50 million for 1,000 units of senior housing. The actual production was 1,250 units. Requests for proposal were sent to private developers for construction of the housing, which was spread throughout the city in smaller complexes. After construction, the housing was turned over to the Seattle Housing Authority. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 56-87 ENDORSING IN PRINCIPLE A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ISSUE TO FINANCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING IN ALAMEDA COUNTY FOR LOW-INCOME SENIORS AND THE DISABLED CONCRETE ON DOLAN PARK/SAWMILL SIGN Mr. Mel Luna, a resident of Padre Way, asked whether anything could be done about concrete being dumped on the Dolan Park site and also whether the Sawmill sign was legal. City Attorney Michael Nave stated that the Sawmill sign was still in litigation. An agreement was reached with the Sawmill that solves the City's problem; however, that agreement is contingent upon the Sawmill's resolving litigation with the owner of the shopping center. The dispute between the property owner and the Sawmill is currently under appeal. Once the City/Sawmill agreement goes into effect, the sign will be lowered and changed. *************************************************************************** CM-6-231 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 City Manager Ambrose stated that Staff would contact the developer regarding the dumping problem. CONSENT CALENDAR on motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Amendment No. 1 (regarding Village II improvements) to the Tract 5511 Developer Agreement and authorized Mayor to execute the amendment. Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $255,932.13. Authorized Mayor to execute an agreement with Alameda County for Animal Control Field Services. Approved Financial Report for period ending June 30, 1987. Approved the City's participation in the State and Local Legal Center through payment of a one-time assessment of $250. REQUEST FOR STOP SIGNS ON VILLAGE PARKWAY AT HASTINGS WAY Chris Kinzel of TJKM, the City's Traffic Engineer, presented the Staff report which stated that the City had received a request from Mrs. Mary McHugh, a resident of Canterbury Lane, regarding three traffic-related items. Two of the items had already been addressed by Staff: (1) red curb on Brighton Drive opposite Lucania Street, and (2) pavement markers installed at the curve on Canterbury Lane to help prevent motorists from "squealing" their tires and increased enforcement of the speed limit by Dublin Police Services. Mrs. McHugh's third request was for installation of STOP signs on Village Parkway at Hastings Way as a measure to protect pedestrians using the crosswalk. TJKM performed a study on the intersection which involved vehicle and pedestrian counts, field review, and accident review. The vehicle count was not sufficient to meet minimum warrants for all-way STOP sign installation. A review of the accidents which occurred at this intersection was not conclusive with regard to a need for STOP signs. The field review indicated that the signing and striping may be inadequate warning to drivers approaching the intersection. TJKM recommended two alternatives: (1) removal of the crosswalk, as this intersection is not on a designated route to school; or (2) enhancement of the crosswalk and relocation of the warning signs *************************************************************************** CM-6-232 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 and markings. A further recommendation was for bicycle and safety instruction in Dublin schools. The STOP signs were not recommended because non-compliance could cause an increase in accidents. Cm. Snyder asked whether Mr. Kinzel foresaw the problem being relieved when the other intersections were signalized in a few years. Mr. Kinzel said that the reason children cross the street at Hastings is the attraction of the commercial areas and that signals north of Hastings would not necessarily help. Also, he stated that speeds would not be likely to decrease when signals are installed. Mayor Jeffery asked whether the City would incur increased liability if the City Council authorized removal of the crosswalk and an accident occurred subsequently. City Attorney Nave replied that the liability would not increase, but exposure could be greater. Cm. Moffatt asked whether this crosswalk was ever a designated school crosswalk. Mr. Kinzel replied that it was not. No members of the audience wished to speak on this matter. Cm. Snyder made a motion for Alternate 1, removal of the crosswalk. motion was seconded by Cm. Vonheeder. Cms. Hegarty and Moffatt and Mayor Jeffery dissented on the vote, and the motion failed. The Cm. Hegarty asked whether Mr. Kinzel felt if the crosswalk were not removed, if enhancement of the crosswalk and moving the signs so they were not obscured by trees would help. Mr. Kinzel stated that motorists tend to react more to the pedestrians themselves than to signs; however, the signs and markings serve to warn motorists that are not familiar with the area. Cm. Moffatt questioned whether there was a mandatory speed limit of 25 mph at a crosswalk. Mr. Kinzel replied that there was not, and added that the CVC specifies · that a pedestrian shall not step into the street if it is not safe to do so. A motorist is required to yield to a pedestrian who is already in the crosswalk. Mayor Jeffery stated that she preferred Alternate 2 because people are accustomed to having the crosswalk and woUld continue to cross at the intersection. Cm. Vonheeder stated that she felt that removing the crosswalk would reduce exposure because it would be an acknowledgement that this is not a safe place to cross. *************************************************************************** CM-6-233 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 Cm. Moffatt said that the crosswalk is a tradition because it has been in place for 25 years. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm· Hegarty, and by majority vote, the City Council approved Alternate 2, for enhancement of the crosswalk and moving the signage and pavement markings closer to the crosswalk. Cm. Vonheeder voted no on the motion. PUBLIC HEARING: INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS ON HANSEN DRIVE AT AMARILLO ROAD Mayor Jeffery oPened the public hearing. Chris KinZel of TJKM presented the Staff report, which stated that the City had received a request for STOP signs on Hansen Drive at Amarillo Road from Mr. James Jones of 7349 Hansen Drive. Mr. Jones felt that there was a sight-distance problem at the crosswalk on the east leg of the intersection. This crosswalk is used by children going to Nielsen School and also pre-school programs at Knox Presbyterian Church. TJKM performed a study which included the following items: traffic counts, speed survey, field review, and stopping distance calculations. The study concluded, that the 85th percentile speed at this intersection is 34 mph, and at that speed, vehicles traveling east on Hansen do not have time to stop for pedestrians when their view of the crosswalk is obscured by cars parked along the curb. On that basis, TJKM recommended installation of STOP signs at this intersection. Pat Godkin of Hansen Drive stated that she has young children at Nielsen School and commented that young children on bicycles do not tend to follow safety rUles. Motorists turning right on Amarillo could hit a child. She supported installation of the STOP Signs. Ruth Chin, Hansen Drive, stated that she lives in one of the two houses at which parked cars obscure the crosswalk, and that there will always be a-car parked there. She has three children and would not let her children cross at this intersection. She felt that the speeds cited in the report were conservative and that there had been a lot of ~ construction traffic on Hansen. Also older kids speed down Hansen and cUt across the corner at Amarillo when turning. Mayor Jeffery said that she felt the Staff recommendation for safety instruction in schools mentioned in the previous item should also be applied to this item. Ms. Chin said that she had a problem teaching her children to cross the street because there was too much traffic and that if a STOP sign were installed, the child would have time to judge whether it were safe to cross. ,~,~*~ o o ~,%*%*%*%*%*%*%* ,%,%,%,%,%,%,%,%,%,%,%,%,%,%,%,%,%,%,%,%,%,%,%*% ° o o o o CM-6-234 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 Mr. Spade of 7330 Hansen said~that his house was a good spot from which to audit the situation and that the STOP signs would have to be enforced. He felt that a large percentage of motorists either did not stop at all or made "Hollywood" stops at the existing sign on Amarillo, especially in the morning when parents drive children to school. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the City Council waived the reading and adopted on an urgency basis ORDINANCE NO. 34-87 ESTABLISHING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS (Installation of STOP Signs on Hansen Drive at Amarillo Road) and emphasized the need for greater enforcement. PUBLIC HEARING: STUDY SAN RAMON BRANCHLINE/I-680 CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Mr. Tong presented the Staff report, which stated that the City Council had heard a presentation by Mr. Bud Murphy of Contra Costa County at the meeting of June 8th regarding alternative transportation uses for the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way. The City Council continued this item in order to provide an opportunity for residents to voice their concerns. Mr. Murphy was not able to attend the meeting but indicated a willingness to respond to any questions verbally or in writing or to attend another City Council meeting. Mr. Tong further stated that the Steering Committee had suggested not using the SP right of way in Northern Contra Costa County but using the 1-680 alternate. He presented some background on the issue which stated that the transportation study was developed by the Contra Costa Public Works Department and that the TeChnical Advisory Committee met between September of 1984 and September of 1985. The intent of the study was to look for alternate alignments and modes of transportation. Four technologies and two alignments were selected as being the most promising for more detailed study by the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors. The four technologies are BART type trains, light rail transit (LRT), busway, and AT (Advanced Technology). The AT vehicles are a grade separated system. There are no examples locally. The light rail would be powered by overhead electricity. The busway system could include other vehicles such as carpools or vanpools. If 1-680 is used, the system would probably run along the east or west side, as the median is proposed to become additional traffic lanes. The report of the Steering Committee suggests emphasizing light rail transit or the busway concepts and focusing on using the SP right of way but looking at 1-680 as an option. A revised recommendation is being prepared to go back to *************************************************************************** CM-6-235 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 the Steering Committee, which will then make a recommendation to the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors. The City Council previously adopted a resolution regarding interim use of the SP right of way, which preserves the City's option to use it as a transportation corridor. The Dublin General Plan also has policies regarding the transportation corridor. Floyd Chavez of Stagecoach Road asked whether the SP right of way would be used as far north as Rudgear Road and then 1-680 or if 1-680 would be used as the full thoroughfare. He also asked if the system would extend to the 1-580/680 interchange. Mr. Tong answered that the Committee is looking at using 1-680 south of Rudgear but that this would have to be clarified. The City of Dublin is not doing the study but is gathering comments to send back to Contra Costa County. Mr. Chavez stated that he felt the entire system should be on 1-680 and that the SP right of way should be used for another purpose. He also felt that there would be a problem with cross streets if the SP right of way were used and that he didn't like the idea of having the system in his back yard. Mr. Tong said that the recommendation from the Contra Costa Public Works Staff to the Steering Committee was for consideration of both aliqnments and that the precise recommendation needed to be clarified by the'Contra Costa Public Works Staff. Mr. Chavez said that he had checked into possible future uses for the SP right of way when he purchased his home but was told it would not be used for light rail. Sandra Chavez of Stagecoach Road said that if the system used 1-680, it would help downtown Dublin as well as the mall and people who were working at Hacienda Business Park. George Fricke, Pearl Place, said that he had grown up near BART and moved to Dublin for peace and quiet. He had asked his realtor what was planned for the right of way and was told that it wouldn't be used for anything. He is opposed to using the SP right of way for a transportation system and feels it would devalue his home. Doug Abbott, Rhoda Place, asked what the system would cost and who would pay for it. Mayor Jeffery said that had not been determined yet. Cameron Raether, Turquoise Street, said it appears residents to the north have convinced the committee that the