Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-09-1995 Adopted CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING - January 9, 1995 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, January 9, 1995, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was catl~ed to order at 7:35 p.m., by Mayor Houston. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Barnes, Burton, Howard, Moffatt and Mayor Houston. ABSENT: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Houston led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES (700-10) Police Chief Rose introduced new employee, Rose Macias, Community Safety Assistant. The City is happy to have Rose back. City Manager Ambrose advised that Gregory Reuel, Economic Development Manager was unable to get to Dublin this evening because of flooding, so he will be introduced at the next meeting. AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING (150-20) Mayor Houston announced that the City had received the GFOA Certificate of Achievement Award. This prestigious national award recognizes conformance with the highest standards for preparation of local government financial reports. The City's financial reports for the period ending June 30, 1993 has been recognized by both the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) and the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA). CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 1 The plaque and certificate were presented to Paul Rankin, Administrative Services Director. Mr. Ambrose stated this recognition, which we've received for the fourth year in a row, provides added credibility to the City's reports when they are reviewed by members of the financial community. This can be helpful in maintaining a good credit rating, which reduces the cost of borrowing. APPOINTMENTS BY MAYOR HOUSTON (110-30) Mayor Houston announced his appointments to the following Boards: Planning Commission - Steven L. Lockhart and Don D. Johnson; Parks & Community Services Commission - Marjorie Wong-Gillmore, George Cramer and Jeffery B. Chapman; Senior Center Advisory Committee - Barbara Gilford and Bob Cocilova. He requested that the City Council confirm his appointments. Cm. Moffatt suggested that the appointments be deferred until such time that the Council can look at all the applications submitted, He would like to see the qualifications of the other people who have applied. Mayor Houston stated he had made his nominations. Cm. Barnes stated she was worried abOut a 2-person change on the Planning Commission at thiS crucial time when the Planning Commission is coming up with some heavy East Dublin issues. Mayor Houston stated there is never a good time. Cm. HOward felt it was unusual not to get all the applications to see who else applied. She also indicated she would like to see the rest of the applications. Mayor Houston asked if the commissions are not filled tonight if they could be declared vacant until they are filled. City Attorney Silver stated the rules say that current members continue until they are replaced. Mayor Houston asked if this could go on indefinitely if there is a stalemate. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 2 Cm. Howard stated it would not be indefinite. The rest of the Council just wants to look at who applied. Cm. Barnes felt 2 new people at this time would require a lot of catch up. She was asked to stay an extra 7 months because of the potential catch up time when the City was trying to adopt the East Dublin General Plan Amendment. Cm. Burton stated prior to this, individual Councilmembers made appointments; however, they are now 2 years into this new procedure and authority. He felt it is the prerogative of the Mayor to decide who is going to be on the Planning Commission. The authority lies with the Mayor. The Mayor appoints with the agreement or endorsement of the Council. Cm. Moffatt stated he would like to see what the choices are. Cm. Burton pointed out that Cm. Moffatt has no choices. The choices are the Mayors. Mayor Houston again stated he had made his nominations. Cm. MOffatt stated he would like to see the appointments tabled for 2 weeks. Mayor Houston asked if there were any other problems with his candidates. Cm. Moffatt stated he had no other problems with the nominations. Mayor Houston stated he wanted it confirmed for the record that Cm. Moffatt stated he had no other problems. Cm. Burton made a motion, which was seconded by Mayor Houston to confirm the Mayor's Planning Commission appointments, Steve Lockhart and Don Johnson. This motion was defeated by NO votes cast by Cm.'s Barnes, Howard and Moffatt. Mayor Houston asked that the Council confirm his nominations on the Parks & Community Services Commission. Cm. Moffatt stated he had the same problem. He would like to continue these appointments for 2 weeks in order to see the additional resumes. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 3 Cm. Barnes stated her understanding was that all the Councilmembers were to get copies of all the applications. In response to an earlier comment, she clarified that when Pat Geist was appointed to the Planning Commission, she was the only candidate. Mayor Houston clarified that everybody wants copies of all the applications. Mayor Houston made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Burton to confirm the Mayor's appointments to the Parks & Community Services Commission, Marjorie Wong-Gillmore, Jeff Chapman and George Cramer. This motion was defeated by NO votes cast by Cm.'s Barnes, Howard and Moffatt. Cm. Howard stated that since there were only 2 people who applied for the openings on the Senior Center Advisory Committee these could be confirmed. On motion of Mayor Houston, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Council confirmed the Mayor's appointments of Barbara Gilford and Bob Cocilova to the Senior Center Advisory Committee with terms ending in 1998. BUSINESS TASK FORCE (BTF) COMPOSITION (470-50/110.30) In July, 1994, the Council directed that the Business Task Force be reconstituted to meet with Staff once the Economic Development Manager was on board in order to provide background related to the recommendations made and accepted by the City Council. Mayor Houston has also requested that the Council consider expanding the composition of the BTF to include additional members, J. David Bradley, Robert M. Fasulkey, Karen B. Jacobs and Janet S. Lockhart. The BTF will be meeting on January 1 7 to start planning a program for the Economic Development Manager. Mayor Houston stated he did not perceive that the number is critical. This would also have a caveat of a 6 month period. After that time, the Council would revisit the whole thing. Three of the people applied for the City Council opening and David Bradley applied for the Planning Commission. All of these CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 4 people would be very' good, and this would be a good way for them to participate. Cm. Howard stated she had gotten some telephone calls from Chamber of Commerce members and they wanted .to know why they were not asked to add more members also. Mayor Houston stated it is a City organization and so he just decided to do it. He would welcome them to add others to the BTF: if they want. Cm. Howard stated they felt it would be too unruly to have too many people on it. She asked about Kathi Schultz and if she would still be on the task force. Mayor Houston stated as long as she wants to participate, she would be welcome. No one has been replaced. The number is not important; he just felt these people have something to offer. Cm. Burton commented that one of the proposed new people is the President of the Chamber of Commerce. Mayor Houston stated he was nominating heras a citizen of Dublin. If the Chamber wants to nominate someone else, they should be able to do it. There is one actual vacancy on the task force. He also got a note from Ron Nahas stating he would be happy to continue or if the Mayor wanted to replace him, he would give up his seat. Cm. Burton stated he would like to add someone who is very important and a major land owner in Dublin; Robert Enea. He would like to see him make a contribution on the BTF. Cm. Moffatt asked the purpose of expanding the committee. The people who wrote the book should be able to tell their own story. He asked if there is another purpose. Mayor Houston used the letter from Ron Nahas as an example. If we call them back, they may or may not be able to come back in the future. This is something that will go on on a quarterly basis to meet with the Economic Development Manager and to promote ideas for the City. Cm. Moffatt asked for clarification if we were expanding the committee to develop ideas rather than what was done in the past. