Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-14-1996 CC Adopted MinutesREGULAR MEETING ~ May 14, 1996 A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held On Tuesday, May 14, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 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. PROCLAMATION 7:03 p.m. 3.1 (610~50) Cm. Moffatt read a Proclamation declaring May 13-17, 1996 "Try Transit Week" and urged all citizens to support public transit in the Livermore~Amador Valley area. The Proclamation was presented to Vic Sood, General Manager of LAVTA. Mr. Sood advised that they will be unveiling a new bus tomorrow. There are no steps to get onboard this bus. They are the first ones in the Bay Area to introduce this type of a bus. He gave Mayor Houston free bus passes. Thursday is free rides for everybody. CONSENT CALENDAR 7:05 p.m. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved (4.1) Minutes of Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session of April 8; Regular Meeting of April 9; and Regular Meeting of April 23, 1996; (Cm. Howard abstained on the minutes for the April 8 and April 9 meetings); ClT~ COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME. 15 RE6ULAR MEETIN6 lltl~ ~.,~ '199~ PAGE 218 Adopted (4.2 570-20) RESOLUTION NO. 45 - 96 ESTABLISHING A NO PARKING ZONE ON THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD EASTERLY OF STAGECOACH DRIVE Authorized (4.3 600-30) a $7,500 payment to Dublin Fine Arts Foundation for the Art in the Parks Program and authorized the Mayor to execute an agreement between the City, DFA and Alan Counihan, the artist for the Alamo Creek Park project; Authorized (4.4 350-20/590.40) Staff to advertise for bids for Traffic Signal Coordination/Upgrade Project Computer Hardware; Adopted (4.5 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 46 - 96 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH TRI-VALLEY JANITORIAL SERVICE FOR CITY FACILITIES JANITORIAL SERVICES ($7,909 per month) and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement; Adopted (4.6 350-20/590-40) RESOLUTION NO. 47 - 96 APPROVING WAIVER OF BID PROCESS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CITYWIDE TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPDATE AND COORDINATION PROJECT TO IDC TRACONEX ($49,701) and authorized the Public Works Director to execute the contract; Adopted (4.7 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 48 - 96 APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER ($70,000) FOR THE ANNUAL OVERLAY CONTRACT Incorporating Dougherty Road (south of Amador Valley Boulevard) and Dublin Boulevard (between Hansen Drive and Donlon Way) CITY' COUNCIL MINUTES ¥OLUME 15 RE6UI.~tR MEETIN6 lYgay 14, 1996 PAGE 2I 9 Accepted (4.8 600-30) improvements under Contract 96-01 Sidewalk Repair; authorized $3,905.90 payment to Roquemore Engineering for their final invoice and agreed to release $6,274.30 retention after 35 days if there are no subcontractor claims; Approved (4.9 300~40) the Warrant Register in the amount of $2,090,204.26. PUBLIC HEARING TRUMARK HOMES GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (PA 95-029) 7:08 p.m. 6.1 (420~30) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Ram presented the Staff Report. This project is on an 8.9 + acre site located off Dougherty Road, south of Arroyo Vista. This GPA would change the General Plan Land Use Designation from "Transportation Corridor" to "Medium Density Residential" (permitting development at approximately 6. ~ 14 units per acre on the site. A Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program and GPA have been prepared for the project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration has found that all environmental issues can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Ms. Ram advised that the Planning CommissiOn heard this item at their April 16, 1996 meeting. Concerns raised by the Planning Commission were in relation to noise and compatibility with the adjacent industrial uses. Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the environmental documents and GPA. Ms. Ram discussed the Environmental Analysis, Land Use Compatibility, Transportation Issues, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, and Aesthetics of the project. Mike Maples Trumark Homes felt this was a solution to a piece of property that has been an eyesore for a long time. It's an excellent location. The noise issues previously discussed have been taken care of and Mr. Maples explained the mitigation measures. With regard to parking, he stated they reviewed other developments because of concerns raised. Arbor Creek has 2.1 parking spaces per unit and Kildara has 2.5 per unit. They have reworked their