system should be on 1-680 and asked whether there would be a stop in Dublin. He is concerned that he and his neighbors will appear to be "second class citizens" if the system is adjacent to their back yards. *************************************************************************** CM-6-236 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 John Marker, Stagecoach Road, said he had attended two meetings in Contra Costa and had learned that the average speed of the light rail would be 35 mph. He remarked that the current bus system does not have much ridership, and he felt that the population was looking for another north-south access. In order to move a lot of people another corridor is needed between 1-680 and I-5. He further stated that he was concerned about his property value and that he could not see how the City would benefit from a transportation mode on the SP right of way. Mayor Jeffery stated that other studies were being performed on north- south corridors. Mr. Marker stated that 1-680 was already scheduled to be widened. Mayor Jeffery responded that the studies concerned Hwy. 84 and other thoroughfares. Robert Mines, Turquoise Street, said that he had recently purchased his home and asked why the City had not told them previously about the possibility of using the SP right of way for transportation. His realtor told him the corridor would be used as a jogging trail. He asked how appointments to the Steering Committee were made and who determined that the SP right of way was zoned for transportation. Cm. Snyder said that Supervisor Schroeder had suggested to the Steering Committee that any transit facility should be taken off the SP right of way in the north, as far as Crow Canyon Road. Cm. Snyder had told the Committee that 1-680 should be considered for the entire length of the line rather than making two turns to get to the SP right of way. Cm. Snyder indicated that his comments were not included in the motion acted on by the Committee. He further stated that the appointments to the Steering Committee were made by the County and that since the County of Alameda owned most of the SP right of way property within Dublin, the County determined the zoning and would make the final decision as to its use. The City has no direct control over the County's use of the right of way. Mr. Mines stated that the people of Dublin should have the same rights as the people in Danville and Alamo with regard to protesting the right of way's being used as a transportation corridor and said that the City Council should take a stand on the issue. Cm. Snyder responded that the SP right of way has been designated as a transportation corridor in the City's General Plan and that the General Plan is public record. Russ Bebout, Bloomington Way, asked whether BART was scheduled to come through Dublin and if the light rail would be outdated when BART arrived. He further stated that he felt the system shouldn't be instituted at all. Charlie Ryan, resident of Dublin, asked where the line would be in relation to the roadway if. 1-680 were used. *************************************************************************** C~{-6-237 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 Cm. Snyder stated that there had been no discussion on the subject as yet and that the decision would ultimately be a political one. Mr. Ryan asked how the residents could be asked for input if the location had not been determined. Mayor Jeffery responded that part of the study involved looking into different options. Mr. Ryan asked which technology would pay for itself. Cm. Snyder stated that no public transportation mode would pay for itself. Mr. Ryan said that he recommended not instituting it. Brad Chapman, Stagecoach Road, said that there are many children in the area and that it would be difficult to keep them from climbing the fence; therefore, locating the line at the SP right of way would not be safe. Converseiy, children do not have access to a freeway and would not be inclined to play there. Neal Barnes, Pearl Place, said that he was against using the SP corridor and preferred using 1-680 or another alternative. He agreed with Mr. Chapman regarding the safety issue and also felt that property values would be lowered and there would be an increase in transients. The community would be better served by a park or recreational use. Ms. Chavez stated that she had called the County Planning Commission when they purchased their house in December and also had talked with Cm. Hegarty and was told that a transportation use was not likely. Mike Trolls, Turquoise Street, said that the report states that 1-680 is the preferred route near Rudgear Road because the SP corridor narrows in that area. It would cost a lot to put transit on the freeway because of the slopes in that area but would be easier south of Sycamore Valley Road. He asked why Dublin could not do the same and develop the SP corridor as a golf course or park. He felt that a resolution of the City Council would have no effect on Contra Costa County. Mayor Jeffery said that the SP lands were owned by the two Counties. Cm. Vonheeder stated that the Board of Supervisors could vote any way they wish and that only one of the Supervisors represents the Dublin area. Mr. Trolls asked how the City of Pleasanton was reacting. Mr. Snyder said that the concern was not as strong. The important thing is that both Counties want to preserve the corridor and not let is be sold piecemeal. He further stated that, in his opinion, there would not be a rail transportation use along the SP corridor; however, some type of trail use may be possible. ,~,~,~,~,%,%,%,%,%, CM-6-238 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 Mr. Trolls asked when the decision would be made. Mr. Snyder said that he did not have a feel for it. Mr. Trolls said that a house is typically sold every five years and that a person purchasing a home along the SP corridor in five years still might not know the future use. He felt it would be better to decide now. Cm. Snyder asked whether Mr. Trolls were able to purchase his home for a lesser amount because it was next to the SP corridor. Mr. Trolls stated that he was not; however, he said that he felt better about using 1-680 and that at least people who live along 1-680 know they are next to a transportation corridor. Mr. Mines asked how the General Plan could be changed. Mayor Jeffery said that a-General Plan Amendment is necessary and that it would be necessary to look at the study results to know what is appropriate for the City. Gary Gessler, Turquoise Street, asked if the facility were elevated, how great the distance would be between where the elevation starts and ends. He also asked, if buses were used, where the stops would be - at every intersection or not at all. He also questioned where