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

Deputy Dawn

Informations

• Publié par: Abbu
• Nombre de lectures: 50
• Langue: English

Extrait

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLEASANTON CITY COUNCIL

March 21, 2006

          6:15 P.M. CLOSED SESSION    Closed session was canceled and rescheduled for March 23, 2006. 1. CALL TO ORDER   Mayor Hosterman called the regular meeting of the City Council to order at 7:06 p.m.   Mayor Hosterman led the assembly in the pledge of allegiance.   Mayor Hosterman reported Councilmember McGovern’s absence due to the birth of her first grandchild and congratulated the McGovern family. She announced Vice Mayor Sullivan would be making the introductory remarks in Ms. McGovern’s absence.    Councilmember Sullivan recognized Reserve Officer Steve Berger for 23 years of service with the City of Pleasanton Police Department. He also announced the city was co- hosting a Tri-Valley Teen Job and Community Service Fair on Saturday April 1 at the Dublin Senior Center. The City is also co-hosting the upcoming E-Waste day for Pleasanton residents on Saturday April 8 at the Operations Service Center on Busch Road   with the Pleasanton Garbage Service. E-Waste day is an opportunity to dispose computers, televisions and other electronic waste items that are not allowed to be dumped in the landfill and can be recycled.   2. ROLL CALL   Deputy City Clerk Karen Gonzales called the roll, which was recorded as follows: Councilmembers present were Steve Brozosky, Matt Sullivan, Jerry Thorne, and Mayor Hosterman. Councilmember McGovern was absent. Staff members present were: Nelson Fialho, City Manager; Michael Roush, City Attorney; Steven Bocian, Assistant City Manager; Lorie TInfow, Director of Administrative Services, Jerry Iserson, Director of Planning and Community Development and Rob Wilson, Director of Public Works.   3. AGENDA AMENDMENTS   There were no staff amendements to the agenda.   Councilmember Sullivan requested an item be added to the agenda regarding the Alameda County Waste Management Authority Board considering an EIR for a large composting facitlity in Sunol. He believed it had potential impacts for residents of Sunol

Pleasanton City Council Minutes 1

03/21/06  

and the Pleasanton residents that send their children to Sunol Glenn School. The board meeting for the Authority is scheduled for the following evening which did not allow time to place the item on a future council agenda.    Mr. Roush informed council that a 4/5 vote was required to place an urgency item on the agenda.   Councilmember Brozosky indicated he did not have enough information to support placing the item on the agenda tonight.    Accordingly, the request failed.     4. CONSENT CALENDAR   It was moved by Mr. Thorne, seconded by Mr. Brozosky, that the following actions under the Consent Calendar be taken :   a. Approved the minutes of the 03/07/06 and 02/21/06 general plan joint workshop.   b. Actions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission. (IR 06:014)   There was no action taken or required on this item.   c. PUD-90-18-6M, James Griffin (IR 06:015) Application for a minor modification to an approved PUD development plan to allow the installation of a private warren truss bridge over Mirador Creek to connect the two sides of the applicant’s property located at 4613 Mirador Drive. Zoning for the property is PUD-LDR/MDR/RDR (Planned Unit Development – Low Density Residential/Medium Density Residential/Rural Density Residential District).   d. Accepted the public improvements for resurfacing of various city streets, Project No. 045003RS. (SR 06:081)   e. Adopted Resolution 06-015, a resolution authorizing the Altamont Settlement Agreement Education Advisory Board Expenditure Plan for fiscal year 2006-07. (SR 06:082)   f. Approved the award of a construction management contract to Tetra Tech Inc., for Santos Ranch Road Pump Stations and Water Facilities upgrade. Project No. 991035. (SR 06:070)   g. Adopted Resolution 06-016, a resolution approving the First Quarter 2005-2006 Financial Report. (SR 06:085)     h. Approved a consultant agreement with Mactec Engineering and Consulting to provide pavement evaluation services for the pavement management system survey update, Project No. 055021. (SR 06:084)     i. Commended Pleasanton Police Reserve Captain Steve Berger in recognition of his 23 years of service to the Pleasanton Police Department.       Pleasanton City Council Minutes