site plan to create 2.75 spaces per unit. Cm. Howard asked if any of the homes will be one story homes. A lot of people have indicated they would like to buy a new one story home, but most new homes that are built are two story. Mr. Maples advised that they will have a mixture of one and two stow homes. CITY' COUNCIL MINUTES ~OLUME 115 RK{iUL~R MEETIN(I IM~ay 14~ 1996 PAGE 220 Cm. Burton commented they started the project last July and here it is less' than a year later and they have a development before them, He was impressed. Mr. Maples stated they hoPe to come back in mid-June with a tentative map. Cm. Burton congratulated them for being able to bring this so quickly. He hoped they would consider putting in some low and medium cost senior housing as part of their program. It seems logical since the City is in the process of looking at this type housing. This wouldn't be subsidized, but there is a market for seniors. Mr. Maples stated they will follow up on this. Mayor Houston felt the one story issue was very valid. Our Economic Development Manager is working on an analysis of infill land within the City. There might be a report coming in the future. No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. Cm. Burton stated he is very excited that they've been able to come in with a project like this and putting it together in a hurry and he felt it looks great. Cm. Moffatt stated he is really happy to see this project. He had concerns at first and was also happy to see moderate prices on these units. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUIION NO. 49 - 96 APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PA 95-029, THE TRUMARK HOMES PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING ~ PA 95-048 CALIFORNIA CREEKSIDE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 7:21 p,m. 6.2 (600~60) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Community Development Director Peabody thanked K&B for working with the City in pulling this project together. He gave an introduction to the item and stated tonight the City Council will consider the zoning and development agreement. CITY* COtINGIL MINUT~ VOLUME 1 $ RE~iUI~R MF~TIN(I Ma~ 14, 1996 PAGE 221 Senior Planner Carrington presented the Staff Report and explained that Kaufman & Broad of Northern California and the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority are requesting approval of a Planned Development Rezone of approximately 35.4 gross acres of land designated Planned Development Business Park Industrial District to 26.8 gross acres zoned Planned Development Single Family Residential District (154 dwelling units at 5.75 dwelling units per acre) fronting on Dublin Boulevard, and to 8.6 gross acres zoned Planned Development Medium-High Density Residential District (123 dwelling units at 14.3 dwelling units per acre) fronting on the Transit Spine and the unnamed collector street. Mr. Carrington explained that the proposed PD would allow for a 277 dwelling unit residential project consisting of 154 single family homes and 123 townhouses. A 5- year Development Agreement between Kaufman & Broad of Northern California, the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority and the City of Dublin includes traffic, noise and public facilities impact fees, phasing of infrastructure construction and future creek improvements among other items. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared for this project. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires that development in the area pay for its needed infrastructure. The responsibility to provide capital improvements falls to the developer. A fiscal analysis performed at the time the SP was prepared indicates that, after several initial years of shortfalls, Eastern Dublin will provide more revenues than it will require in expenditures for public services. The means of financing ongoing maintenance of lighting and landscaping is not yet determined due to a potential ballot measure this year. A potential option would be a master homeowners' association for the Santa Rita property similar to what they have in Hacienda Business Park. Staff will bring back a more precise definition at the next meeting. Minor changes to the Development Agreement will be included with the packet for the next meeting. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project on April 16, 1996 and unanimously approved the Tentative Map and Site Development Review, and recommended that the City Council approve the PD Rezone and the Development Agreement. Cm. Howard asked if there was a blowup of the site. Mr. Carrington displayed an overhead and explained where the townhouses would be, internal circulation, where the pool area will be, and the 154 single family homes which back Onto Dublin Boulevard at the south end of the project. Cm. Moffatt asked if the pool will be a private pool. Mr. Carrington stated the homeowners association will maintain it and it will be for their use. CIT~ COUNCIL MINUTE~ ~/OLUME 15 RE(IUI.