parking facilities and access to same might be located. Jill Barnes, Pearl Place, said she was uncomfortable with not making a decision and asked for advice regarding other meetings to attend. Mayor Jeffery stated that this hearing was for the purpose of taking information and questions that need to be addressed by Contra Costa County. Cm. Snyder suggested attending the Steering Committee meetings and said that the strongest voice at the last meeting was that of approximately 100 Danville and Alamo residents. Ms. Barnes asked how to be notified of the meetings. Mr. Tong suggested contacting Bud Murphy at the Contra Costa Public Works Department. Mr. Chavez asked whether the property purchased within Pleasanton and donated to the County was purchased by Prudential for the benefit of Hacienda Business Park. He felt that Dublin would be a through-way serving Pleasanton and would therefore not benefit. He suggested making the SP right of way a park for children. Mr. Trolls asked whether the Steering Committee had recommended abandoning the corridor. *************************************************************************** CM-6-239 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 Cm. Snyder stated that the only vOte taken was regarding the SP corridor north of Crow Canyon Road. The City of San Ramon proposed review of the Dougherty Valley as an alternative. Mr. Ryan asked what the cost difference would be between a new highway and this transportation system. Mayor Jeffery said that the study was not at the point of determining costs yet and that input was being taken for future study. She said that her understanding from testimony was that the 1-680 alternative should be pursued. Mr. Ryan asked about a study for another north-south highway. Mr. Mines asked if there would be another study. Cm. Snyder stated that the process was that comments from this hearing would be forwarded to Bud Murphy and would become part of the record and be responded to by Staff. The decision would not be Mr. Murphy's but would be with the Board of Supervisors. If the Committee feels that 1- 680 is a better alternative, or if neither alternative is viable, they will look at that possibility. The Steering Committee makes recommendations, but it must be recognized that the County owns the property and that the County should be told if the people don't want the transportation facility. Mr. Mines asked for the names of people to.contact. Cm. Snyder suggested Bud Murphy at Contra Costa County. Cm. Hegarty suggested contacting Ed Campbell, the Alameda County Supervisor for this District. The other Supervisors could also be contacted. Mr. Luna asked why the Councilmembers didn't contact the Supervisors. cm. Vonheeder stated that this hearing had been continued from a June meeting in order to find out what the residents think. MaYor Jeffery stated that copies of the minutes would be available at the City Offices. Ms. Chavez stated that Pleasanton was not concerned as residents were not affected there. Cm. Snyder said that there were residences on the other side of Hacienda Business Park and that the reaction had been negative. Mayor Jeffery asked whether it would be necessary to remove homes if the 1-680 alternative were used and whether it would be necessary to rebuild any overpasses. *************************************************************************** CM-6-240 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 Cm. Vonheeder asked what would happen to the current plan for the I- 580/680 interchange. Mayor Jeffery stated that she would be watching the issue and suggested that all concerned watch the papers and go to the Policy Committee meetings. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing and directed Staff to forward all comments to Bud Murphy. RECESS A five minute recess was called at approximately 9:15 p.m. was reconvened at approximately 9:20 p.m. The meeting PUBLIC HEARING: PA 87-018 ENEA PLAZA - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING REQUEST Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Mr. Tong presented the Staff report which stated that, at the meeting of June 22nd, the City Council had clarified the condition regarding a road parallel to Dublin Boulevard, adopted a Resolution approving the Enea Plaza PD, Planned Development Rezoning request, and introduced an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance. The application rezones approximately 5.0 acres to allow a range of retail shopper, office, personal service, and financial uses. The requested PD, Planned Development District designation amends the existing PD District applied by Alameda County, which allowed C-O, Administrative Office District uses, and~a limited range of C-l, Retail Business District uses. Staff recommended that the City Council waive the second reading and adopt the Ordinance. There was no public comment on this item. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the City Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 35-87 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE REZONING OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF THE INTERSECTION OF AMADOR PLAZA ROAD AND DUBLIN BOULEVARD *************************************************************************** CM-6-241 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING: SPARK ARRESTORS Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Building Official vic Taugher presented the Staff report which stated that the proposed ordinances had been introduced at the City Council meeting of June 22nd. These ordinances require installation of spark arrestors at the time property is sold or whenever work exceeding $1,000 in value is done. These ordinances are part of the implementation of the Planning Commission recommendation relating to the Fire Safe Roofing Ordinance. It is anticipated that said installation of spark arrestors upon sale of property will be accomplished in the same manner as the current requirement for installation of smoke detectors, in which the seller discloses that a spark arrestor is necessary and that installation is required prior to close of escrow. In the case of work exceeding $1,000, the Building Inspection Department would assure installation of the spark arrestor. Staff recommended that the City Council waive the second reading and adopt the ordinances. Staff also advised that adoption of a Resolution of Findings of Necessity would be required in order to institute local building regulations that differ from State regulations. Cm. Moffatt asked if a permit would be required to install a spark arrestor. Mr. Taugher stated that the Building Inspection Department did not intend to require a permit. As a practical~matter, there is nothing to inspect. The code on exceptions for permits would be amended to state that a permit is not required to install a spark arrestor. Mayor Jeffery stated that in the case of work exceeding $1,000, a permit would be required anyway. Doug Abbott, Rhoda Avenue, asked what constitutes, a spark arrestor. Mr. Taugher said that the approved type had 12-gauge mesh and would permit passage of 3/8" diameter particles but not 1/2" diameter. Spark arrestors are available from hardware stores or building supply houses. A copy of the standards would be circulated to vendors. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Hegarty stated that he wished to make certain that the record showed he favored requiring installation of spark arrestors on all dwellings in Dublin within a 6-month period, as discussed at the first reading of the proposed ordinance, and that he was voting in favor of adoption of these ordinances because they were better than nothing. He further stated that he still felt all houses should be required to have spark arrestors at least within a year. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the City Council waived the reading and adopted *************************************************************************** CM-6-242 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 ORDINANCE NO. 36-87 AMENDING ORDINANCE 02-84 ESTABLISHING FIRE HAZARD AREAS AND REQUIRING THE INSTALLATION OF SPARK ARRESTORS ON EXISTING CHIMNEYS WHEN ALTERATIONS, REPAIRS, OR ADDITIONS REQUIRING A PERMIT HAVING A VALUE IN EXCESS OF $1,000 OCCUR ORDINANCE NO. 37-87 REQUIRING THE INSTALLATION OF SPARK ARRESTORS ON EXISTING CHIMNEYS ON TRANSFER OF PROPERTY BY SALE OR EXCHANGE and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 57-87 FINDINGS AS TO WHY AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFORM CODES ARE NECESSARY (Spark Arrestors) PUBLIC HEARING: FIRE SAFE ROOFING ORDINANCE Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Mr. Taugher presented the Staff report, which stated that this item had been previously heard at the City Council meeting of April 27th, at which time Staff was requested to investigate the feasibility of requiring spark arrestors to be installed within a specified time and to review the standards for spark arrestors. The spark arrestor issue was resolved separately. Section I of the Fire Safe Roofing Ordinance deletes the provisions that exempt single-family dwellings and accessory buildings from the requirement that permits be obtained for re-roofing. Section II establishes roofing areas and requirements as follows: Area 1: Class B roof covering or non-combustible roofing material. Any re-roofing must comply with requirements for new construction (all buildings in this area have concrete tile roofs). Area 2: Class C roof covering or non- combustible roofing material. Any re-roofing must comply with requirements for new construction. Any re-roofing of buildings with wood shingles or shakes would have to be Class C or better. Materials available for Class C are fiberglass shingle, metal tile, perlite tile, pressure treated wood shingles and shakes, and concrete or clay tile. Area 3: Buildings are currently roofed with either wood shakes or composition asphalt shingles. These buildings may be re-roofed in kind; however, a composition asphalt roof could not be replaced with wood shakes. The intent of requiring a permit for re-roofing is that applicants would be advised of the material requirements. Inspection would be limited to verifying that the property material had been used. In addition to introduction of the Ordinance, Staff recommended adoption of a *~*~,~,~,%,%,%,%,%, CM-6-243 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 Resolution of Findings of Necessity and also a Resolution establishing permit fees for reroofing, which would become effective on the effective date of the Ordinance. Cm. Moffatt asked what class a tar and gravel roof was considered. Mr. Taugher replied that. a tar and gravel roof could be either Class A, B, or C, depending upon the number of plies and amount of gravel used. There was no public comment on this item. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the City Council waived the reading and introduced an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 02-84 Establishing Fire Hazard Areas and Establishing Various Requirements for Fire Retardant Roofs in Those Areas, and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 58-87 FINDINGS AS TO WHY AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFORM CODES ARE NECESSARY (Fire Safe Roofing) RESOLUTION NO. 59-87 FEE SCHEDULE FOR BUILDING REGULATION PERMITS (Re-roofing) These Resolutions will become effective on the date that the Ordinance becomes effective. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE OPERATION OF TAXICABS Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. City Manager Richard Ambrose presented the Staff report which stated that this Ordinance is part of the Municipal Code revision and regulates the operation of taxicabs, including meters, insurance, rates, and permit application procedures. This Ordinance was introduced at the City Council meeting of June 22nd. There was no public comment on this item. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. *************************************************************************** CM-6-244 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the City Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 38-87 RELATING TO TAXICABS PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SECTION 1205(a) OF THE BUILDING CODE RELATING TO BATHROOM VENTILATION Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Vic Taugher, Building Official, presented the Staff report which stated that Mr. Bebout of 11318 Bloomington Way had been issued a building permit for construction of patio roof. The original plans called for enclosing the ends but leaving the long wall open. Subsequently, the applicant requested approval to completely enclose the patio. As a result, the window of the bathroom, which originally opened into the open patio, now opened into the closed structure. The Building Code requires that such windows must open onto a street or yard or a porch that is open at least 65% on the long side. if this requirement is not met, a bathroom must have an exhaust fan. The plans prepared by the applicant did not indicate the presence of the window; its existence was discovered upon inspection after the permit had been issued. At that time, the applicant was advised of the requirement for the exhaust fan. Mr. Bebout requested a variance to this section of the Code to waive the requirement for the fan and indicated he felt that the screen door on the left side of the patio structure was adequate for natural ventilation. In order to approve the variance, the City council must find that the granting of