HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-07-2002 Adopted CC Minutes REGULAR M E ETING - MAY 7, 2002
A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, May 7, 2002, in the
Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:02
p.m., by Mayor Lockhart.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers McCormick, Oravetz, Sbranti, Zika, and Mayor Lockhart.
ABSENT: None.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Lockhart led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the
flag.
INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEE
7:03 p.m. $.1 (700~10)
Parks & Community Services Director Diane Lowart introduced the City's new Recreation
Coordinator John Turner.
John stated he sincerely appreciates this opportunity and his goal is to always be a
positive representative for the City.
7:05 p.m.
Rich Guarienti, Rhoda Avenue, reported that today the Senior Center took their first van
trip. They went to Half Moon Bay. He commended staff. The sign up was filled in less
than a week and they actually took an additional car. It was well coordinated. They even
saw a whale. The Trekkers had lunch at Half Moon Bay.
Mr. Guarienti stated he has been thinking of September 11th and would like to
memorialize that day with an event that they were part of. The Trekkers first trip was on
CITY COUNCIL MINLrrES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 192
September 1 lth; they did a short walk at Martin Canyon. He would like to do this again
this Year on September 11th. The Trekker group usually goes at ~) a.m. and maybe they
could do another one in the evening. Also, maybe they could dedicate a tree or a grove of
trees on the trail. He would like to get the City Council's and Staff's thoughts on this as to
what we can do.
Anna Hudson, Recreation Coordinator for the Dublin Senior Center advised that the
month of May is Older Americans month. The Senior Center will have an open house on
May 16*h, and to communicate community awareness, they will have an event, "Step Out
For Seniors" on May 18th. She presented t-shirts to the Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR
7:10 p.m. Items 4.1 through 4.10
Cm. Sbranti pulled Item 4.4 from the Consent Calendar.
On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote, the
Council took the following actions:
Approved (4.1) Minutes of Adjourned Regular Meeting of April 3, and Regular Meeting
of April 16, 2002;
Adopted (4.2 600-:35)
RESOLUTION NO. 52- 02
AWARDING CONTRACT 02-01
CIVIC CENTER ELECTRICAL UPGRADE
TO MORGAN & SONS ELECTRIC & LIGHTING, INC. ($7,820)
Authorized (4.3 720-40/600~$0) the City Manager to execute a contract extension with
Delta Dental;
Authorized (4.5 600-55) Staff to advertise Contract 02~06 for bids, Shannon
Community Center Door Replacement;
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 193
Adopted (4.6 I70~10)
RESOLUTION NO. 53- 02
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 101-90
AND ESTABLISHING STAFF AUTHORITY TO ACT ON
GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS
Authorized (4.7 600~$0) Staff to distribute RFPs for Data, Voice and Television Cabling
Project for the Dublin Public Library;
Adopted (4.8 600-35)
RESOLUTION NO. 54 - 02
AWARDING CONTRACT 02-03
2001-02 ANNUAL STREET OVERLAY PROJECT
TO DESlLVA GATES CONSTRUCTION ($329,329)
Adopted (4.9 600-35)
RESOLUTION NO. 55- 02
AWARDING CONTRACT 01-10
DUBLIN BOULEVARD WIDENING PROJECT
BETWEEN VILLAGE PARKWAY AND SIERRA COURT/CIVIC PLAZA
TO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ($3,063,859)
Approved (4.10 300~40) the Warrant Register in the amount of $2,650,336.91.
Cm. Sbranti pulled Item 4.4 and stated he wanted to vote separately on this item.
Mayor Lockhart stated this item deals with opposition to Assembly Bill 680, Smart
Growth Act of 2002.
On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by majority vote (Cm. Sbranti
abstained), the Council authorized (4.4 660~40) the Mayor to sign and send a letter
opposing Assembly Bill 680 (Steinberg), Smart Growth Act of 2002.
CITY cOuNCIL'MINU~$
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 194
PUBLIC HEARING - PA 02-013
AMENDMENT TO THE HERITAGE TREE ORDINANCE; SECTION 5.60 OF THE DMC
7:12 p.m. 6.1 (910~40)
Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing.
Associate Planner Pierce Macdonald presented the Staff Report and advised that this is the
second reading of an Ordinance amending Section 5.{50 of the Dublin Municipal code to
both protect Heritage Trees and facilitate development of sites containing Heritage Trees.