~tR MEETIN(I ~ay 14, 1996 PAGE 222 Cm. Howard asked about the length of a court and if it met DRFA standards. Mr. Carrington stated this was also of concern to him and he questioned this and it does meet DRFA's standards. Matt Koart, K&B stated Staff had been very thorough in describing the project. Almost a year ago, Alameda County issued requests for proposals and got 8 or 9 from the top builders. After initial proposals were submitted, they narrowed the list to about 3 and asked for supplemental proposals. The County chose K&B and they obviously felt K&B was best suited to start the first project in East Dublin. All of the townhomes will have 2 car garages, but they are hidden from public view. As you drive down the street, you will see the best side of the buildings. They took advantage of the amenity of the creek. There will be a trail on their side, as well as a master trail on the other side of the creek. Two-thirds of their homes will have porches facing the street. Cm. Barnes asked how many bedrooms there will be in the townhomes. Mr. Koart stated the smallest townhome will have about 1,200 square feet and will be 2 bedroom, 2 baths. He considers them to be upscale type townhomes. Cm. Moffatt asked if the garages are detached. Mr. Koart responded no, they are all attached. All have 2 car garages. There is more than enough guest spaces. They are in excess of the CitY's standards. Cm. Moffatt asked if there will be any aprons going into the garages. Mr. Koart said yes, they will be about 24" or 3'. Cm. Howard asked if any of the homes are single-story. Mr. Koart stated yes, the smallest home at about 1,350 square feet will be single-story. No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to permit Rezoning and INTRODUCED an ordinance approving the Development Agreement for PA 05-048, California Creekside. CIT~ COUNCIL MINUTE5 VOLUME 15 RE~.ULAR MEETIN{i l~l'ay 1,,~, 1996 PAGE 223 PUBLIC HEARING - ANNUAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SANTA RITA COMMERCIAL CENTER (TRI-VALLEY CROSSINGS) 7:43 p.m. 6.3 (600~60) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Ram presented the Staff Report and stated the City Council is required to annually review the Development Agreement between the City of Dublin, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority and Developers Diversified. The Council may determine that the developers have complied in good faith or if they determine the developer has not complied, may modify or terminate the agreement. Ms. Ram stated the fiscal impacts of this project were addressed as part of a fiscal analysis performed for the approved project. The City Council reviewed the fiscal analysis as part of the PD Rezone and Development Agreement applications in January of 1995. The fiscal analysis concluded that this project is consistent with the fiscal policies in relation to provision of infrastructure and public services of the City's General Plan and the EDSP and GPA. Ms. Ram advised that the development provided for by the Agreement has not yet commenced. All the items required by the Agreement will be implemented when development occurs. There has been no indication from either Alameda County or Developers Diversified of any problems regarding future compliance with the Agreement. No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. Cm. Burton felt this was simply a bookkeeping process. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council determined that the developers have complied in good faith with the terms and provisions of the Development Agreement and concluded the Annual Review. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDING DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE TO AUTHORIZE REFERRAL OF CUP REVOCATIONS TO PLANNING COMMISSION 7:45 p.m. 6.4 (420~20) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Community Development Director Peabody stated the Municipal Code needs to be revised so that the Community Development Director has the discretion to refer any administrative action on Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Site Development Reviews and parcel maps directly to the Planning Commission. Normal appeal CITY" COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE6ULAR MEETIN6 May 14, 1996 PAGE 224 procedures would remain and the Planning Commission decision can be appealed to the City Council for final action. Cm, Burton asked if this is typical in other