2

03/21/06

  j. Accepted the public improvements for the Happy Valley (Callippe Preserve) Golf Course joint trench and miscellaneous structures, Project No. 308017. (SR 06:088)   The roll call vote was taken as follows: AYES: Councilmembers – Brozosky, Sullivan, Thorne, and Mayor Hosterman NOES:   None ABSENT: McGovern ABSTAINED: None   5. MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC   Jennifer Milus, a Pleasanton resident requested help from the City in regards to controlling unsupervised teenagers near her property.   Mr. Fialho indicated he would follow-up with Ms. Milus.   Vanessa Kawaihau, a Happy Valley resident, voiced her concerns regarding the lack of notice the south side of Pleasanton and the Happy Valley area was receiving concerning the general plan update.     There were no other speakers.   6. PUBLIC HEARINGS & OTHER MATTERS   6a Adopt a Resolution to Amend Resolution 03-008 to Restate Council s Direction to Staff ’ and Provide Greater Flexibility in Determining Happy Valley Bypass Road Options and to Establish a Blue Ribbon Committee to Identify Happy Valley Bypass Road Options. (SR 06:035)    Lorie Tinfow, Director of Administrative Services, presented the staff report.    Mr. Brozosky inquired why the Sportono family and the developer that has already completed some environmental work on the property were not included on the committee since he believed there would be a Bypass Road that would affect their properties.    Ms. Tinfow responded that the written part of her report does point out the Sportono family is to be involved in some form. She further stated whether it was the Sportono family, or Greenbriar Homes that has an option on the property, one (or both) should be on the committee.    Mr. Fialho responded who is on the committee is up to Council.    Mr. Brozosky indicated option 1 did not specify the Sportono family or Greenbriar Homes and felt it was a major omission.    Mr. Thorne asked if the vehicle count on page two was per year.       Pleasanton City Council Minutes

3

03/21/06

 Ms. Tinfow responded that at the time the study was conducted it was only for a specific amount of time and not for a full year.   Mr. Thorne asked how long?   Mr. Fialho responded that it was for about two to three weeks following the opening of the Callippe Preserve Golf Course.   Mr. Sullivan inquired about the members of the committee. He believed it should focus on residents that live in the Happy Valley. Depending on the decision regarding the Bypass Road, it would also affect residents on Sycamore Creek Way. He felt that the neighborhood should have some representation on the committee as well.   Ms. Tinfow responded that the Sycamore Creek neighborhood could be involved and that the report was written open-ended to provide Council the opportunity to give direction as to the membership on the committee.   Mr. Fialho stated the concept of the Blue Ribbon Committee was to get participants at the table. Staff acknowledges upfront that consensus may be difficult to reach but, at a minimum, the Committee will be talking about options, and solutions and potential funding. He stated it was important for staff to identify geographical representation throughout the Happy Valley area. Staff has concentrated on the unincorporated area but he felt since Sycamore Creek Way is the original alignment for the Bypass Road, those residents should have representation on the Committee as well as Greenbriar and the Sportono family.   Mr. Brozosky questioned the number of vehicles in the report that reflected an increase of over 50% and inquired what period of time this survey was conducted.   Ms. Tinfow responded the data compares 2001 vs. 2005.   Mr. Brozosky inquired if the 700-car increase was per day or per week?   Ms. Tinfow believed it was per day but would check with the Public Works Department who conducted the study.   Rob Wilson, Director of Public Works, informed Ms. Tinfow that it was average daily traffic.   Mayor Hosterman invited public comments.    Kevin Close a Happy Valley resident inquired why an amendment to Resolution 03-008 was needed without any report of progress from the original resolution. He further requested a report from staff that outlines the outcome of the original resolution. In regards to the traffic numbers that the report reflected, he felt that once the weather was warmer those numbers would increase dramatically. He also indicated he supported the Blue Ribbon Committee as a short term answer in getting traffic calming or other solutions for the serious traffic problems in the area. He felt the long-term solution for the Bypass Road was to support the essence of the Happy Valley Specific Plan and keep the semi-rural atmosphere in the area.       Pleasanton City Council Minutes