The amendment clarifies procedures and requirements under the Heritage Tree
Ordinance and makes the Ordinance consistent with approved changes to the Dublin
Wildfire Management Plan.
No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue.
Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Sbranti, and by unanimous vote, the
Council waived the reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 5 - 02
AMENDING THE HERITAGE TREE ORDINANCE
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENTS TO
THE INCLUSIONARY ZONING REGULATIONS AND
ADOPTING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRIORITY AREAS POLICY
AND AMENDMENTS TO IN-LIEU FEES PA 01-038 & PA 01-014
7:14 p.m. 6.2 (430-20/450-20)
Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing.
Community Development Director Eddie Peabody presented the Staff Report and advised
that at several Council meetings in 2001, Staff was instructed to review the present
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance regulations and the General Plan as they relate to
affordable housing requirements. The Council adopted Resolution No. 182-O1 on July
17th, expressing the City's intent to increase the percentage of affordable units and
related changes to the IZO in an amount not to exceed 15% of all new housing units and
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 195
to prohibit in-lieu fees for more than one-half of the affordable inclusionary units. Such
changes will require amendments to the City's Housing Element and the IZO. Since
August 2001, Staff has been working with an Inclusionary Work Group that included
representatives from the home building community, non-profit housing industry and
community activists. City Councilmembers Oravetz and McCormick were added to the
Work Group in November 2001 to ensure City Council review. On March 5, 2002, the
City Council reviewed the proposed IZO changes and in-lieu fee changes and instructed
Staff to set public hearings on the changes.
Mr. Peabody discussed the terms of the present IZO and the proposed IZO changes as
recommended by Staff. The features of this Ordinance and Fee Resolution are as follows:
1. All new residential projects of 20 or more units must construct 15% of the total
number of dwelling units as affordable for 30 years.
2. Affordable units shall be provided as follows:
30% very low income households
· 20% low income households
· 50% moderate income households
3. A fee in-lieu of building one-half of the required affordable units may be paid.
4. If affordable units cannot be built on-site, the City Council may allow:
· Land dedication to the City or City designated local non-profit housing
developer large enough to accommodate the numbers of required affordable
units;
· Construction of the affordable units off-site in a City Council approved site;
· Waive requirements and approve alternative methods of compliance.
5. Affordable units should be made available to qualified persons based on the City's
Affordable Housing Program.
6. Incentives to encourage on-site construction of affordable units in excess of 15% of
the total units may be offered and approved by the City Council (deferred fees,
design modifications, priority processing).
Mr. Peabody stated at the Planning Commission meeting on April 25~a, the Planning
Commission voted 3-1 to recommend that the City Council adopt the IZO with specific
changes to the Staff recommended Ordinance as follows:
1. The Planning Commission recommended reducing the inclusionary unit
requirement from 15% to 10% with 7.5% must-build requirement and 2.5% for
in-lieu fees.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 196
2. The Planning Commission recommended revisions to Section 8.68.030 paragraph
E, last sentence, "All affordable units shall will be reasonably dispersed throughout
the project.
$. The Planning Commission recommended inclusion of the word "shall" in the first
sentence of Section 8.138.040: "Exceptions to ! 5% 10% Affordability
Requirement. Developers of projects subject to 8.138.050.A shall construct ! 5%
10% of the total number of dwelling units within the development as affordable
units, unless..."
4. The Planning Commission recommended revisions to Section 8,138.040 paragraph
A as follows: "Payment of Fees In~Lieu of Creation of Affordable Units. Upon
request of the applicant, the City Council shall permit the applicant to pay a fee in
lieu of constructing up to ~ one quarter of the affordable units that the
developer would otherwise be required to construct pursuant to section
8.138.050.A. The amount of the fee shall be as set forth in a Resolution of the City
Council, which may be amended from time to time to reflect inflation and changed
conditions in the City and the region. In~Lieu fees shall be paid at and the time
and in the amount set forth in the in~lieu fee resolution in effect at the time of
issuance of the building permit.
Cm. Zika asked about the difference between the words "shall" and "will."
Mr. Peabody stated there was some confusion on what the word disbursal meant and
they felt the word "shall" would be stronger.
Cm. Zika asked if there is a legal difference.
Ms. Silver stated she did not think so.
