These minutes are considered draft in nature and will not be official until adopted by the City council

Deputy Dawn

Informations

• Publié par: Viot
• Nombre de lectures: 27
• Langue: English

Extrait

 

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLEASANTON CITY COUNCIL April 18, 2006

          6:45 P.M. CLOSED SESSION    Conference with legal counsel concerning potential litigation with the Lyons Capital Ventures about the potential sale of individual condominium units on Stoneridge Mall Drive   Conference with real property negotiator Nelson Fialho concerning the potential acquisition of a portion of property owned by the General Electric Company, adjacent to the Callippe Preserve Golf Course. 1. CALL TO ORDER   Mayor Hosterman called the regular meeting of the City Council to order at 7:04 p.m. Councilmember Thorne led the assembly in the pledge of allegiance.   Mr. Thorne announced the City of Pleasanton and Zone 7 are coordinating an information center at the Library on Earth Day. Pleasanton Playhouse is presenting Nunsense at the Amador Theater on April 21 and closing on May 7. Tickets could be purchased at the Pleasanton Playhouse by calling [phone] or online at www.pleasantonplayhouse.com   Mr. Thorne announced the next General Plan workshop would be on Tuesday, April 25   at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The joint workshop would focus on land use issues.   Mr. Thorne announced the Museum on Main would be continuing its lecture series, which is held at the Museum on Main Street. He also announced the First Annual Family Fitness Fair that is sponsored by the City of Pleasanton would be held on April 29 at the Pleasanton Middle School.   Mr. Thorne thanked the group of women that are involved in the Citizens League of the Tri-Valley. This group supplies children with clothing, books and backpacks and encourages teenage parents to stay in school. He also shared the proclamations for National Poetry Month and Days of Remberance.  

Pleasanton City Council Minutes

1

04/18/06  

      2. ROLL CALL   City Clerk Dawn Abrahamson called the roll, which was recorded as follows: Councilmembers present were Steve Brozosky, Cindy McGovern, Matt Sullivan, Jerry Thorne, and Mayor Hosterman. Staff members present were: Nelson Fialho, City Manager; Michael Roush, City Attorney; Steven Bocian, Assistant City Manager; Jerry Iserson, Director of Planning and Community Development; and Jim Wolfe, Director of Parks and Community Services; and Rob Wilson, Director of Public Works.   3. AGENDA AMENDMENTS   Nelson Fialho, City Manager, announced the presentation by Cynthia Bryant, Poet Laureate, would not be made this evening but would be rescheduled.   4. CONSENT CALENDAR     Mr. Brozosky questioned item 4d and asked for clarification regarding the level of service offered to Sunol and Pleasanton residents and did the City differentiate between the two.    Mr. Fialho said no.    Ms. McGovern questioned item 4c, page 3 of 4 of Exhibit B and requested the effective dates be revised to allow the rates to be effective for one year.    Mr. Fialho said the contract would be revised.    Ms. McGovern abstained from agenda item 4e as it is within 500 feet of her property.    Mr. Sullivan requested item 4n be removed and moved to the regular agenda.   It was moved by Mr. Brozosky, seconded by Ms. McGovern, that the following actions under the Consent Calendar be taken:     a. Approved minutes of the 04/04/06 meeting.   b. Actions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission. (IR 06:017)   There was no action taken or required on this item.   c. Approved the Professional Services Agreement with EIP Associates for Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan Amendment/Staples Ranch Project. (SR 06:101)   d. Adopted Resolution 06-023, a resolution authorizing FY 2006/07 Applications for Alameda County Measure B Funds and Transportation and Development Act (TDA) Article 4.5 Funds for the Pleasanton Paratransit Services. (SR 06:103)       Pleasanton City Council Minutes