4

03/21/06

Melissa Holmes a Greenbriar Homes representative, stated as a stakeholder on the Sportono Ranch, Greenbriar felt the Blue Ribbon Committee was not necessary but would cooperate. She respectively requested that Greenbriar Homes be one of the participants if this Committee comes into existence. She further stated she requests the Committee review the plans for the Bypass Road that were submitted to the City last week that reflects a new location for the Bypass Road. She stated the alignment that is shown in the submitted plan is based on a number of studies that Greenbriar did and that it is a better location.   Mayor Hosterman stated that currently staff is looking to adopt a procedure to create a Committee to get residents in the Happy Valley area to discuss traffic relief.   Vanessa Kawaihau a Happy Valley resident, felt in an effort to move forward with short and long term traffic solutions for the Happy Valley area, she supported the concept and empanelment of a Blue Ribbon Committee that would include representation from the Sportono family and Greenbriar Homes. As for the amendment of Resolution 03-008, she believed the primary function was to look at the upper bypass road and felt they were led to believe the City would study the upper bypass road. She stated the Happy Valley residents have failed to see any real progress done on the study of the upper bypass road and have not seen any new environmental data or the Greenbriar Homes plans. She also voiced her concern about the funding of the Bypass Road.   Jerry Wagner a Happy Valley resident, inquired about who the participants and leaders of the Blue Ribbon Committee would be.   Mayor Hosterman responded that staff presented several options to the Council including a number of individuals to represent the Happy Valley neighborhood as well as staff from the City and County.   Mr. Wagner voiced his concern about leadership of the Blue Ribbon Committee and asked who the leader would be. He also voiced his concern regarding speeding vehicles on his road and feels the timeframe should be shortened and the speeds reduced.   Laverne Spotorno a Happy Valley resident, believed it was important that her family be a participant on the Blue Ribbon Committee as well as residents that would be impacted by the Bypass Road. She wanted to make three brief points. Her family was mystified by the need of a Blue Ribbon Committee to study the Bypass Road because the Bypass Road issue has been studied since 1998. She believed the existing design for the Bypass Road would not work and believed since there were no homes being built in the upper valley region of their ranch, it made no sense to place the road there. She stated her family has spent thousands of dollars working with biologists, environmentalists, geologists and engineers in trying to make the Bypass Road work. She stated Summerhill Homes gave up on the deal because it could not be guaranteed because of the slides. The City’s own peer reviewer recommended against placing the Bypass Road in that location because repairing the slide could not be guaranteed and the liability would be too great. She stated the road in the general plan was meant to be only conceptual because no prior feasibility studies had been done. She stated the City Council previously voted in 2003 unanimously in favor directing staff to work with the Spotorno family on developing a road design that would be satisfactory to both the City and Spotorno family. She believes her family has done so in good faith and has developed a compromised road design that meets the requirements. She stated if the Council does vote to create a Blue Ribbon Committee, that the Spotorno family and Greenbriar Homes be participants and be involved in those discussions.     Pleasanton City Council Minutes