the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Building Code and will not lessen the protection to the people of the City of Dublin or property situated therein. Mr. Taugher stated that he felt those findings could not be made. An additional issue raised in the Staff report regarded preparation of plans by a professional. The applicant had prepared his own plans, which is permitted by the Building Inspection Department. However, the applicant had omitted a detail which showed the sills, and consequently, the Building Inspection Department was not able to advise him of the proper material for construction. The Building Department has typically not required professionally-prepared plans for minor construction because Staff is available for consultation several hours per day. Mr. Taugher requested that the Council provide appropriate direction if more explicit plans should be required. Russ Bebout, Bloomington Way, stated that he knew that Building Inspector White had inspeCted the houses in the Tract when they were being built and had been at his specific house on several occasions and therefore should have known the bathroom window was there. Mr. White *************************************************************************** CM-6-245 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 had approved his original drawings for the patio structure. The inspector for his patio addition was Earl DeRoque, who brought up the issue of the sills. Mr. DeRoque had told him that he felt the screen door was adequate ventilation for the bathroom but that he wanted the sills done according to code. The fan was discussed at that time. The following day, the sills were approved, but Mr. Taugher determined that the fan would be required. Mr. Bebout noted that he had an approved building permit and that he would like to have the variance granted. Charlie Ryan stated that he felt the variance should be granted and that the same issue has come up before on the question regarding whether pressure treated redwood should be required. Cm. Hegarty stated that the sills were not the issue. Susan Alves, Padre Way, said that she had had a problem with the Building Department and that she sympathized with Mr. Bebout. She felt that the applicant was under the influence that what he was doing was correct. She further stated that perhaps the Building Department wanted residents to go to school or have an architect prepare the plans. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 60-87 DENYING VARIANCE TO SECTION 1205(a) OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN CIVIC CENTER Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Mr. Tong presented the Staff report, which stated that an Environmental Assessment must be completed prior to beginning construction on the proposed Dublin Civic Center. Staff has completed an Initial Study and found that this project, inclusive of the appropriate mitigation measures, will not have a significant .effect on the environment, and therefore a Negative Declaration has been completed. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft Negative Declaration/Initial Study on July 6th and voted to adopt the Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance. A review of the Initial Study indicates several items of concern that have been or will be addressed by appropriate mitigation measures. These are: soils, traffic, and noise. Staff recommendation was for adoption of Resolution approving the Negative Declaration. *************************************************************************** CM-6-246 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 There was no public comment on this item. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 61-87 APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED 52,000+ SQUARE FOOT CIVIC CENTER FACILITY ON AN 11.6+ ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND SIERRA COURT. PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSINGS ON SAN RAMON ROAD City Engineer Lee Thompson presented a Staff report which stated that the Murray School District Board of Trustees had submitted a letter requesting that the City look into the feasibility of installing pedestrian overcrossings at two intersections on San Ramon Road, Amador Valley Blvd. and Shannon Ave. TJKM, the City's Traffic Engineer, advised Staff that the cost of a study of these two intersections relative to pedestrian overcrossing structures would cost approximately $3,500. The structures themselves range in cost from approximately $200,000 each for stair-accessed to $400,000 each for ramp-accessed. All the warrants for pedestrian separation structures specified by the Caltrans Traffic Manual have not been met at these intersections, and it is likely that a study would not recommend the structures. Staff recommended that the City Council respond to the Board of Trustees' letter with cost figures and warrants and ask for a commitment toward partially funding the study and, if ultimately constructed, the structures themselves. Cm. Hegarty stated that even if the school district did agree to pay the cost of the study, the study would only conclude what is already known: that the structures are not warranted. The City already has a crossing guard, traffic signals, and so forth, and has already done everything reasonably prudent for the protection of children. Installation of the structures would not guarantee that the children would use them. Mayor Jeffery commented that the structures would have to be the ramped type for handicapped use and asked how long the ramp would have to be. Mr. Thompson said that the ramp would need to be twelve feet long for every one foot of height, and that the structure would be approximately 16 feet high. The ramps would extend alongside San Ramon Road. Cm. Snyder stated that the Caltrans warrants should be included with any communication with the School Board and that more cost-effective methods such as crossing guards and busing could be utilized. ,%,%,%,%,%,° o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o CM-6-247 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 on motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the City Council directed Staff to respond to the Board of Trustees that the City was not interested in pursuing the study and to submit a copy of the Caltrans warrants with the letter. PA 87-091 GREGORY GROUP~ INC. - REQUEST FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY Mr. Tong stated that the applicant had called the City Offices that afternoon and verbally requested to continue the item, and that the Council could determine to hear testimony and then continue the item or could determine not to continue it. Staff did not see any gain in allowing the continuance. Mr. Tong also said that a letter had been