2

04/18/06

e. Approved the Plans, Specifications, Review of Bids and Awarded the Contract for the Longview Drive Water Line Project, CIP No. 041015. (SR 06:104).   f. Adopted Resolution 06-024, a resolution approving an Application for Grant Funding under the Land and Water Conservation Fund for Bernal Community Park, Phase I, CIP 007065. (SR 06:106)   g. Approved the acceptance of Improvements for the First Street Underground Utility District Conversion Project, Underground Utility District No. 02-1, Project No. 025071B. (SR 06:107)     h. PUD-80-06-01M, Sherman Balch, SuperFranks Application for a minor modification to an existing Planned Unit Development (PUD-80-06, Schoebers Racquetball) to operate an indoor recreational facility in an existing building located at 5341 Owens Court. Zoning for the property is PUD-C (Planned Unit Development – Commercial) District. (IR 06:018) There was no action taken or required on this item.         i. Approved Plans, Specifications, Review of Bids and Awarded Construction Contract for the S-8 Sewer Diversion Structure, Project No. 032017. (SR 06:080)     j. Proclaimed April 23-30, 2006 as “Days of Remembrance” in the City of Pleasanton   .   k. Approved the Final Map, Improvement Plans and Subdivision Agreement for Tract 7162, “Heartwood Communities” (TTK Property). (SR 06:109)   l. Adopted Resolution 06-025, a resolution approving the Investment Policy and Guidelines. (SR 06:112)   m. Approved an Amendment to Agreement with Russ Reid Company for Consultant Services. (SR 06:115)   n. Plans for the Vineyard Avenue Roundabout Removal Project and Associated Detour Plan. (SR 06:099) This item was removed from the consent calendar to the regular agenda as item 6a(1).   o. Adopted Resolution 06-26 a resolution approving the revised retention periods for the City records (Fire Department). (SR 06:105)     The roll call vote was taken as follows: AYES: Councilmembers – Brozosky, McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne, and Mayor Hosterman NOES:   None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: Councilmember McGovern from the approval of the plans, specifications, review of bids and award of contract for the Longview Drive Water Line Project (agenda item 4e)

    Pleasanton City Council Minutes

3

04/18/06

  5. MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC   The presentation by Poet Laureate Cynthia Bryant in Recognition of National Poetry Month will be rescheduled.     There were no public speakers.    Mr. Thorne read the proclamation for the “Days of Remembrance.”   6. PUBLIC HEARINGS & OTHER MATTERS   6a (1) Plans for the Vineyard Avenue Roundabout Removal Project and Associated detour Plan (SR 06:099)    Rob Wilson, Director of Public Works, presented the staff report.    Mr. Thorne asked what direction staff was requesting from Council.    Mr. Wilson responded staff was requesting approval of the concept presented and to approve moving ahead with the detour onto Old Vineyard Avenue.    Mr. Thorne asked if the project would be returned to Council for approval once the bids were in.    Mr. Wilson said yes.    Ms. Hosterman indicated the staff report identified the cost at $500,000 plus $40,000 but that the reality was the cost could be either higher or lower.    Mr. Wilson said that was correct. The figures in the report are estimates and would not be confirmed until bids were received on the project.    Mr. Brozosky inquired whether staff was requesting an authorization of funds.    Mr. Wilson responded that only the design has been completed.    Mr. Brozosky asked if the project’s timeline was for the construction to begin during the summer and be completed prior to the new school year.    Mr. Wilson responded yes. The construction is scheduled to begin in July and take approximately two months. The project is expected to be completed soon after the school year begins. He further indicated that the project has been separated into two components in order to expedite completion of this portion of the project.    Ms. McGovern questioned if traffic would be constrained along Vineyard Avenue to reduce traffic by utilizing the traffic light at Ruby Hill.       Pleasanton City Council Minutes