5

03/21/06

She stated that the Spotorno family is donating the land for the Bypass Road to the City and they are developing only 33 acres, less than 1/5 of their ranch, and will continue to live on the ranch and maintain the agricultural operations that comprise their family history since 1867. The family would not accept the original design that would destroy their ranching operations and one that was in total conflict with the City’s desire to preserve the hills and open space.   Janet Linfoot a Happy Valley resident, voiced her concerns regarding the outcome of a prior Council meeting held three years ago in which a decision had been made to conduct a study of the old Bypass Road. Her concern was that there had been no study conducted or on anything that has happened in the last three years regarding the Bypass Road.   Daryl Horan a Happy Valley resident requested the City continue with the original Bypass Road that appears in the Specific Plan. She is in favor of the upper Bypass Road and feels to run the Bypass Road on the lower slope would negatively affect her rural way of life as her home is against the fence where the lower proposed road appears. She is concerned about the proposed lower Bypass Road as it will affect the property values in the area and the air pollution will affect her family.   Vince Barletta a Happy Valley resident believed the majority of residents are in favor of the upper Bypass Road and continue to wait for it. He voiced his concerns regarding the increased traffic and speeding vehicles on the roadway and the way it has changed their lifestyles. He was concerned there may be continual debate on this issue and no resolution for several years.   Mayor Hosterman closed the public comments.    Mayor Hosterman announced the Council would continue to create a process that would allow for discussions regarding development of the alignment and funding options relating to construction of the Happy Valley Bypass Road as well as establishing a Blue Ribbon Committee to focus on the study area and look at possible traffic mitigation in the short term. She requested staff to provide history regarding the Bypass Road and answer questions relating to comments expressed tonight and questions regarding who determines the scope of the Blue Ribbon Committee.   Mr. Roush responded that when Council approved the golf course project in 2002, it directed staff to work with the neighborhood and property owners to look at a number of Bypass Road alternatives to that which was set forth in the Happy Valley Specific Plan. Following the adoption of that condition, staff met with the Spotorno family, other stakeholders and the neighborhood and came up with a number of different potential alternatives for the Bypass Road. When the matter came before the Council in January 2003, the overwhelming majority of those who spoke stated they did not want to see the Bypass Road in any location other than as shown in the Specific Plan. Based on that, the Council adopted Resolution 03-008. That resolution indicated that if staff conducted further studies of the Bypass Road it would only be with respect to that which was in the Specific Plan. He further stated that the resolution indicated that the City was to work closely with the Spotorno family to expedite planning of any projects for the property so that the Bypass Road could be developed sooner rather than later. Staff was also directed to look at interim alternative access to the golf course property before the Bypass Road could be completed. Staff did look into other alternative accesses and returned a report to Council that indicated it was not a feasible alternative; the Council accepted the report. Since January 2003 staff has worked closely with the Spotorno family and the     Pleasanton City Council Minutes

6

03/21/06

various developers that have had options on the property. There is now a proposal that has been submitted to the City with respect to a portion of the Spotorno property and an EIR is being prepared concerning that it has the Bypass Road in a different location than shown in the Happy Valley Specific Plan. He further stated that the City has never understood the resolution to say that the Spotornos or developers couldn’t propose a different location or alternative. There has been no staff initiated study of the Bypass Road and, in light of that, the city manager decided to step back and review possible alternatives to revisit the issue as to whether there were alternatives to the Bypass Road that should be studied. Ultimately the recommendation may come back that the only place for the Bypass Road is where it appears in the Happy Valley Specific Plan.   Mayor Hosterman’s recollection was that the City was going to conduct a study once the Spotorno family submitted an application for a development project on their property.   Mr. Roush responded in the context of the EIR he has had discussions with the consultant about the fact that one of the alternatives to be studied will be the location of the Bypass Road set forth in the Specific Plan. That study would not include the extensive detail discussion that the developer is going to propose but there would be some further study as set forth in the EIR about locating the Bypass Road in that location.   Mayor Hosterman asked what the timeline was for the EIR.    Mr. Roush responded that there is a cumulative impact portion of the report that is being done in conjunction with the EIR for two other projects in the area. The cumulative impact study is going on currently and once it is completed, this EIR can move forward. He believed it would take about three to four months.   Mayor Hosterman stated her belief that it made sense to move forward with the Blue Ribbon Committee and that it could occur in tandem with preparation of the EIR.   Mr. Fialho responded that the timeline is in the report and he believed not until September, staff would present options and the Committee’s recommendations to the council.   Councilmember Sullivan addressed the question regarding who would be leading the Blue Ribbon Committee.   Ms. Tinfow responded she envisioned that she would be the coordinator of the Committee, help lead the efforts and to be the contact person to keep information flowing.   Councilmember Thorne questioned that option 1 implied the Council’s involvement in the process is over after the decision is made to form the Committee.   Ms. Tinfow responded it was her understanding that was correct, until the recommendations and options come back before Council.   Mr. Thorne asked if Council would be involved in the processing of selecting the participants on the Committee.   Ms. Tinfow responded Council would confirm the Committee members.       Pleasanton City Council Minutes