cities. Mr. Peabody stated yes, other cities typically have this provision where things may be controversial. In some cases it makes better sense to send it directly to the Planning Commission. He assured the Council that it won't be abused. Cm. Moffatt felt the original intent of the ordinance was to streamline and move things through faster. He felt strongly that we should maintain streamlining government. He asked for an example of a situation where this would apply. Mr. Peabody stated from time to time there have been situations of revocation of a CUP and the public gets involved and there are a lot of comments. He felt it would be better to go directly to the Planning Commission with issues like this. Mayor Houston felt if anything, this could speed up the process. No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an Ordinance amending Section 2.12.120 of the Dublin Municipal Code. PUBLIC HEARING BUS STOP ON WEST SIDE OF VILLAGE PARKWAY ~ LEWIS AVENUE 7:48 p.m. 6.5 (1060-20) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Public Works Director Thompson advised that Staff had received a request from an elderly resident of San Ramon to have a bus stop placed on the west side of Village Parkway across from the post office. The nearest stop on the west side of the street is at the corner of Amador Valley Boulevard near the Oil Changers, which can be a long walk for an elderly person. Mr. Thompson stated Staff contacted the County Connection, currently the only bus which serves this portion of Village Parkway, and they have no objection to placing a bus stop at this location. Staff also notified businesses that are directly adjacent to this area. ClT~ COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RIi~ULAR I~IEETIN~ PAGE 225 I Cm. Howard asked if this would be right in front of the new dental office. Mr. Thompson stated yes, just as you make the u-turn. Cm. Moffatt asked if there had been a study of the folks making u-turns there. He noted some fairly large trucks try this and have to make 2 or 3 tries to get around. He felt a bus there would further complicate things. Mr. Thompson stated the buses are pretty infrequent. This would actually help because sometimes there is a car parked there. Cm. Moffatt asked if it would be better to reroute the bus. Cm. Barnes reminded Cm. Moffatt that the request was for them to get to the post office. Cm. Burton stated he needed every bit of the space to turn his van there. No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. Cm. Moffatt asked where the bus stops now. Mr. Thompson stated the northbound stop is in front of Midas and the southbound stop is in front of Oil Changers. The Oil Changers stop would remain. On motion of Cm. Howard, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by majority vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an Ordinance establishing a bus stop on the westerly side of Village Parkway southerly of the driveway opposite Lewis Avenue. Cm. Moffatt opposed because he felt it will be a traffic problem. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION AND EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS 7:54 p.m. 7.1 (630-40) City Attorney Silver explained that the City Council moved to table this item at their last meeting, even though there was no pending motion to table. The Council, therefore, needed to consider first of all a motion to take from the table. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the CoUncil agreed to take the item from the table and continue discussion. CITY' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE~iUI..AR MEETIN~t May 14, 1996 Ms. Silver stated in accordance with Council direction at the April 23, 1996 meeting, Staff had researched issues related to: 1) Can the City limit the source of campaign contributions made to candidates running for city office to City residents and/or non~ residents who work in the City? and 2) Does the City of San Ramon have in effect campaign expenditure limitations? Ms. Silver discussed court cases related to contribution and expenditure limitations. Ms. Silver stated in response to Question 1, she felt that such a restriction would fail to pass the constitutional tests established by the Supreme Court. In response to Question 2, Staff learned that San Ramon's ordinance sets forth a policy encouraging voluntary expenditure limitations for citywide campaigns. In 1985, the City of San Ramon adopted an ordinance "Establishing Election Fair Campaign Practices" with a stated purpose to "preserve and foster an orderly political forum in which persons may express themselves effectively; to place realistic limits on the amounts of money that may be spent in political campaigns for City Council elections; to