4

04/18/06

 Mr. Wilson responded that the traffic light at Ruby Hill is currently used to meter traffic into Pleasanton.    Ms. McGovern questioned whether the roundabouts were used to reduce cut-through traffic.    Mr. Wilson responded that the roundabouts were not installed for the purpose of reducing cut-through traffic.    Ms. McGovern questioned whether the traffic exiting Petronave Lane would be manageable during the project.    Mr. Wilson responded that final design on how that would match has not been completed but he believes the traffic can be managed, as traffic speed will be reduced to 25 mph. Signage will be posted at the entrance to and exit out of the construction area.    Ms. McGovern questioned whether the bid would change on the project if a timeline were set to complete the project prior to the new school year.    Mr. Wilson responded if the contractor were given the ability to choose working times it would not change the contract and could give them latitude for crews to move into different locations. He further stated in order for the City to allow the contractor to work on the weekends or outside normal business hours, the specific plan would need to be amended and brought back to Council.    Ms. McGovern stated her concern was that the project needed to be placed out for bid in order for the project to be completed in order to have a minimal effect on school traffic.    Mr. Brozosky indicated that the specific plan would not have to be amended to allow road construction on Saturdays. The specific plan indicates construction of homes could not be done on Saturdays. The plan does allow construction on Vineyard Avenue and the main roads on Saturdays.    Mr. Fialho responded that staff would review the specific plan.    Mr. Sullivan inquired whether the roundabouts were installed for traffic calming and to slow traffic in anticipation of Neal School being built.    Mr. Wilson responded that the primary factor for the roundabouts was the school being built. There was concern of how the intersections would operate during school hours and traffic stacking up on Vineyard turning left into the school property. The roundabouts were installed in lieu of a traffic signal.    Ms. Hosterman noted the importance of informing the community as to why the roundabouts were installed. The idea was to get the infrastructure built in anticipation of the construction of Neal Elementary School, which would have been placed in between the two roundabouts. This would have allowed traffic to ingress and egress from the school property safely, allow traffic to continue to move on Vineyard Avenue and to slow traffic in the area in anticipation of the construction of homes.     Pleasanton City Council Minutes

5

04/18/06

 Mr. Wilson indicated that the decision was to slow down traffic in the school area as once the school was built the roundabouts would allow traffic to in and out of the school property.    Mr. Sullivan indicated that in addition, the added benefit for slowing traffic with the roundabouts was once the proposed homes were built, traffic could enter and exit Vineyard Avenue safely.    Mr. Wilson responded that the roundabouts worked for those reasons and in lieu of the roundabouts, a traffic signal would have to been installed.      Mr. Sullivan stated that if the traffic calming device was removed and there is an open straightaway from Ruby Hill to Pleasanton, traffic would travel at a higher rate of speed on the road. What other safety issues need to be addressed once the homes are constructed?    Mr. Wilson responded that a pocket for vehicles will be created to pull out of Thiessen Road and to get onto Vineyard Avenue safely.    Mr. Sullivan asked if the speed limit was 40 mph until the Ruby Hill property and then the speed increases to 50 mph.    Mr. Wilson responded he was not sure.    Mr. Sullivan inquired what would happen once the roundabouts are removed and the traffic begins to travel at higher speeds.    Mr. Wilson responded that since this area was a thoroughfare the City would go out and measure the speeds. If the speed survey indicates a change, staff would return to Council for direction.    Mr. Sullivan asked if the engineering cost of $500,000 was an estimate and until the bids have been submitted, the actual cost was unknown.    Mr. Wilson responded the estimate was for the option to move traffic onto Old Vineyard Avenue. If traffic is left on Vineyard Avenue, the cost estimate increases substantially.    Mr. Sullivan asked if $40,000 to improve Old Vineyard Avenue was a contractor’s estimate or for City staff to complete the project.    Mr. Wilson indicated City staff would be completing the work. This is an estimate as to the time and effort to complete the work. This was a contractor’s estimate and he believes the City could complete the work at a lower cost.    Mr. Sullivan asked if Neal Elementary School were eventually constructed, what was staff’s recommendation to deal with the situation at that time.    Mr. Wilson responded the option in lieu of the roundabouts would be a traffic signal installed at Thiessen and would depend on the layout of the proposed school site.    Mr. Sullivan asked what the cost estimate was for a traffic signal to be installed.     Pleasanton City Council Minutes

6

04/18/06

   Mr. Wilson responded roughly $175,000 to $200,000.    Mr. Fialho commented that the engineering department has included in the public bid packet that the contractor install conduit at the two intersections in the event that traffic signals have to be installed.    Mr. Wilson commented that another option is to install a speed signal similar to what is installed at Motevino.    Ms. McGovern questioned why roundabouts were not installed near Foothill High School.    Mr. Wilson responded at the time Foothill Road was built roundabouts were not a device the City was using.     Mayor Hosterman invited public comments.    Dan Carl, a Pleasanton resident presented data to Council which indicated information that traffic circles were not functioning as they were designed. While he was concerned about speeders in this area, he noted that the controlled traffic signal at Montevino has addressed the problem. He further stated that the traffic circles have contributed to 60% of accidents on Vineyard Avenue. Due to the concern for safety and the increased accident rate, he asked that the Council not delay this process.    Mayor Hosterman closed the public comments.    Mr. Sullivan concurred with Mr. Carl regarding the safety issues, which is his primary concern. He encouraged Council to proceed with the project in order to provide safety on the road.     It was moved by Mr. Brozosky, seconded by Mr. Thorne to (1) approve the project plan, authorize the public bid and direct staff to include using Old Vineyard Avenue as a construction detour during the roundabout removal on new Vineyard Avenue; (2) to prepare a detailed accident analysis showing the types and locations of accidents; and (3) to prepare a detailed bid analysis outlining all of the costs associated with this project.    The roll call vote was taken as follows: AYES: Councilmembers – Brozosky, McGovern, and Thorne NOES:   Councilmember – Sullivan and Mayor Hosterman ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None