7

03/21/06

Mr. Thorne stated he supported the formation of a Blue Ribbon Committee, which includes participants from Greenbriar Homes and the Spotorno family. He further indicated he supports option 1 which allows the Council to confirm the appointments to the Committee.     It was moved by Mr. Thorne, seconded by Mr. Brozosky to approve option 1 as reflected in the staff report, establishing a Blue Ribbon Committee that includes a representative from the Sportono Family, Greenbriar Homes and the Sycamore Creek Way area.     Mr. Brozosky questioned if there was any Bypass Road alternatives that would not go down Sycamore Creek Way.    Mr. Fialho responded not in the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is clear with respect to Sycamore Creek Way.   The roll call vote was taken as follows: AYES: Councilmembers – Brozosky, Sullivan, Thorne, and Mayor Hosterman NOES:   None ABSENT: McGovern ABSTAINED: None   6b Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize the Public Bid for the Kottinger Creek Restoration Project, CIP No. 038023. (SR 06:073)    Rob Wilson presented the staff report.    Councilmember Thorne questioned staff whether this project has had the same standards applied that are normally used in neighborhoods for obtaining information from residents downstream.    Mr. Wilson responded the City has worked closely with the “Friends of Kottinger Creek” in designing the project. Staff provided notice of pubic meetings. Areas of the City that were not affected by the design were not notified.    Mr. Thorne stated he was not convinced the City had done all that is needed to get the approval of the project by all affected neighborhoods.    Mr. Wilson responded notification was not provided to residents down below beyond Second Street. He stated Kottinger Drive residents who are downstream of the project, have been very involved. He has received concerns about the potential for flooding.    Mr. Thorne asked what the process would be once the bids were received for the project.    Mr. Wilson responded once the cost of the project was determined, the available funding Council has placed in the capital improvement plan will be reviewed. A decision would be made on what phases would be built based on funding. He further stated that if the bids are favorable staff may recommend doing the entire project. If the bids are not favorable, staff would present a funding plan and options for portions of the project.     Pleasanton City Council 8 Minutes

03/21/06

   Mr. Thorne requested staff to notify the downstream residents and have meetings with them concurrently with the bidding process so the City can get the neighborhood’s input on the project.    Mr. Fialho responded the meetings and bidding process could be done concurrently however, if we expand the participation, inevitably there may be additional comments and modifications that residents may request that may not be reflected in the public bidding process. If the comments are consistent with the “Friends of Kottinger Creek”, then there would be no delay. If not, the project would have to be returned for Council direction.    Mr. Brozosky questioned the financing grants that have been applied for in order to offset the costs of the Kottinger Creek project and if the results would be received prior to receiving bids, in order that the information is included prior to the Council making a decision.    Mr. Wilson thought the grant process would occur prior to a decision.    Mr. Brozosky questioned the increased costs of the bridges that were reflected in the report.    Mr. Wilson responded there are two different types of bridges being installed in the project. The stepping-stones have been replaced with a modest bridge that spans the eight-foot low flow channel and is for foot traffic only. There are larger bridges where the span is wider than expected and the costs for materials have increased.    Mr. Brozosky inquired about the option of phasing the project and whether staff has calculated the additional costs to share the project.     Mr. Wilson responded that additional estimates for the project if done in two phases have not been completed. Staff plans to return options to Council to review if staff recommends the project be completed in two phases.    Mr. Brozosky asked if the bidding process included the option to complete the project in two phases.    Mr. Wilson responded the bid documents are being prepared and proposed for one project only.    Mr. Sullivan inquired about the different bridges and what the need was for massive steel bridges versus pedestrian bridges only.    Mr. Wilson responded that the larger bridge, from the Parks and Recreation Department perspective, is important in terms of allowing maintenance operations. If the bridges were eliminated, it would cause concern for the Parks and Recreation Department, as it would require the maintenance vehicles to utilize an access point on Adams Street, which does not have a turn around area for the vehicles.    Mr. Sullivan inquired whether the need for the larger bridges was a convenience or a critical access for the Parks and Recreation Department.       Pleasanton City Council Minutes