decrease the cost of campaigns; and to prevent the appearance of improper influence." The ordinance sets forth a candidate's fair campaign pledge, which candidates for city council may voluntarily sign. By signing the pledge, a candidate agrees to attempt to limit expenditures for his or her campaign to an amount set forth by City Council Resolution for the upcoming election. For their 1995 municipal election, the voluntary expenditure limit was set at $11,500 which represented approximately $.50 per registered voter in the prior election. Ms. Silver noted that neither Livermore nor Pleasanton have ordinances limiting expenditures for campaigns. Cm. Moffatt stated he wished to present an alternative ordinance and distributed copies of 9 items to the City Council. MaYor Houston stated he felt Cm. Moffatt could only bring up one of the 2 issues on the agenda. Cm. Moffatt asked Ms. Silver if he could bring up other issues related to campaign contributions. Ms. Silver stated because the item was agendized "Campaign Contribution Limitations and Campaign Expenditure Limitations" and met requirements of the Brown Act, it was her opinion that they could discuss campaign contributions. Cm. Moffatt referenced his list of the 9 revisions he requested be considered. There would be no limit to the amount someone could put into their own campaigns. He stated the items were all taken from past ordinances. CIT5r COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEKTIN(i May 14, 1996 PAGE 227 "'REVISION OF REGULATING ELECTION CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS 1. Election Period means the period of time commencing 120 days preceding the date of municipal election and ending 130 days following the election. There shall be a separate election period for each election. 3. Contributions to a candidate or committee will not exceed a cumulative amount of $300. Except contributions .made to support a ballot measure or contributions made by a candidate speofioally for his or her campaign. $. Each candidate will declare, under penalty of perjury~ that no contribution totaled more than $800 from any person during any election period. 4. A Campaign Statement means an itemized statement including the person's name, complete mailing address, occupation and place of employment, and business address if self-employed of any person who paid, loane4 contributed or otherwise furnished $25.01 or more to aid the candidate's election. This includes money or its equivalent each person pai~ loaned~ contributed or otherwise furnished. 5. Contributions shall only be accepted by any candidate during the election pezqod 6. Cumulative preliminary campaign statements shall be filed by candidate, no later than 40 days, and within 13 days, again wiIhin 4 days. This is in addition to Ihe reports required to be filed under state law. 7. The contribution reports shall file its additional city requirements on the due date of the state forms. 8. If any part of Ordinance is held invali~ the remainder shall noI be affected. 9. This ordinance affects an election and is an urgency ordinance. (Government Code Section $695 7)" Cm. Howard commented that Pleasanton has a $25 reporting requirement. Mayor Houston asked if a limit on spending is a dead issue. Cm. Moffatt stated it is unconstitutional unless it is voluntary. Cm. Barnes stated she would like to see a voluntary agreement. Cm. Burton stated he is the only one who is not going to run. We are creating a solution to solve a problem that is not there. If anyone can prove something is detrimental to the City, they should bring it forward. This makes a lot of work for everybody. We have a lot of supervision by the State as it is now. Another report would not go over well with him. People can make PACs and we don't need this. What's wrong with what we're doing? Cm. Moffatt stated he is not finding fault with anyone. He felt, however that the average citizen should be able to afford to run. Cm. Barnes felt it is an issue right now. We have a problem today that people will not run for office because it is too expensive. There are big bucks for a small town. She read from San Ramon's resolution, 'Jnherent in the high cost of election campaigns is the possibili& and the appearance of improper influence real or potential, exercised by campaign contributors over elective officials". CITY' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE(iULAR MEETIN(I May 14, 1996 PAGE £28 Mayor Houston felt by trying to regulate any more you are taking away the rights of people being able to run for office. His opponent spent $14,800 and lost. He doesn't see anyone wanting to get rid of Miranda rights. They are taking liberties with constitutional rights. They are