    Pleasanton City Council Minutes

7

04/18/06

6a (2) Memorandum of Understanding Between the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority and the City of Pleasanton Concerning the Staples Ranch (SR 06:100)    Steve Bocian, Assistant City Manager, presented the staff report.    Mr. Thorne asked if the fees were out of the ordinary.    Mr. Fialho responded that there are processing and development impact fees applied to developments of this nature.    Mr. Thorne questioned the last paragraph in the MOU regarding City and County agreeing on the extension of Stoneridge Road and whether a provision would be included indicating the City must agree to the right-of-way.    Mr. Roush responded an additional document would be created that would include detailed language of how the right-of-way would be treated in the event the General Plan is amended and the Stoneridge extension is removed.    Mr. Thorne indicated that the key provision is that the Stoneridge extension could not be completed if the land goes back to the County and is removed from the General Plan.    Mr. Roush indicated that aspect would be covered in great detail in the final document that is presented to Council.    Mr. Thorne asked if the MOU did not encumber the City’s ability to manage the land use of the property.    Mr. Roush responded the MOU did not take away the City’s ultimate discretionary authority.    Mr. Thorne asked about the options for the park.    Mr. Fialho said the ultimate development of the Community Park is at Council discretion.    Mr. Sullivan asked if the City retained all land use decision-making authority on the property.    Mr. Fialho said yes.    Ms. McGovern questioned the design for the commercial property located next to the park.    Mr. Fialho responded the City did not know what that use was going to be.    Ms. McGovern questioned the timeline and whether it would be updated.    Mr. Fialho stated that staff would update the timeline to reflect the Council’s action.    Mr. Brozosky questioned the proposed number of continuing care units.     Pleasanton City Council Minutes

8

04/18/06

   Mr. Fialho stated the City has entered into a good faith negotiation with the County. The proposal indicates 800 units. The number of units is at Council’s discretion.    Mr. Brozosky inquired if the Stoneridge extension were removed from the General Plan, if the land would return back to the SPA and if the City decided to extend Stoneridge, if the land would be returned back to the City.    Mr. Roush stated that detail would be addressed in the additional document.    Mayor Hosterman invited public comments.    Doug Reynolds, Vulcan Materials Company, voiced his concern regarding El Charro Road and how the current MOU under consideration goes far beyond the limited purpose originally described by the City and that it fails to recognize the City’s General Plan. He believes the MOU has not had the proper CEQA review and other applicable laws. He further believes the MOU is an apparent attempt to limit in advance the proper analysis and mitigation for traffic impacts that must include the consideration of the extension of Stoneridge Drive whether or not the project builds the extension.    Dan Faustina, a Pleasanton resident, applauded the Council’s efforts with regards to the Staples Ranch proposal and encouraged Council to approve the item. He believes the MOU is a step in the right direction and that the City has found a compromise that will benefit all citizens of Pleasanton. He further believed the inclusion of an emergency vehicle access road on the property was needed.    Brett Wayne a Livermore resident and member of an advocacy group that supports the Livermore Airport, stated the City needs to reconsider the senior housing component of the development. He stated the reason the land is inexpensive is because it is at the end of the airport runway. The City had an obligation to represent residents as well as future residents and placing 1000 residents closer to the airport and in an area that is already complaining is a recipe for conflict. He further encouraged the City to reconsider the senior housing component of the proposal.    Mr. Brozosky asked how far way the airport protection zone was from the proposed senior housing.    Mr. Fialho responded that the proposed continuing care facility is outside of the airport protection zone.    Kevin Ryan a Pleasanton resident voiced his concern regarding the development of the senior housing at Staples Ranch near the Livermore airport.    Bjorn Jensen a Pleasanton resident voiced his concern on behalf of the households on Vermont Place. He stated that the previous development plans included a provision to straighten the property line and move it approximately 19 feet. He indicated that he has not seen this provision as an option and wanted to go on record to request this provision be included in the development.       Pleasanton City Council Minutes