The Planning Commission also instructed Staff to include a brief memo to the City
Council regarding their concern that consideration should be given by the City to waive
the required processing and development impact fees for affordable units as an incentive
to produce the units, Staff reviewed the requirements of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
and Development Fee Resolution that presently mandate that all development be required
to pay these charges. Given the present mandate, the Planning Commission voted $~ I to
bring this issue to the Council's attention.
Mr. Peabody stated approval of the Planning Commission recommendation would not
only be inconsistent with City policy and inconsistent with the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan, but would also result in the City's General Fund paying the development impact
fees that have been Waived or there will be insufficient funding to build the required
infrastructure.
CITY COUNCIL MIN~s
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 197
Mr. Peabody discussed the present and proposed in-lieu fee structure. The advantage of
the proposed new in-lieu fee coupled with the new 7.5% required new affordable units
is:
The 7.5% of new units will be built.
· In-lieu fees will approximate present in-lieu fees.
· Developers can avoid in-lieu fees if they build the full 15% of total units.
Pierce Macdonald advised that at the July 17, 2001 City Council meeting, the Council
also approved an action to establish priority areas for affordable housing in new
developments in the City. The Priority Area Policy developed by Staff included:
· Purpose and Definition of Priority Areas for Affordable Housing
· What Criteria Should Be Used
· How City Staff Would Work with the Development Community
The policy for Priority Areas for Affordable Housing would encourage affordable units to
be built.
In summary, Staff recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing; waive
the reading and introduce either the Ordinance as recommended by Staff or as
recommended by the Planning Commission; adopt Resolution amending Resolution No.
131-01 establishing the method for determining the amount of Housing In-Lieu Fees;
adopt Resolution adopting an Affordable Housing Policy; and review Planning
Commission Memorandum regarding waiver of development fees for affordable units.
Cm. Oravetz stated the Planning Commission difference was 10% instead of 15%.
Cm. Zika stated this still works out to be about $2.00 and $1.50 per square foot.
Mr. Peabody stated the fee would be slightly higher. The numbers which Staff ran were
pretty close.
Bruce Fiedler, Hemlock Street, stated he had 4 points to make. First, maintain the 15%
figure from the previous Ordinance with at least 7.5% must build, with 7.5%
permissible in-lieu at the $72,000 level formula. Second, he likes the idea of flexibility.
There are some important incentives for building. Support for smart growth locations
and suggested fee waivers to the extent they are supported by commercial nexus that
provides funds. Today the Federal Reserve Bank kept their low rates. There is money
available for development, however, land is not so readily available. He discussed a
neighboring City's housing plan which was recently developed. Dublin may be the only
CITY COUNCIL MINIYrEs
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 198
game in this part of the central Valley. The City of Pasadena is undergoing a suit because
people in their community found their affordable housing plan is not actually getting
housing built. Our dollars could be better spent building units than in court.
Cm. Oravetz asked what he thought of the Planning Commission's recommendation
about waiving fees.
Mr. Fiedler replied any time you waive fees, they have to be made up somehow.
Cynthia Morse, North Lake Drive' stated she is a real affordable housing advocate, which
started by her needing it herself. She talks to people all over Dublin and they always end
up talking about affordable housing. People are concerned about the children, about the
future of the City and about what they pay for rent now and how they will take care of
their families if the rent goes up. Everyone is proud of the City for making a commitment
to the future of the City. Not everyone wants large homes.
Jennifer Mosel, Spruce Lane, stated it was last May when she was saying this would never
happen. In June, she came to a City Council meeting and it is happening. She felt so
great with Dublin being in the forefront. She encouraged us to keep the 15%. We need
to take a leap here. Let's be at the front leading the parade, and not at the back. The task
force appointed to look at the whole pie will be bringing the bigger picture. This is two
very important pieces of a bigger picture. She spoke on the SO-year limitation. She
cautioned that we don't want to go through this again. Eventually we will run out of
land. We want to hang onto the units. She reminded who the affordable housing
recipients are. Were she not married to an engineer, her social worker's salary would
put her in a low income unit. She stated she would be proud to live next to her clients.
Many of them live paycheck to paycheck and they provide a vital part of our community.
Keep on keeping on. She commended the Council and requested that they adopt it and
don't make changes; keep the 15%.
Maurine Behrend, San Ramon, stated she was a part of the study group and it was a great
privilege. She was disappointed that the Planning Commission was not aware of the need
to go with the full 15%. She distributed a chart from the non-profit housing association.