received from Zev Kahn which opposed the study. Rick Angrisani of the Gregory Group said that he had received the Staff report on Friday and was surprised by the negative recommendation. He felt that changes in the surrounding property justified a General Plan Amendment Study and requested the continuance in order to have time to prepare testimony. Cm. Hegarty asked what was going to happen between this meeting and the next that would change the outcome. Mr. Angrisani said he thought he would be able to get an informal indication and that he was not asking for a commitment. He wanted to perform the study in order to see if he was off-base in wanting to develop the property. Mayor Jeffery stated that Mr. Angrisani's letter requested to change the General Plan land use designation to single-family. Mr. Angrisani said that they needed authorization for the study to proceed. Mr. Tong said that it was appropriate to ask the Council whether they wished to hear testimony and act or whether they wished to continue the item. Cm. Vonheeder said that she had no problem with the continuance. Cm. Hegarty stated that the report specifies the lot to be permanent open space and that the applicant had a right to ask, but that the answer was obvious and it would be a waste of time to continue the matter. He said further that he had a problem with changing the designation and wanted the audience to know that any change would be an uphill battle. Cm. Vonheeder stated that the applicant was only asking to do a study, not necessarily to change the General Plan. *************************************************************************** CM-6-248 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 Cm. Hegarty said that under present conditions, the developer could come back again and ask for another study after a decision has been made, and that he felt that there should be some type of covenant that would stay with the deed. City Attorney Nave said that the best way to insure the land would remain open space is to obtain an easement in favor of the City. On another point, he stated that it is possible to deny the request for continuance. City Manager Ambrose commented that this item was not a public hearing and that the Council has the right to authorize the study or not. If a General Plan Amendment was filed, due process would occur at that time. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by majority vote, the City Council denied the applicant's request to continue the item. Cm. Vonheeder voted no on the motion. Mr. Tong presented the Staff report which stated that the Gregory Group had requested authorization for a General Plan Amendment Study to allow review of a 10+ acre hillside property located in the western hills. This lot, identified as Lot 41 of Tract 4077, lies west of the cul-de- sac termini of Padre Way and Via Zapata. The Gregory Group wished to obtain approval for residential development of this lot, which is designated open space, along with an adjacent parcel on Bloomington Way which is designated for single-family residential use. When the Gregory Group developed Tract 4077, Lot 41 was ultimately committed as permanent open space, as indicated in Condition 39 of the Tract Conditions of Approval, and a deed restriction was placed on the parcel. The road network and site grading for Tract 4077 reflect the agreement that the parcel would remain open space, and homeowners purchased their property with that understanding. Mr. Tong further stated that approval of the request could set a negative precedent for future requests to consider overturning commitments to reserve areas for open space use. Staff recommended denial of the request for a General Plan Amendment Study and stated that if the City Council wished to authorize the study, they provide direction regarding the scope. Mayor Jeffery pointed out that residents of the area had submitted a petition dated September 8, 1986, which objected to development of this lot. Mel Luna, Padre Way, said that when he purchased his home, he was told that this area would remain open space. He also remarked that there had been landslides in that area and that the land was not suitable to build on. Chuck Pendell stated that he bought his house as a resale and was shown a letter two years ago that the property would not be developed. *************************************************************************** CM-6-249 Regular Meeting JUly 27, 1987 Susan Abbott, Rhoda Avenue, said that her view of the property was a lovely ridge and that it was extremely important to maintain open space. Land is disappearing, and this area is a nice buffer zone. Jim Hanson, Padre Way, expressed a concern regarding drainage into the creek south of Padre Way. He said that the creek had flooded previously and that any more structures in the area would cause more water to come down the hill into the creek, which would endanger homes and the future park. Dennis McCann, Via Zapata, said that his lot was under three to five inches of water when he purchased the house and that even moderate development would add to the water problem. He is still getting water under his house even though he has put in drains and landscaping. Dan Steele, Beckett Way, stated that he had the same sentiments regarding the aesthetics of the area. He chose his home with great deliberation and feels compromised by the possibility of development. He was not aware of the petition and felt that other residents would have signed it if they knew about it. A resident of Via Zapata stated that his property faces Lot 41 and asked whether a decision to deny the request for a General Plan Amendment study would be permanent or if someone else could come in with the same request. Doug Abbott asked if the applicant could request a General Plan Amendment if the request for the study was denied. City Attorney Nave said that applicants could keep coming back with a request for the study. George Butler said he was concerned about the applicant coming back every year and wanted to know if he could go to the County or if there was a way to prevent ongoing requests to develop. Mr. Nave responded that the County could have requested an open space easement but did not. The City cannot do that now. The only way to ensure that future applications would not be received is to exercise eminent domain proceedings against the Gregory Group and pay fair market price for the property. *************************************************************************** CM-6-250 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 A resident stated that this should not be too expensive and that the property owners might chip in. Susan Alves, Padre Way, said that her children were attending the meeting because they understood the deer and foxes might be gone and that she hoped