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 5 Mayor Houston stated all the work has not been done yet. Cm. Moffatt stated the recommendation of the BTF indicated they wanted to have an independent individual and then to see what kind of ideas and concepts would be viable before we start micro-managing this department. He had no problem with the people coming to the meeting, but the other people want to get something done. Mr. Ambrose discussed some of the recommendations made by the BTF. There was no priority order established. The thought was at the initial meeting, the BTF would go over the recommendations and review the background and at some point, there needed to be a prioritization. Some of the ideas were pretty general. There was consensus that the BTF would meet on approximately a quarterly basis. Cm. Burton stated we have to address what's eventually going to happen to existing downtown Dublin. He got 3 calls and people want to know if we are treating the new people who will be coming in the same way as existing people. They will be very sensitive about the treatment the new people get. We need to protect what we have. It is very important to have the BTF be very active. cm. Moffatt pointed out that ail of the people on the BTF came from the core area. In bringing in new folks, they may have new ideas and concepts. We should try what the BTF said first and then maybe we can move ahead. Mayor Houston stated heaven forbid that new concepts and ideas be proposed. Cm. Moffatt stated he felt all of the people are qualified. They live in Dublin, but he questioned if they have businesses here also. Mayor Houston stated one has a business in Dublin. He was trying to bend over backwards to please Cm. Moffatt. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Mayor Houston, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the Mayor's recommendation to expand the BTF and appoint new members David Bradley, Bob Fasulkey, Karen Jacobs, Janet Lockhart and Robert Enea. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 6 Cm. Howard clarified that the committee will not dictate to the Economic Development Manager. Mayor Houston stated their charge has not changed, we just have more people who can add ideas. Ron Nahas should be asked to stay as he is a great asset. Cm. Barnes questioned the amount of time. Mayor Houston stated they could revisit it in 6 months. This is not set in stone. This is something that will revolve over the years. Mayor Houston directed Staff to send a letter to the Chamber of Commerce asking if they also want to add people to the BTF. PRESENTATION ON EAST DUBLIN/PLEASANTON BART STATION (1060-30) Planning Director Tong advised that recently completed plans for the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station call for approximately 2,600 parking spaces split between the north and south sides. Plans for the north parking lot have recently been revised to include a radio tower which will be about 120' fall, with a small out building. Mr. Tong introduced Chuck Middlebrook, with BATC and Marv Dalander with BART who made brief presentations and showed slides of the project. Cm. Burton questioned the location of the 'kiss & ride' drop off. Mr. Middlebrook pointed out the location on the slides of where the drop off points would be. Cm. Barnes asked if cars could go from the north to the south. Mr. Middlebrook explained that they could not. Cm. Moffatt asked if there was any concept of double stacking the parking. Mr. Middlebrook responded no, they have not been asked to do anything, but it is entirely feasible. This plan should meet capacity through 2005 and then they would need to look at ways of providing additional parking. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 7 Cm. Howard asked about the location of the 120' tower and the reason it was put in that particular spot. Mr. Middlebrook stated they looked at several different locations and the one selected was the one that worked. This seemed the best place. It is obviously impossible to hide a 120' tower. Mary Dalander pointed out that it is also a temporary tower. Mr. Middlebrook stated BART is looking at converting to a fiber optic system in the future. Cm. Moffatt complimented them on the new BART bus angle parking and thanked them for their presentation. Later in the meeting, this subject was reopened for further discussion. John DiManto stated he was not clear on the action on the BART antenna and also asked how long it would be there. It seems like Dublin gets all the lesser profile things. He was concerned that in the text of the whole East Dublin Plan, there's no mention of this and all of a sudden a 120' tower is being put in. What would stop a developer from coming in now and asking for a 120' sign. Dublin should not just take the word of BART that it has to be in that particular spot. Mayor Houston felt BART Staff should be asked to explain what temporary means. Ms. Silver clarified the BART Station is not within the East Dublin Specific Plan area. Marjorie Labar stated she had problems with the fact that the 120' tower is within the Airport Protection Zone. Mr. Dalander stated they have gotten clearances from all the agencies involved. There won't be any blinking lights. At the beginning of this extension project, there was talk about having a fiber optic system and then about a year ago, the negotiations weren't going too well so they went to Plan B, line of sight towers. They have 3 of these. They are currently negotiating for a fiber optics system. They had to have a special agreement with the State of California to put a fiber optic system on a state highway. They have finally agreed to allow CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 8 this fiber optic system, and they should have a system within 5 years or so and then they would not need the tower. Cm. Burton asked What would be involved with putting it further east on the County property, near the California Highway Patrol facility and the animal shelter. Mr. Dalander stated he did not know. They would have to talk to the communications people. Cm. Burton stated he would like to see this addressed. Mr. Middlebrook advised that the antenna had already been bought. Bob Fasulkey asked questions about the 120' tower. There is technology that makes this unnecessary. He asked if it was strictly for communications with the trains. Mr. Middlebrook responded yes, it is for communications with the trains and with police up 1-680. Mr. Fasulkey stated he would still stand opposed and felt it was unnecessary. Request to provide help to Childrens' Theatre Workshop (900-40) Lyn Dinelli, 6979 Portage Road stated she was a 15 year resident. She discussed the recent article in the newspaper about the Childrens' Theatre Workshop and the money and space problems they are having. The Dublin Unified School District has agreed to give them a hand and they would like to speak to the City Council about this. During campaigns, several people expressed concerns about activities for the kids and this group provides a wonderful outlet for kids. She requested that the City Council place this issue on the next City Council meeting agenda in order to discuss some things the City can do to help them find a home. She would like to see this group call Dublin home. Mayor Houston asked about the discussions with the School District. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 9 Ms. Dinelli stated it was her understanding that Kids Stage, which is for kids up to age 13 holds workshops. She thought they had been given a place to practice and the School District is providing this space. Mayor Houston advised that the City and School District liaison committee will be meeting next week. He felt it would be a good idea to have them on the City Council agenda to see what their needs are. By a consensus, the Council directed Staff to invite the director of CTW to the next meeting to provide an informational report. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Received the City Treasurer's Investment Report as of December 31, 1994, showing the City's investment portfolio to be $22,055,322.74 with funds invested at an annual average yield of 5.697%; (320-30); Authorized the Mayor to execute an Agreement (600-30) with Recht Hausrath & Associates to prepare a Public Facilities Fee Program at a cost not to exceed $10,500 and authorized an additional appropriation of $10,500 to be repaid from development fees; Received the Final Financial Report for Fiscal Year 1993-94 and the Annual Audit Report, including the report of the Independent Auditors (Maze & Associates), and Staff's response to the Management Letter (310-30); Approved the Warrant Register in the amount of $t ,318,217.86 (300-40). Moyor Houston requested thor the minutes of December 27, I FP4 be removed from the Consent CG/endor for discussion. Mot,or Houston felt the minutes re/oted to the Council interviews were G little bit s/dmpy, in por#cu/or the questions ~nd comments from the $ finalist condid~tes. He os/~ed that this be revisited with ~nswers from the fin~/bts included in o more detoi/ed form. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 10 On motion of Moyor Houston, seconded by Cm. Burton, (;nd by unonimous vote, the Counci/ directed the City C/eric to provide more detoi/s in the minutes on thi~ item. PUBLIC HEARING NOISE MITIGATION FEE ORDINANCE (390-20) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. City Attorney Silver advised that at the December 27, 1994 City Council meeting, the Council introduced this enabling ordinance which is one of the mitigation measures required as part of the adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. A noise mitigation fee would pay for mitigation measures such as noise barriers, earthen berms or retrofitting existing structures with sound-related windows. Adoption of this enabling ordinance is not subject to CEQA. The next step, adoption of a resolution setting the fee, requires a public hearing. It also requires that information regarding the amount of the proposed fee be available to the public at least 10 days in advance. This information would be in the form of a study or Staff Report which would show the relationship between development projects and the mitigation measures for which the fee is proposed to be charged. Cm. Budon stated he didn't like this. He asked questions about how it would work if one subdivision is built and charged a fee and then another comes along and builds on the other side of the road. Who makes the determination on who pays what? People are still fighting Caltrans over soundwalls. Do we have any control over this? Will it be subject to all kinds of nit-picking? Ms. Silver stated the purpose of the fee is for existing residents out there. Cm. Burton wanted to know where it will stop. He felt this will be trouble. Ms. Silver explained that individual projects will have to provide their own noise mitigation measures. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 11 Mr. Tong stated each subdivision that comes in will have to address their own noise mitigation measures. The intent is to address those very few existing residents primarily along Tassajara Road. Ms. Silver stated the EIR looked at the impact on existing residents in May, 1993. It can't be used for other purposes. The EIR discusses existing residences. Marjorie LaBar felt other areas of the community will be heavily impacted by the increased traffic and asked if anyone had considered the impacts to existing residents on east and west thoroughfares. The noise on Amador Valley Boulevard is difficult and it is going to get worse. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 1 95 ADDING CHAPTER 5.112 TO THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A NOISE MITIGATION FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN PUBLIC HEARING - SANTA RITA COMMERCIAL CENTER REZONE & PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PA 94-001 (450-30) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. A public hearing was noticed on this item, however, the Planning Commission continued its hearing on the matter to January 17, 1995. The request is to rezone approximately 75 acres from Planned Development - Business Park/industrial (Low Coverage) to a standard Planned Development to allow an approximate 800,000 square foot commercial center. Also included is a request for approval of an ordinance permitting a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin, the Surplus Property Authority of Alameda County and the Homart Development Company. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 12 Staff recommended that the City Council cancel the public hearing at this time; it will be rescheduled for the January 23, 1995 City Council meeting. Mayor Houston canceled the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE/AREA OF BENEFIT FEE (390-20) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Public Works Director Thompson distributed 2 additional comment letters which he stated had been received today. Mr. Thompson stated this was the third public hearing on this item. Dublin needs to provide a funding mechanism to pay for all the new streets and those transportation facilities that will be impacted by new development in eastern Dublin. The Staff Report was presented in its entirety. The Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan requires that this plan area pay for the transportation needs of the area, as well as improvements to existing facilities that are identified as being impacted by the development in the area. This proposed Traffic Impact Fee is planned to be the vehicle for assuring that the major transportation infrastructure is funded and constructed. The GPA outlines future land use plans for the approximately 4,176 acre eastern Dublin sphere of influence. Approximately 13,906 dwelling units and 9.737 million square feet of commercial/office/industrial development are anticipated in the GPA area, in addition to parks, open space and institutional uses. The SP provides more specific detailed goals, policies and action programs for the approximately 3,313 acre portion of the GPA nearest the City. Approximately 2,744 acres to the east of the City's sphere of influence are designated on the Land Use Map as "Future Study Area". The GPA does not outline future land uses in this area and this area was not considered in developing the Traffic Impact Fee. Mr. Thompson stated there is pending development in the area and we need to make sure that this development does pay its fair share of traffic improvements. The TIF Study that Barton-Aschman has prepared basically started out with the Specific Plan and the EIR which have already been approved and these two documents identify the major roads, how wide the roads are going to be, and CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 13 other necessary transportation mitigations to build out the eastern Dublin area. The task of the study was to take the cost of oversizing the major roads, the costs of the mitigations and spread these costs on a roughly proportional basis by traffic generation and by the actual need for traffic improvements out in east Dublin. The area of the proposed fee includes only those properties within the recently approved eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the General Plan, excluding that area that was assigned as a study area. Those properties will then only be charged the fee once they annex and they actually want to do some development. It won't cover anybody that's not in the City or somebody that doesn't want to develop. The fee for non-residential development would actually pay the fee at time of building permit and the residential developers would pay their fee at the time of final building inspection. We anticipate that these fees will be reviewed at least on a yearly basis, and more if necessary. That's basically to allow for increase in cost of construction. We have some loans running that have interest on them and if anything else comes up during the time period that we need to make some changes on, so you will be seeing this on a regular basis. Mr. Thompson stated the draft resolution also imposes an Area of Benefit Fee which is kind of a backup to the Traffic Impact Fee. City Attorney Silver was requested to speak on this. Gary Black with Barton-Aschman will then go through his report. Ms. Silver stated the draft resolution would do two things; it would impose a Traffic Impact Fee and would also impose an Area of Benefit Fee. The Area of Benefit Fee would only be effective if for some reason the Traffic Impact Fee were declared to be invalid. The State Subdivision Map Act authorizes an Area of Benefit Fee and the Council adopted an Ordinance a couple of months ago which authorizes the establishment of an Area of Benefit and the imposition of an Area of Benefit Fee. You