9

04/18/06

 Brian Arkin a Pleasanton resident indicated he is in support of the Council’s direction and would like to understand what the legal standing of the MOU is. He believes there are certain limitations.    Judith Gieiselman a Pleasanton resident felt compelled to applaud the Council for the work that has been done on the MOU. She further voiced her concern regarding the possibility of the extension of Stoneridge Drive.    David Bouchard representing the Board of the Pleasanton Chamber and a resident of Pleasanton commended and congratulated the City in reaching this milestone agreement with the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority. He further urged the Council to approve the MOU, as it would enable the City to lose a valuable corporate citizen and the revenue the City’s general fund receives. Those funds allow the City to provide quality police and fire services, parks and other amenities that make living in Pleasanton so desirable. He stated the MOU preserves the right-of-way for the extension in perpetuity and is a critical point the Pleasanton Chamber supports.    Mayor Hosterman closed the public comments.    Mr. Roush responded to Mr. Arkin’s question regarding the legal standing of the MOU. The document has legal standing and is the road map for the development. While Council has full discretionary approval, there is an understanding that what will be processed is what has been presented in the staff report.     It was moved by Mr. Thorne seconded by Mr. Brozosky, to authorize the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understanding.    Ms. McGovern stated that in prior workshops concerning the continuing care facility the Council informed them that the City had not agreed to 800 units and that the City wanted to continue to work with them on affordability and other factors. She asked that if the MOU is signed, have we agreed to the 800 units.    Mr. Fialho indicated the MOU stated up to 800 units. He further stated that the Council is buying into the concept of the development plan and the City needs to meet the spirit of the agreement with the County.   The roll call vote was taken as follows: AYES: Councilmembers – Brozosky, McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne and Mayor Hosterman NOES:   None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None   A break was taken at 9:15 p.m.   The meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m.

    Pleasanton City Council Minutes

10

04/18/06

  6b ’ Review of Potential Future Uses for the City s Lower Income Housing Fund (SR 06:100)    Steve Bocian, Assistant City Manager, presented the staff report.   Mr. Brozosky inquired whether discussions on priorities were held with the housing commission on how funds should be used for workforce housing versus a starter home, senior housing, etc.   Mr. Bocian responded the focus was on low-income housing for families.   Mr. Brozosky inquired about CDBG funds.   Mr. Bocian responded that the City receives a specific allocation of CDBG funds. The City could partner with the County but there is not an application process.   Ms. McGovern questioned the units listed in the report and indicated using the City’s current Inculsionary Zoning Ordinance, the City would receive an additional 129 additional affordable units.   Mr. Bocian responded the City would receive 15% of the units, which is the minimum IZO requirement.   Ms. McGovern commented on the Inculsionary Zoning Ordinance matrix. She reviewed what was occurring in other cities and believes there are interesting ideas in making changes with the IZO and whether the Housing Commission had reviewed the matrix to create ways to increase the number of units the City could receive.   Mr. Bocian responded the Housing Commission and City Council reviewed the IZO about four years ago.   Ms. McGovern believed the City should ask the Housing Commission to review the matrix and discuss ways for the City to increase affordability. She also requested guidance from staff on ways to keep the affordable units in perpetuity.   Mr. Bocian responded that all of the new affordable units are in perpetuity.   Ms. McGovern questioned whether the condominium conversion ordinance once adopted would require affordable units be placed in perpetuity.   Mr. Bocian responded the draft would include language that 25% of the converted units would be affordable units, which is a higher percentage than in the IZO.    Ms. McGovern questioned if the City matched monies with the CalHFA loans and whether the City supports young families moving into Pleasanton.   Mr. Thorne inquired about the educational programs listed in the report.       Pleasanton City Council Minutes

11

04/18/06