the Gregory Group's request would be rejected. Charlie Ryan asked whether there was a covenant that says this will remain open space. Mr. Nave said that a Condition of Approval for the Final Map provided that it remain open space. Mr. Ryan asked what procedure was used and if one had the right to change it. Mr. Nave stated that he could not provide a legal opinion at the meeting but would have to respond at a later date. Mayor Jeffery asked that the legal opinion be provided at the August 10th meeting. Mr. Ryan asked what good a study would do if a change cannot be made. Randy Livingston, Bloomington Way, said that he lives across the street from the lot proposed to be part of the development and asked how it came to be transferred from Estate Homes to the Gregory Group. He expressed concern regarding a foundation that was built on the lot and also a sign as being a hazard and eyesore. Mr. Tong said he believed that the Gregory Group had purchased the property from Estate Homes and that there is nothing that forces a property owner to construct a house. Mr. Livingston asked how to get the foundation and sign removed. Mr. Tong said that an applicant typically had a year to finalize a building permit or request a continuance. If the Building Inspection Department determined the structure to be a nuisance, it could be required to be removed. He agreed to check with the Building Inspection Department and respond to Mr. Livingston. Katy Spencer, Bloomington Way, said she had understood an access road was to be built on that lot. Susan Abbott asked if the City would consider purchasing the land for a park. Mayor Jeffery stated that the Council had the right to consider it. *************************************************************************** CM-6-251 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 Mr. Angrisani said that the Tentative Map required that the parcel remain open space. When the Gregory Group purchased it, they were forced to accept the condition. The soils report did not say they could not build, and the reason for limiting development was that there was no water service over 520 feet and no access for grading and also to preserve the ridgeline. The water problem has been solved, there is now access for grading, and others have built on the ridgeline. He said that he therefore felt there was adequate reason to come in for a study and that a few houses would not block anyone's view. His firm wishes to get the land off their books. Cm. Hegarty stated that the applicant knew of the conditions when the land was purchased. It was studied prior to the Nielsen development. He said further that he had a problem going against something that was already agreed upon. Mayor Jeffery said that something that was approved by the County was not necessary approved by the Dublin City Council. Cm. Vonheeder said that she wanted to make sure the record showed that she agreed with the motion to deny request for study and that she had only had a difference of opinion on the continuance issue. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the City Council denied the applicant's request for a General Plan Amendment study. REPORT ON TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN City Manager Richard Ambrose presented the Staff report which stated that representatives from the City Councils of Dublin, Danville, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon had met on June 18th to discuss transportation issues. The representatives were presented with goals and objectives which proposed the development and implementation of a Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. The representatives agreed to discuss the proposed objectives with their individual City Councils and recommended that the Tri-Valley Transportation Subcommittee meet during the summer to establish a scope of work to accomplish Action Item lA (Share transportation information among Tri-Valley jurisdictions, including General Plans, Capital Improvement Programs, and current development activities). The work of the Subcommittee and action by individual City Councils would be presented at the next Tri-Valley Council meeting which will be held in September. Staff recommended that the Council receive the report and consider the recommendations. *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~ ,%,%,~,~,~,~,~,%,%,%,%,% CM-6-252 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 Cm. Vonheeder said that the subcommittee had not met again other than the original presentation and that there had been a problem with trying to determine objectives. They needed to get the goals lined up and wanted all five cities working toward the same goals. Mayor Jeffery said that she had a problem with Objective 2 and wanted to add the phrase "voluntarily coordinated." Mr. Ambrose said that different cities would pursue the objectives at a different pace, partly due to funding capabilities. Cm. Vonheeder said that either Jim Walker or Rich Bottarini had developed the wording. The idea was to let people know so that if alternatives were available, priorities could be changed. The object was to improve coordination. Cm. Snyder said that he agreed with Mayor Jeffery, there was no mechanism to force coordination. The cities will always operate at different paces. He said further that he saw coordination as a positive step. Mayor Jeffery said that she agreed at least with Action iA. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the City Council determined to support at least Action lA and requested that the wording "voluntarily coOrdinated'' be incorporated into Objective 2. OTHER BUSINESS Measure B City Manager Ambrose said that he had received a letter from Mayor Turner, representing Measure B, with regard to local match funds and how the City would participate. The letter requested that the City Council designate a representative for their next meeting. Mr. Ambrose said that he would need to supply the date but that it would be the third week in August. Mayor Jeffery said that she would attend if she did not have a conflict. Mr. Ambrose said he would supply the date at the next meeting, and a decision could be made at that time. Councilmembers Absent at Next Meeting Cms. Vonheeder and Hegarty stated that they would be out of town on August 10th and would not be able to attend the meeting. *************************************************************************** Regular Meeting July 27, 1987 Farewell to Billy Allstetter Cm. Snyder suggested that the meeting be adjourned without additional discussion in honor of Herald reporter Billy Allstetter, who is leaving the area to go the the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. City C~erk , %, %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* CM-6-254 Regular Meeting July 27, 1987