trying to stifle competition and they should not be so cavalier with people's rights. He pointed out that San Ramon is the same City that won't let people vote for their mayor. Disclosure of where the funds come from is a good thing. Not many people can fund their own campaigns, but they can raise funds to put up a professional campaign to get their message out. Cm. Howard disagreed and felt Cm. Moffatt's proposal does not limit anything. The $300 was in our original ordinance. Ms. Silver clarified that the original ordinance started out at $I00 and then went to $$00 and then to $1,000. The 1087 Ordinance was somewhat ambiguous with regard to the time period involved. The 1005 Ordinance contains federal language and clarified the election period. Cm. Moffatt read from Section 2A of the 1087 Ordinance, "£1ection period shall mean that period of time commencinsJuly 1, preceding the date of any municipal elech'on, and endinsJune $0~ immech'ately following such municipal election. There shall be a separate election period for each municipal election." Ms. Silver stated one of the reasons it came forward in 1003 was because the "off year" period was unclear. It came before the City Council at least $ times. Cm. Barnes clarified that under Cm. Moffatt's proposal there would only be a 120 day window before and after an election and no contributions could be made outside the window. Cm. Moffatt stated yes, this was his intention. Cm. Burton asked how many registered voters we have. Ms. Keck responded as of the March, 1996 election, we had 12,000+ registered voters. Cm. Barnes stated it would go by the voter turnout number. Cm. Burton pointed out that 2 of the people on the Council raised less than $500 and got elected. Mayor Houston felt this just shows that the money doesn't make a difference. It's the quality of the candidate. Cm. Moffatt disagreed and felt money makes a big difference. CITY' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REt~IUi.,qtR IdEETIN{I May 14, 1996 PAGE 229 Cm. Moffatt made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Barnes. The motion was that we have an election period and the money not exceed $300 and the reporting should be set at $25.01, no contributions accepted during non-election period and that the ordinance be an urgency ordinance. If any part of the ordinance is held invalid, the rest isn't. Keep in statement about signing under penalty of perjury. Sections 6 and 7 would be left out. The motion passed by a majority vote. Cm. Burton and Mayor Houston voted against the motion. Mayor Houston pointed out that an urgency ordinance requires a 4/5 vote. Ms. Silver clarified that the motion was to direct Staff to prepare an ordinance for Council consideration, including that the ordinance should be drafted as an urgency ordinance. Mr. Ambrose requested that the Council specifically put this in the form of a motion and have Ms. Silver draft the ordinance. John Wagner, 8342 Mulberry Place felt limiting contributions shouldn't be legal in the first place. Limiting money to just residents would mean he couldn't take any money from his family. It takes a lot of money to beat an incumbent. He has worked on several campaigns in his lifetime. He knows what it takes to win. He felt where the money comes from should be listed accordingly. He recommended walking away from campaign spending issues. Cm. Moffatt stated his motion did not include restricting contributions to residents, but evolved around the contribution concept. Mr. Wagner clarified that he felt not being able to accept $1,000 would be unconstitutional. Cm. Moffatt felt he could leave the urgency clause in and then it could be deleted at the next meeting. Ms. Silver said this was correct. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by majority vote, the Council directed Staff to draft an ordinance to include: 1) election period commences 120 days prior to and following an election; 2) contributions cannot exceed $300; 3) each candidate will declare under penalty of perjury that they have not collected more than $$00; 4) the campaign statement itemizes any amount over $25.01; 5) contributions can only be accepted during election period; and 6) if any part of the ordinance is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected. The ordinance should include an urgency statement. Mayor Houston and Cm. Burton voted against this motion. CITY' COUNCIL MINUTKS VOLUME 15 RK6ULAR MKKTIN6 Ma~W 14, 1996 PAGE 230 TERM LIMITS FOR COUNCIl,MEMBERS AND/OR MAYOR 8:40 p.m. 7.2 (610~20) City Attorney Silver stated following discussion of this item at the April 23, 1996 City Council meeting, the Council tabled a motion "to allow 8 years for the position of Mayor and 8 years as a Councilmember