can only impose an Area of Benefit Fee for major thoroughfares and bridges, so some of the improvements for which the Traffic Impact Fee will be imposed cannot be collected through an Area of Benefit Fee. Ms. Silver stated to establish an Area of Benefit Fee you have to provide the opportunity to property owners to protest the imposition of the Area of Benefit Fee and to date, Staff has not received any written opposition to the Area of Benefit Fee. There are a number of written comments, but none of them specifically object to the Area of Benefit Fee. The adoption of the Traffic Impact Fee and the Area of Benefit Fee are both consistent with the Specific Plan and will implement the Specific Plan. If only the Area of Benefit Fee were adopted, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 14 you would still have to do something to impose additional fees to mitigate the Traffic Impact identified in the EIR in order to approve projects, because you have to find that the project is consistent with the Specific Plan to approve it and to approve a project you have to find that there has been compliance with all the mitigation measures in the EIR as well as the provision of the facilities in the eastern Dublin area. Ms. Silver advised that there were a couple of changes to the Resolution and one change to the Staff Report. A revised Exhibit 7 to the Staff Report was distributed which was a copy of Government Code Section 65913.2. The wrong code section had been copied. Other changes were made to page 2 in both the Resolution and the alternate Resolution related to dates of the Santina & Thompson report. There was also a change on page 4 of the Resolution and the alternate Resolution related to public hearing dates. Cm. Moffatt stated he noted things had changed on how we charge for commercial and it went from per square foot to number of trips. Mr. Thompson stated it had been the same all the way through, but there is a sheet that shows what each use would be. Non-residential (or commercial) has always been based on so many dollars per trip. He thought it was $293. Then each use has a table based on the uses. Each use has its own traffic generated per thousand square feet and then you multiply those two numbers to get the amount of the fee. They think that most of this area will develop in blocks and not just individual uses. Gary Black stated he had gone through the impact fee program before, but the City received quite a few questions about it, so he stated he would go through it in more detail tonight. Hopefully all the questions will be clarified. The costs that would have to be paid by non-residential development equals the traffic fee per trip times the number of daily trips that that project would generate. For residential development, they took that one step further and translated the fee per trip into the cost per unit so the cost for residential development is strictly the number of units times the cost per unit. He described how they derived the traffic fee per trip and how and why they used daily trips. That would be determined by the City Staff using average trip rates and the important word is average trip generation rates by land use category from recognized traffic engineering sources. Two of these are listed, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and there is also a reference to SANDAG, San Diego Association of Governments. Both publish industry standards on trip generation. It's important to recognize that these are average rates. They CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 15 recognize that some individual projects will be a little more or a little less. In order to be fair and equitable for all projects, they use the industry standard average rate and this is what they are recommending. Mr. Black stated traffic and transportation impacts of the Eastern Dublin SP and GPA areas were evaluated for the year 2010. In order to compare traffic impacts for the year 2010, certain arterial and regional roadway facilities and facility sizes were assumed. Impacts from land uses for all development in the Tri-Valley area, excluding the eastern Dublin development, were compared with impacts from all development in the Tri-Valley area including the eastern Dublin development. For any impact that was considered significant, mitigation measures were developed and included in the EIR. Impacts were considered significant if the Project would cause traffic operations to exceed Level of Service E on study freeway segments, if the Project would cause traffic operations to exceed LOS D at designated study intersections, or if the Project generated traffic that would cause significant safety hazards. The Eastern Dublin Impact Fee is designed to pay for the Project's proportional share of the assumed 2010 base network and for the roadway and transit improvement projects specified in the mitigation measures to the EIR. Mr. Black stated the Eastern Dublin SP area and GPA area, as illustrated on Figure 1 did not include the area designated on the figure as Future Study Area Agriculture. The majority of the land in the area is presently undeveloped. Existing land uses in this area include some Camp Parks buildings, some Alameda County facilities, and a few tow-density residential homes or ranches. Mr. Black explained that the existing transportation network in the Eastern Dublin SP area and GPA area is very sparse. Dublin Boulevard extends as two lanes from Dougherty Road to Tassajara Road. Tassajara Road is a two-lane roadway. Fallon Road and Doolan Road are two-lane local roadways that dead-end north of 1-580. There is no existing transit service in the Eastern Dublin SP area. The Eastern Dublin SP includes new and improved facilities in or near the Project area that would be built in conjunction with new development through year 2010. In addition to those facilities in or near the project area, the SP EIR includes future transportation improvements in the entire Tri-Valley area for the year 2010 either as assumed background network or as project mitigation. The Eastern Dublin SP and GPA area is expected to contribute to funding for these regional road and transit improvements. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 16 Mr. Black stated there had also been some questions about daily trips rather than some other way to measure the use of the road system. The question has come up about how the road system was sized in the eastern Dublin plan. It was sized based on peak hour usage. Everyone recognizes that traffic in the middle of the night doesn't require a 6~lane Dublin Boulevard extension, but peak hours do. However, it is their recommendation to base the fee on daily trips rather than peak hour trips, because the peak hour differs from one area to another. In some areas, it is in the morning and others it is in the afternoon. It would be a nightmare to administer a fee that is on a peak hour trip generation and have different peak hours in different areas. You would end up being unfair to some uses by doing that. It is a lot more fair and equitable to base the fee on daily trips and that was how that decision was made. Mr. Black next focused on how they calculated the traffic fee per trip and stated that is simply the cost of the transportation improvements divided by the total eastern Dublin daily trips. The other part of the equation is costs; costs of the transportation improvements. This is dictated by the eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the EIR. These costs will be broken down into 3 components and each was explained. These were: 1)Improvements for which Eastern Dublin developments are responsible for 100% of the cost; 2) Improvements elsewhere in Dublin for which Eastern Dublin developments are partially responsible; and 3) Regional improvements for which all jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley area, including Eastern Dublin, are responsible. Eastern Dublin includes two development areas. The first includes only growth projected in the SP area. The second, called the Project, includes all the development in the first development scenario plus additional development in the GPA area. The impact fee is designed to cover the Project development scenario. Land uses projected for this scenario include Iow-density, medium- density, medium-high density, and high-density residential, retail, office, industrial, public school, and parks. Mr. Black stated trip generation for the land use in the Eastern Dublin SP and GPA area was projected based on trip generation rates that relate the type and size of a land use to the number of persons or vehicles traveling to or from the land use. The traffic generation rates used for the Eastern Dublin land uses were based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation and specific counts of traffic generation conducted by DKS Associates for the SP EIR. The rates were adjusted based on local conditions. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 17 Using the adjusted trip generation rates, the Project is expected to generate 423,787 daily vehicle trips. This number is reduced to 346,525 when pass-by trips are taken into account. Pass-by trips are comprised of vehicles that stop at certain land uses, such as restaurants and stores, while on the way to somewhere else. Since these trips are not new trips, but merely diverted trips, a pass-by reduction can be applied to the total number of trips generated by such uses. For the purposes of the traffic impact fee calculation, all retail land uses were assigned a pass-by reduction of 35%. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation gives a range of pass-by rates for retail development from 12% to 89%. Mro Black pointed out those transportation improvements which should be funded solely by Eastern Dublin development. These included: 1) Dublin Boulevard; 2) Hacienda Drive; 3) Hacienda/I-580 Interchange Improvements; 4) Transit Spine; 5) Gleason Drive; 6) Tassajara Road; 7) Tassajara/Santa Rita Road/I- 580 Interchange; 8) Fallon Road; 9) Bicycle Path along Tassajara Creek; 10) TIF Study; and 11 ) Street Alignment Study. Dublin projects with partial eastern Dublin developer responsibility include: 1) Dublin Boulevard; 2) Scarlett Drive (Southern Pacific Right-of-Way Connector); 3) Dougherty Road; 4) 1-580/Fallon/EI Charro Interchange Upgrade; 5) Airway/I- 580. Tri-Valley jurisdiction regional responsibility projects include: 1) 1-580/I-680 Interchange; 2) 1-580 Auxiliary Lanes; 3) Route 84; 4) Improve Transit Services. Mayor Houston asked about the mechanism for collecting fees from Contra Costa County. Mr. Black stated he could only speak to the fact that the City is now in negotiations to work out the details. Contra Costa County's share is based on current information. Mr. Thompson stated we had not gotten that far, but he anticipates that they will have a similar traffic impact fee that would be for off-site type improvements similar to ones that we have. This is being negotiated right now. Contra Costa County passed a resolution last year or the year before saying they would pay their fair share of our streets as they go through them if we would pay for theirs. The way it works out is they are using our streets a lot more than we are using theirs. This sets us a disproportionate share that they will have to pay. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 18 Mr. Black stated there is also recognition that Dublin's traffic will affect Pleasanton and Livermore and vice versa, but that each jurisdiction will be responsible for those that are inside their boundaries. Mr. Black explained that there are some improvements specified in the EIR that are not included in the three sections above. These improvements are: 1) 1-680 HOV Lanes between Rudgear Road and 1-580; 2) North Canyons Parkway extended to Vasco Road; 3) Bollinger Canyon Road extended as a four-lane arterial to Dougherty Road; 4) 1-580 improvements widen to eight lanes plus two auxiliary lanes between 1-680 and Tassajara Road; 5) Other local improvements in San Ramon, Pleasanton, and Livermore south of 1-580 consistent with adopted general plan circulation elements. The costs for interchanges, roadway systems and studies for the first two categories of improvements were calculated by the City of Dublin's consultant Santina & Thompson or City of Livermore. These roadway cost estimates were prepared based on the premise that within the Eastern Dublin SP area and GPA area, developers adjacent to the road woUld be directly responsible for the parkway and 20' of roadway improvements next to the parkway, including right-of-way dedication for this area, essentially creating a two-lane access road. The adjacent developer to a bridge does not have to directly pay for the parkway area and 20' of roadway improvements for the bridge. The impact fee will cover the cost of building the necessary roadway width beyond the minimum two-lane cross-section. The additional width is needed to serve the traffic of all Eastern Dublin development. Mr. Black discussed how the traffic impact fee was calculated and referenced pages 10 - 14 of the Barton-Aschman AsSociates, Inc., report. Mr. Black discussed the process to be used for updating the traffic impact fee and outlined the application of the traffic impact fee on an individual project basis. Developers will receive credit for portions of the fee network that they build and for the dedication of right-of-way needed for the completion of the fee network. Credit will not be given for any roadway construction required solely by the project, such as a right-turn lane into the project site that is only used by project patrons or residents. Certain land uses, such as parks and public schools are exempt from the traffic impact fee. Their cost of the roadway fee network is absorbed by the residential and office development that necessitates the need for such facilities. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 19 Public facility land uses, such as post offices, city buildings and libraries are also exempt. Cm. Burton asked if this was to be a first and only one-time fee. He then asked how a situation would be handled whereby someone opened up a shop and didn't have much traffic and then his place is rented or sold to somebody else who does create a lot of traffic 5 years down the road. Does the TIF get put on the new guy or is it considered already paid. Mr. Thompson stated it would already be paid, and there is a specific category that has a little catch-all for people that are doing spec type buildings. It is an averaging type thing. A lot of people do this; they just go ahead and build a building and then go out and find tenants. If they don't have a tenant when they come in, they will fall into the general category. Mr. Ambrose stated there are two ways to look at this. You can always find somebody who would argue that they are using less than the average, but the benefit of going with this is the developer knows on the front end exactly what the costs are and we don't have to conduct another study and force the developer to have to pay for it and delay the project. The idea is to assist the development community by identifying what the costs are early and up front before they begin the project or before they are too far into it. We do it on a case-by-case basis now and there is a lot of time delays, as well as a lot of Staff time expended attempting to negotiate what the TIF should be on each particular use. Cm. Burton asked if it would be based on zoning. Mr. Ambrose stated the ITE manual has 1,000 categories of different types of uses, so we will need to par down the list. It's not based strictly on land use or zoning' designation, but it is on use. Sometimes traffic studies take 6 to 8 weeks and then there is a negotiation period. Developers want to get their financing in place early on. Mr. Thompson emphasized the way the properties are set up, it is anticipated that a lot of these will be in a shopping center or a block of spaces. There won't be individual buildings just popping up. We have categories for shopping centers of a certain size has an average traffic generation. Then it doesn't matter if you have a high generator on one end and a Iow on the other end. It evens out. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 20 Cm. Burton asked if this will apply to the present downtown area. Mr. Thompson stated no, we will have a separate downtown traffic impact fee study. Cm. Moffatt asked if this includes all the regional fees also. Mr. Thompson stated the Environmental Report and the SP identified certain things and Category 3 are the regional improvements that they've assumed have been put in that weren't totally funded. The TVTC may come up with a totally different thing that may have to be plugged in if the Council wants to do that. Ms. Silver stated the draft resolution recognizes that the TVTC has prepared a draft plan.that hasn't been adopted yet. If it is approved, the Council would then revise this to reflect that. We need to comply with the EIR's requirement that we impose a fee for regional impact, either based on the TVTC study or another similar study. Cm. Burton mentioned the 2 sources referenced for trip description by function or business and asked if this would be the Bible that would be used when people come in. Mr. Thompson stated no, contained in the packet was a 2,page dOCument that they can go through to pick out the land uses. It will say what the traffic generation is. Ms. Silver advised that Exhibit E to the resolution provides the amount of the fee to be set. It specifies the fee for single family residential which is $3,355 per unit and multi-family residential which is $2,350 per unit, and then all development other than residential pays at a rate of $295 per trip based on the table that follows. Mr. Thompson briefly went over the comments that had been received over the last month or so. The first letter received was from Alameda County and they had some technical questions and comments which Staff did incorporate. The City of Pleasanton sent a letter and they basically wanted Dublin to share in the cost of 3 interchanges that they had already built portions of and because this would take a whole other study and Council direction to do this, there was not time to do it at this point. If Council wants this done with the next update, Staff could go ahead and take a look at that. TJKM, who was representing the Lin CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 21 property, had mostly technical questions and Staff tried to answer these. McKay & Somps dropped off a letter today and copies were distributed. A lot of the same things that were in TJKM's letter were in McKay & Somps' letter. CCS submitted a letter for the Pao Lin property and it basically recommended that since the town center land uses encourage pedestrian, bicycle transit that it be given a lower traffic generation and a lower resulting fee. They took a look at this and basically, almost all of the multi-family residential uses either fall in the town center or in village centers. There is just a little that falls in the County that is outside of that. Both the town centers and the village centers have the same encouragement for pedestrian, transit, etc. If was felt that what is in there is satisfactory. The Attorney for Pao Lin called today and requested that this be postponed for 2 weeks because they were unable to be here this evening. The next letter was from Cassidy & Burgess, representing Pleasanton NPID owners, regarding Dublin helping to pay for those interchanges and they also had a lot of other technical comments and the City Attorney and Staff wrote back and ansWered those comments. We got a letter from Heller, Erman, White & McCullough representing the Pao Lin property with comments similar to the CCS letter requesting us to reduce the fees for the town center area. They also requested that no fees be put on the town center area until the next review of the fee resolution. Mr. Ambrose pointed out that those fees aren't applicable unless you are annexed to the City and you have a development plan, which that property does not. Mr. Thompson stated we received a BART letter and they were basically requesting a reduction in our fee to help them out with some of their improvements. We advised them that since their BART station was already funded, we didn't include it in our fee, but we do have some money in for service to the BART stations. We got a note from C. Silva protesting any taxeS for traffic impact fee study. They were not in the area that will have the fee on it at this point. Al Hunter, Jade Circle, member of the Business Development Task Force asked where this would put Dublin with regard to other cities. In looking at the number of trips per day, he felt the numbers may be a little high. He was more concerned on the business side, however. If you take an average 4,000 sq. ft. office space unit, what kind of fees will they be looking for and how does this compare with other cities in the valley? Also, how does it compare with communities outside the State of California since we are competing with them CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 22 also. He questioned who else is using this type of approach and how do we compare. Mr. Thompson reminded everyone that we are starting from scratch. A lot of other cities that have fees may be picking up cc]pital improvement things that they want to do around their city. We are building all the street infrastructure, so we are fairly high compared to some of the cities that don't have to start from scratch. The way this was approved was that eastern Dublin must .pay its own way. The.City can't help them out. If we do get grants in the future we can go back and look at reducing this fee. Mr. Hunter recommended that on any proposed future fees or taxes, it would be nice to have a comparison with other cities as part of the package. Pleasanton and Livermore, as they expand, will try to capture a lot of the same businesses that we are trying to get. Mayor Houston felt this would be a good idea in order to compare apples to apples. Mr. Ambrose advised that this information was provided in the December 12th packet. Francis O'Connell, Registered Civil and Planning Engineer with CCS Planning & Engineering stated she represented the Pao Lin propertY, about 300 acres. They submitted a report and also the Attorney representing interested parties submitted a letter. They are very concerned that the methodology of computing charging impact fees unfairly penalizes the town center area. She discussed the figures derived using the ITE handbook for single family housing and multi-family housing. Some adjustment factors can be used. The Attorney suggested some modifications to the resolution if it is to be adopted tonight. She discussed factors used to determine low-income housing. The Santa Clara County CMA allows for up to 30% of trip reduction for mixed use development. The property owner's problem is that while' they will spend a lot of money in the town center area to create a situation of encouraging bicycling, pedestrian transit use during the development phase, but there is really no incentive for that and there is really no credit applied for that. The Attorney suggested that language be added, "except that the amount of such fee shall not apply to residential or non-residential development in areas designated for town center use in the GPA, SP, or GP until completion of the subsequent study of the traffic impacts of such town center development described in Section 8 of the resolution". With reference to subsequent analysis of the fee, they want to add CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 23 language, "the City shall conduct a further study and analysis to determine the traffic impact fee of residential and non-residential developments within town center areas as designated in the GPA, SP or GP. When such additional information is available, the City Council shall set the fee for such town center development in amounts which are reasonably related to the impact of such development". Cm. Burton stated all the things she was asking for, she was asking at the last minute. These were some major concerns and he asked if she could give one or two of the most major changes they would like to see changed. Ms. O' Connell stated some credit, some incentive for the town center area of development because in order to provide for the developer to come forward With a development, they will have to make an investment to make that kind of amities and yet, they also know they have to pay the same fee as all the other developers outside the town center area. That's what they feel is the most unfair. Housing will be very near the jobs, within walking distance. They also would like to provide residential on the top and commercial right below it in a two-story development. There will definitely be a lot of trip reduction which is different from other types of development within this town center area. Cm. Burton asked if When a project of this type comes in and they prove that some incentives for affordable housing are provided, do we have in this process an opportunity for someone to come in and ask for specific reductions. Mr. Thompson stated the only way they could get a reduction would be if the Council changes the resolution to allow something lower. The problem is if you give someone else a lower one, you have to bump somebody else up. Mayor Houston asked about the purpose of the annual review. Mr. Thompson advised that this would be something the Council could look at as part of the annual review. The other things that the annual review would show would be as we get more and more of the infrastructure built, how close are we to the cost that we estimated. The costs will be going up over the years, just from inflation. Cm. Burton asked if this would satisfy her that there will be a review process in the future. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 24 Ms. O'Connell stated this did not satisfy them, because there was no assurance that they would take this into consideration. They recognize that someone has to pay for these improvements to allow development to happen, but they are talking about fairness. They want to be recognized for being in the town center area and would like to pay just a little bit less. If the Council doesn't take the Attorney's suggested language into consideration, they have a fear that it will never get changed in the future. Later on, they will have to spend more efforts to try to make their point again. She requested that the Council defer the town center area for a while. Cm. Burton stated he appreciated what she said and felt she brought up some good points. He didn't feel the City could start over tonight, however. All 5 people sitting on the Council are interested in a good project of starter homes and affordable housing. If they bring in a good project, he suspected that maybe there would be a willingness to go back and find a way to make it work. Mayor Houston stated we do have this review process in place, so the mechanism is there. Cm. Moffatt felt We have this new dream and unfortunately, it takes a lot of money to do all these things. The SP says the area out there has to pay for itself in a sense. Francis P. Croak submitted written comments for the record. As a property owner in the east Dublin area, he resisted being exposed to transportation fees and/or assessments in advance of the develOpment of specific properties. He felt the City Council had contradicted itself with some of the comments and he felt like he was looking down the end of a loaded barrel. Cm. Burton asked if he realized he wouldn't pay any fees until he builds or develops. John DiManto stated he had read all the correspondence and was impressed with the articulate answers and correspondence in the packet. What is surprising to him is that Staff seems to always want to defend the hired help, Barton-Aschman. Whatever happens in this east Dublin traffic fee should put everybody on the same basis. They are part of the future spine. His property is impacted identical to the Lins. Those mixed uses that straddle the spine should not be overlooked. Cm. Burton asked if he would accept the figures presented. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 25 Mr. DiManto responded that he was not qualified to compile the figures or challenge them. We are a little high now, but we have an opportunity to review it. There are not too many cities that build a spine to use for comparison purposes. Marjorie LaBar asked questions related to the levels of service. If all of these improvements are put into place, will this bring all of our intersections to an LOS of D. Will we still have areas that will be LOS E and F. She suggested that if the City did 'not have trip reduction amenities built into this plan the individual fees per unit would be considerably higher as we would have to build more infrastructure. On Iow cost housing we may want to figure some sort of a factor in for high densities as part of the State's requirement for the Housing Element. She discussed short trips where people would be more inclined to walk as opposed to those that have to go 2 1/2 miles to get a quart of milk. We should look at the very high end and the very Iow end. Mehran Sepehri stated those types of things were included. Different numbers were used for single and multi-family areas. As far as the LOS, by improving all those road facilities, we will meet the EIR LOS required. As far as the Trip Reduction Ordinance, the EIR and the Barton-Aschman report, they all include requirements that must be met. We have to meet the air quality and that has been assumed in the model. Ms. O'Connell said she was frankly a little bit tired of hearing these same comments. She wished to strongly point out that they are not arguing about this. but they are trying to SaY that the town center area is a very unique area. They want to put forward a good project where the trips will be even lower. If you apply a 30% factor, it could be 5 trips per unit. They heard all the concerns and they accept we may hear back from them again. It really does not reflect their comments at all. Bobble Foscalina, Doolan Road commented that the percentage used to determine fees is how you are going to charg® the developers. If one of the percentages is wrong, she asked who would pick up the differences and how will shortages be made up. Since Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore have agreed to pay for their own roads, who pays fOr the percentage that was designated to Livermore and Pleasanton. Does it come out of the general fund, which is the existing people of Dublin? Mr. Thompson stated there were a couple of issues involved. With regard to interior streets, everyone agreed that they would do their own interior streets. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 26 Freeway improvements will be more of a regional type thing and hopefully, the TVTC will come along or each City will have their own and get together with some money and do some improvements on that. She asked what happens if we are wrong and we don't get enough money? This is why we will review this on an annual basis and if we find we are getting behind, they we will have to raise it. Ms. Foscalina commented that the designations were quite high for Livermore and Pleasanton at certain intersections. If Dublin has noway of collecting from them, what happens? You've already said you're going to pay your own way on your own streets. She did not feel she got a definit® answer as to who is going to pay. Mr. Thompson responded that the other cities that have developments coming in in the future will have impacts on interchanges. They will have to pay through some sort of a traffic impact fee on the particular project or they're going to have to get an overall one. We will be watching them too to make sure they pay their fair share. Ms. Foscalina stated she firmly believed that new development creates the need for new roads and improvements and it should pay for them. She also felt all fees should be paid prior to receiving building permits. Property owners should not be penalized because they choose not to develop or to develop at a later date. The EIR says you have LOS E and F on a lot of the main arteries and interchanges and yet when the policy was set by the judge at the end of the lawsuit last year, it was designated that you should have no lower than Level D. How are we going to rectify levels E and F to be consistent with the policy that was set by the judge. Ms. Silver stated with regard to the lawsuit challenging the EIR for the General Plan Amendment and the SP, the court found in the City's favor and found that the EIR was adequate and that the SP and GPA were properly adopted. Ms. Foscalina stated it was her understanding that the level should not be lower than D and if some of our streets are LOS F, that's not consistent with what the policy is. Ms. Silver stated this was a misunderstanding because the petition was a petition for a Writ of Mandate and the court denied the Writ of Mandate and held that the EIR was adequate. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 27 Mayor Houston suggested that if Ms. Foscalina has access to the document, she should review it as our City Attorney does not have the same interpretation. Ms. Silver stated Ms. Foscalina was referring to the Court's Notice of Intent to Decision, and a Notice of Intent to Decision has no legal affect, it's the judgment that has the legal affect and the judge refused to grant the Writ of Mandate and there is no appeal for that. The important fact is that the judge found in Dublin's favor on all ~ooints. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. Cm. Burton felt there should be some way to have starter homes and housing programs. There are some out there and he realized it's a marketing decision. There's no such thing as Iow cost housing anymore. We should be able somehow to attract somebody that has some creative ideas on affordable housing. Cm. Barnes stated she was comfortable with the fact that we have the annual review. Cm. Howard agreed and stated she had no problems with it. Cm. Moffatt stated he had no problems with it. Mayor Houston stated he did sympathize with some of the comments made and we will try to make it easy by having two categories. There are several categories in the densities. The annual reviews are very important and they should take advantage and capitalize on them. Ms. Silver explained that the recommendation was that after the public hearing is closed, the Council determine the value of protests to the Area of Benefit Fee. The Council should, by motion, determine the value of protests and that there are insufficient protests received. Actually there were no protests received to the adoption of the Area of Benefit Fee. Cm. Burton made a motion and stated they had evaluated the value of protests on the Area of Benefit Fee and determined that they are not sufficient. This motion was seconded by Cm. Moffatt. The motion was passed by a unanimous vote. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 28 Cm. Burton asked if the one year for review purposes should be put into the Resolution. Ms. Silver stated the way it is written now, it provides for this particular fee to be in effect for 20+ years. Page 11, paragraph 8 was referenced. It might not be necessary to review it every year, although this is Staff's intent. This is sufficient and provides flexibility. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 1 -95 ESTABLISHING A TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE AND AREA OF BENEFIT FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE EASTERN DUBLIN AREA REQUEST BY MAYOR HOUSTON FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING STARTING TIME [610-20) On December 27, 1994, Mayor Houston requested that the issue of Council meeting starting times once again be agendized for discussion by the Council. Mayor Houston stated this was discussed last year or the year before and he would like to move the meeting time to 6:30 p.m. This would better accommodate some of the Staff who cannot go home and he also felt more people would attend the meetings. Some of the Dublin Housing Authority meetings could be conducted out at Arroyo Vista, and they're canceled a lot of the time anyway. They only met 5 or 6 times asr year. Those meetings could start at 6:00 p.m. Cm. Moffatt discussed the survey that was done 'n April of 1994. Very few people indicated they were interested in starting at 6:30 p.m. More people favored a 7:30 p.m., or 7:00 p.m., starting time. Fie stated he would be agreeable to trying a new starting time for 3 months to see how it works. Mayor Houston felt a trial period was unnecessary and that 6:30 p.m., was fine. Cm. Barnes stated a lot of people she spoke with laughed at a 6:30 p.m., starting time. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 29 Marjorie LaBar felt that getting to a meeting by 6:30 p.m., would be impossible for people coming from out of the area. People would be more upset over issues if they have to rush home, rush through dinner, and then rush to get to the meeting. The Council briefly discussed other meetings which might conflict on Mondays. On motion of Mayor Houston, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to a 7:00 p.m., starting time for future regular City Council meetings. Ms. Silver stated it would be necessary for Staff to incorporate the change into the Council Rules Resolution, and this could be brought back at the next Council meeting for adoption.' The new time could then become effective with the next regular meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Reception/Recognition for Out.qoing Commissioners (110-10) Mr. Ambrose reminded the Council that we need to recognize outgoing Commissioners and he had discussed with the Mayor holding a reception just prior to the next City Council meeting. It would now be appropriate to schedule the event for a later date after the appointments are confirmed. Upcoming Meetin_q Reminders (610-05) Mr. Ambrose reminded the Council of the LAFCO hearing to be held on January 12, 1995 at 4:30 p.m. Mr. Ambrose advised that the Business Task Force will be meeting at 7:00 p.m., on January 17, 1995. Mr. Ambrose advised that the Dublin Fine Arts Foundation will be holding an Art in the Parks reception at the Civic Center on January 27, 1995, from 5:00 P.m., to 7:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 30 Mr. Ambrose stated there has been a change in the date for the next Tri-Valley Council meeting. San Ramon will be hosting the meeting on February 1, 1995 at 6:30 p.m. Any desired agenda items should be communicated to San Ramono CTV Broadcastinq of Council Meetinqs {1050-50) Cm. Howard advised that it costs Pleasanton about $30,000 to televise their Council meetings and then there is a per-hour meeting cost. San Ramon will start to tape theirs, but they can't be broadcast live. It will cost them about $365 per meeting. Dublin could not be live at this time because Contra Costa County uses Channel 30 on Monday nights. Teen Task Force 1950-80) Cm. Barnes stated she would like the topic of a Teen Task Force placed on the next City Council agenda for discussion. She would like to see a Teen Task Force formed with kids from Wells, Valley High, Valley Christian School, etc., and maybe with a Chamber of Commerce member, and to give them a charge. The Council concurred with this request. Graffiti Task Force (530-20/580-40) Cm. Moffatt asked when the graffiti meeting would be and also who staffs this. Mr. Ambrose advised that we have had limited success in getting people in the community to participate. The City has representatives from the Police Department, the Public Works Department and his office attend these meetings. Cm. Barnes asked if a letter had gone out to the service clubs. Mr. Ambrose stated alt the service clubs were sent information. Bo Barker takes care of the noticing. The next meeting will be on January 18, 1995 at 4:00 p.m. Cm. Moffatt stated the Dublin 4-H Club is interested in participating in this program. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE $1 Mr. Ambros® advised that everybody is welcome to attend. Right now, we are trying to develop some ideas. Cm. Burton said he had heard of a program to fine property owners that allow graffiti to stay on longer than 3 or 4 days. He liked this concept and thought it could be a fine of about $35 or so. Also, he would like to see us have a reward of $1,000 paid if a person is convicted. Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff will be bringing back some recommendations to the Council in the future. Cm. Moffatt stated the City of Richmond has an Ordinance that allows them to go onto private property and suggested that City Staff get a copy of this. Service Club Si.qns I130-10/400-30) Mayor Houston asked who was in charge of the sign listing the service clubs in town that is ocated on the corner of Amador Valley Boulevard and San Ramon Road. He thought the Chamber of Commerce put it up and someone pointed out to him that these types of boards are usually put at the beginning of town. The service clubs may want to look at this. Also, we may want to consider another sign at the north end of town. He had spoken to the property owner behind Coco's Restaurant and he is willing to have a board put up on his property. Janet Lockhart, President of the Chamber of Commerce stated they have a Board meeting on Wednesday, and she would be happy to bring this up. Commission Appointments (110-30) Mayor Houston asked for clarification regarding the open seats on the Planning Commission. Could the City be legally challenged if a Commissioner whose term has expired votes on issues. He requested that Staff review this 'n more detail. Ms. Silver referenced Dublin Municipal Code Section 2.12.020 (A)... Terms shall begin in December of even-numbered election years and end in November of even-numbered election years (or until successors are appointed]. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 32 Ms. Silver stated this clearly authorizes existing members to continue to serve until their successors are appointed. Special City Council Meetin.q Needed on January 31, 1995 {610-10) Mr. Ambrose advised that it is possible that a special City Council meeting may need to be scheduled for Tuesday, January 31, 1995, related to the Homart project, so he asked the Council to mark their calendars for that date. The Council indicated their availability on this date. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 14 REGULAR MEETING January 9, 1995 PAGE 33