9

03/21/06

 Mr. Wilson stated there is a need for vehicle access over the creek.    Mr. Fialho reiterated the need for vehicle access over the creek for public safety vehicles as well.   Mr. Sullivan questioned the funding plan and whether a plan has been developed.   Mr. Fialho responded a funding plan will be developed and he was hopeful the City would be successful in obtaining a grant. If the City was unsuccessful in obtaining the grant, when staff returns to Council for the award of contract, funding sources would be identified at that time. The city has been unsuccessful at estimating the costs of construction due to a variety of factors. The cost of construction is increasing; the impacts of Hurricane Katrina are being felt nationally and are having an impact in Pleasanton as well. A funding source will be identified. He believed the engineers estimate is low, however, in order to move the project forward, the City is using the engineers estimate.   Mr. Sullivan inquired whether the City was going out to bid immediately.   Mr. Fialho responded immediately.   Mr. Sullivan asked the consultant, Drew Goetting, Project Manager for Farwest Restoration about the hydrology and the issue regarding flood control downstream.   Mr. Goetting responded a HEC-RAS model, an industry standard for assessing changes to the geometry to a particular reach of a creek is essentially the most cost effective means to answer questions whether there will be a negative or positive impact downstream due to a particular project. In their analysis it was found that the model didn’t show a tremendous improvement or a negative impact downstream. He pointed out his firm does restoration projects but most projects are flood control projects. Beyond the model, his sense is if the City has larger storm events than what was modeled, the City would have significant benefits by this project.   Mr. Sullivan inquired about what would happen if the upper most culvert were left in the plans and not removed.   Mr. Goetting responded that in the original master plan they looked into replacing the culvert downstream of Adams Way and replacing that bridge which was included in the first estimate. He further stated there is concern regarding the culvert at Cherry Court because there are two smaller pipes that have a history of clogging and erosion. The upstream pipe has been problematic.

    Pleasanton City Council Minutes

10

03/21/06

  Mr. Sullivan inquired about the watershed issues, and what the benefits are with a natural draining system in reducing pollutants into the bay, reducing costs for treating wastewater and fiscal costs with water flowing through a pipe versus water filtered through the land.   Mr. Goetting responded those issues are very important to discuss and the State has very significant water quality issues that are becoming a significant economic problem for the state.   Mayor Hosterman asked if this process would create a template for the City to apply to other waterways, not only in Pleasanton but throughout the watershed area to create healthier riparian corridors as well.   Mr. Goetting said yes.   Mayor Hosterman stated that if the City were able to apply this in several areas, it would reduce the cost overall in restoring other waterways.   Mr. Goetting agreed and pointed out that a part of their scope of work for this project includes developing a maintenance manual.   Mayor Hosterman inquired about the costs regarding the new irrigation system and if the City was going to remove exotic species and replace them with native species. She wondered if it was possible to utilize some type of water truck temporarily to place the native species downstream. She also inquired whether the species would thrive without the use of an expensive irrigation system.   Mr. Goetting stated the native species that are being planted, once established, do very well without regular irrigation. They were looking for a system to ensure the native plants get established and then the system would be phased off. The park irrigation as a whole will be updated, as there is problems with the existing irrigation.   Mayor Hosterman asked once the plants are established, would it require far less water than currently.   Mr. Goetting said yes.   Mr. Brozosky asked if the plan was to change the water irrigation system for the whole park including the lawn area.   Mr. Wilson said that was correct.   Mr. Brozosky asked whether the culvert area could be kept or if it could be modified.   Mr. Goetting responded it would be very expensive without a lot of benefits.   Mayor Hosterman invited public comments.

    Pleasanton City Council Minutes

11

03/21/06