with the exception that less than half a term would not count. If you are on the Council and you run for Mayor, it breaks the continuity, so you could run another 8 years." Ms. Silver explained that under Robert's Rules of Order, when a motion has been tabled, it can be removed from the table at the same meeting or the next meeting by a motion to "take it from the table". Therefore, if the Council wishes to consider this issue, it must first pass a motion taking Cm. Button's motion from the table. On motion of Mayor HOuston, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the motion was taken from the table. Ms. Silver stated issues which the Council should consider include: 1) Should term limits be imposed for the office of Mayor and the office of Councilmember? 2) What limit would be placed on the number of terms of office for Mayor and Council- member? 3) Would the limitation for the offices of Mayor and Councilmember be combined so there is an effective limitation of "X" years on the Council, or would the limitations be separate? 4) Would the limitation on the number of terms be a lifetime limit or a consecutive limit? 5) Would the limitation apply to persons elected to office on November 5, 1996, or would the limitation apply to persons elected at the following election in November 1998? 6) What is a "term"? Should a term be defined to include service of more than half of the full term and exclude service if it is less than half of the full term? Cm. Burton stated if you ran. for Mayor and you were running from a safe seat this would break the chain. He stated his objective was to make a seat available when someone was up for election. There is 8 years but if you run for Mayor, it breaks the continuity. Mayor Houston thought in a theoretical situation you could run for City Council and then for Mayor and then for City Council and repeat the cycle. Cm. Burton stated he would back off on his motion. Cm. Howard stated she felt a flat 8 years would be okay on the City Council. Ms. Silver stated the original motion was made by Cm. Burton and seconded by Cm. Howard. Cm. Burton Withdrew his motion. CIT'[ COUNCIL MINUTES I/OLUME 15 RE{IULAR IdEKTIN(I May 14, 1996 PAGE 231 Mayor Houston made a motion to get back to 8 consecutive years. The verbiage would include terms rather than years. If someone serves less than half a term it should not count as a term. More than half would count as a term; 2 years + one day. The City Council agreed. Cm. Barnes stated she originally felt it would be a real simple thing to let the voters decide on years, but it gets confusing because of the difference in terms. Ms. Silver stated it would have to be drafted to preclude someone from running for City Council and then Mayor and then for City Council again. Mayor Houston clarified 2 years and a day would count as a term and this would be from November, 1996 forward. Cm. Barnes clarified that they are just giving direction to have Staff prepare a report to possibly place this on the ballot. At the next meeting, language would be there for them to vote on. On motion of Mayor Houston, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by majority vote, the Council directed Ms. Silver to draft an initiative to place before the voters limiting Councilmembers and Mayor to 8 consecutive years or terms. If someone serves 8 years and goes off they could break the cycle and then come back and run again. Also, these limitations would apply to those elected on November 6, 1996. For purposes of short terms, two years and a day would count as a term for Councilmember, and for Mayor, one year and a day would count as a term. Cm.'s Howard and Moffatt voted against this motion. John Wagner stated he believes fully in the term limit concept and not being able to make a career of it. In Washington, D.C., it used to be this way. If you want competition and want new blood, a vacancy makes it more possible for people to run. Cm. Moffatt felt we would be taking the vote away from the citizens of Dublin and eliminating choices and it is an expensive situation to put this on the ballot, some $30,000 and he has not received any phone calls or letters from anybody requesting term limits. Cm. Barnes stated nobody is committing to her whether they support this or not, but what they want is to vote on it. She asked about the costs. Ms. Keck responded that there are variable factors involved such as whether there are ballot arguments and rebuttals, but basically, she estimated the costs to be between $270 and $800. Printing costs would be incurred for the ballot questions, the City Attorney's analysis, ballot arguments supporting and opposing, and then rebuttal CITY' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 1 l~ REISUI,,AR M~TIN(I May 14, 1996 PAGE 232 arguments. The basic election costs will already be incurred because we will have candidates on the ballot. Ms. Keck explained that Cm. Moffatt was probably referencing the two special elections that were held in the City in 1993. Special elections are very expensive. Cm. Howard stated she would go along with having it on the ballot but not just 8 years. She felt the office of Mayor is a different office and they should be able to run for Mayor after serving on the City Council. Cm. Barnes asked if it could be changed regarding the number of terms when it comes back before the Council. Ms. Silver stated she would word it accordingly. OTHER BUSINESS 9:15 p.m. Joint City Council/School Board Meeting (610~10) Mr. Ambrose reported that there would be a joint meeting with the Dublin Unified School District Board related to joint annexation at 5:30 p.m., on May 28. The meeting will be held at the Civic Center in the Council Chambers. Cm. Barnes asked if, in the event Dublin Unified School District cannot meet at 5:30 p.m., and instead want to meet at 6:00 p.m., if they could hold off starting the City Council meeting until 7:30 p.m.. Staff indicated this could be done. Dublin Hosting Tri~Valley Council Meeting (140~80) Mr. Ambrose advised the Council that Dublin will host the Tri-Valley Council on June 19, 1996. Mayor Houston would like the meeting held at the Frankie Johnnie & Luigi Too Restaurant. We have only one item on the agenda so far. The City Council suggested putting the flyover on the agenda. CIT~ COUNCIL MINUTES ¥OLUME 15 RE~iULAR MEETIN{I May 14, 1996 PAGE 233 Gym ~ Valley High School (280-30) Mr. Ambrose referenced a memo regarding the status of the Valley High School gym. The School District intends to award the bid for site work at their first meeting in June. Staff will work toward some type of groundbreaking. Traffic Signal Installation (590~40) Cm. Howard asked about the citizens who came in living in the Cypress and Wineberry area and thought we were going to be putting in a signal at Kimball. It's difficult to get out onto Village Parkway at times. Mr. Ambrose stated signals are scheduled for Village Parkway ~ Tamarack, ~ Davona and ~ Brighton in the future. He will check with Mr. Thompson on this. Historic Landmark (910~40) Cm. MOffatt reported that the Alamillo Pond just off San Ramon Road is really raunchy. It's owned by The Springs apartments. Algae and grocery carts are in there and it is pretty bad. Mr. Ambrose pointed out that it is on private property and we can't do anything. Cm. Moffatt suggested that we call The Springs and talk to them to get the grocery carts and old tires out. Mayor Houston stated he had a call from them wanting to know how to go about getting this cleaned up. He also spoke with Tom McCormick with DHPA and he indicated they would look into the possibility of making this into something nice. Licensing of Firearms Sales (585-80) Cm. Moffatt reported that he became concerned about firearms dealers last August and the licensees who have their businesses in a residential area. He referenced a brochure from Alameda County stating Dublin has no license requirement at all. To his knowledge, we have never issued any license to any of these. He proposed that the City Attorney look at an ordinance like Lafayette's and come back. It's important that people in the neighborhood know who is selling weapons and they should take CITY' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RK~UI.~R MEETIN~I ]M[~.'~' 1.~ ~99~ PAGE 234 measures to prevent children from getting them. Other literature was passed out to the City Council. We should require ammunition sale records, locking device, prohibit sale of Saturday night specials, require gun store employee background checks, etc. He would like this put on the next agenda. He also distributed a list of gun dealers in the City of Dublin. Mr. Ambrose pointed out that Ms. Silver may not be able to get this onto the next agenda. Mayor Houston suggested that they give Staff adequate time to prepare something and then put it on a future agenda for discussion. PG&E Pole Acquisition Status (640~30) Mayor Houston asked about the status of the PG&E pole acquisition. Ms. Silver reported that an order of complaint will be effective May 31, so as of that date we will own the lumineers and the only remaining issue is how much we will pay for them. We have not finalized the pole contact agreement with PG&E, but this should be resolved by the end of the month. ADJOURNMENT I1.1 There being no further adjourned at 9:25 p.m. business to come before the Council, the meeting was ~x~_fCity CleMc ClT~ COUNCIL MINUTES ~OLUME 15 RE{iULAR MEETINg1 lvn'~.-y 14=~ '1996 PAGE 235