There is nervousness in each of us when taking a leap, but she encouraged us to go for it.
Linda Mandolini, Hayward, Executive Director of EDEN Housing, stated she has served
on two committees here in Dublin. She commended the Council for going here and
increasing the in-lieu fees. Go for the 15%. First and foremost, the Ordinance should
allow flexibility. The Ordinance gets housing built. Building the 7.5% is really
important. The committee talked about how important commercial linkage fees are.
CITY COUNCIL ~NUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 199
Maybe we could consider some fee waivers. The policy allows this on a case~by~case
basis as this affects the affordability.
Marry Inderbitzen, Pleasanton, representing Dublin Ranch, stated he also served on the
committee and thanked the City for the opportunity. They have been working hand in
hand with the City since 1984 or 1985 and it is a privilege to work with Staff and this
City Council as well as former City Councils. It is much more effective to Use a carrot
than a stick. There is no doubt that this City is an inclusive City. You are the location of
a number of affordable housing projects and will get many more as we move forward.
He discussed Pleasanton's numbers and policies. Dublin is where it's at and Dublin will
be the place where people will look for affordable housing opportunities in the Valley.
This is good. The Planning Commission proposal doesn't change the must build number.
This only changes the in~lieu fee portion. This money in the end gets transferred to the
market rate buyer. In some places in the Ordinance, the term project is used. In a
couple of other places it talks about development. It should be clarified if
development/project are the same. They would prefer to discuss the ways in which they
can address affordable housing comprehensively, as opposed to having to deal with this
on a subdivision~by~subdivision basis. The section at the end of 8.68.040 E refers to
waiver of requirements. ~The City Council~ at its discretion, may waive, wholly or
partially, the requirements of this Ordinance and approve alternate methods of
compliance with this chapter if the applicant demonstrates, and the Ci& Council l~'nds,
that such alternate methods meet the purposes o£ this chapter. '~ He stated he would
appreciate it if direction could be given to staff and to him if this is an invitation to have
comprehensive discussions about affordable housing on a large project basis. This would
apply to very large developments. Second issue 8.68.030 C talks about conditions of
approval, r~Any tenta~'ve map, conch'tional use permit, or site development review
approving residential development projects subject to this chapter shall contain
conditions sufficient to ensure compliance w~th the provisions of this chapter. Such
conditions shall detail the number of affordable units required, specify the schedule of
construction of affordable units, set forth the applicant's manner of compliance with this
chapter and require the execution of an agreement imposing appropriate resale controls
and/or rentalrestrictions on the affordable units." One is to specify and the next is
concurrent construction. All affordable housing units shall be constructed. There is
potential for conflict in these terms. It's not clear what is added or detracted from the
next section and this could lead to cOnfusiOn. SeCtion 8.68.040c talks abOUt land
dedication. Subsection 3 says, "that the developer has provided or will provide adequate
securi& that the number of units that the applicant would otherwise be required to
constructpursuant to 8. G8.030 A will be constructed on the dechbated land" He stated
he is confused by this section. He thought the dedication of land meets the requirements
so where does the security come in?
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 200
Phil Serna, with Homebuilders Association of Northern California, thanked Mr. Peabody
and Staff for the invitation to the development community to be at the table to talk about
how this will take shape. His one grievance during the whole process was that they felt
rushed. He understands the urgency, however, there is still outstanding concern that by
focusing on just one aspect in maximizing affordable housing opportunities, they felt
they were being targeted early in the process instead of dealing with the whole process.
As a compliment to inclusionary zoning, one of problems in deed restrictions for
ownership units is they can't recognize equity from the units. An approach that looks at
more multi~family rental units in.addition to inclusionary, and a lower rental payment
could be offered thereby allowing savings for down payment to get into ownership
existence and get equity to realize some economic mobility. They weren't able to
examine alternative avenues to inclusionary zoning. They did not discuss the
commercial linkage fee and we really have no idea what the total pool of resources will
be. This should have been done at the same time as the inclusionary housing policy was
adopted. He distributed an analysis that looks at the back end sales price and referenced
the figures on this analysis.
Cm. Zika commented on the statistics on Mr. Serna's sheet. Going from 5 to 10% would
steadily increase the price of a home and then it takes a very big leap. Why is this?
Mr. Serna explained how the costs were spread.
Allison Brooks, Oakland, commended the City Council and Staff for working hard on
creating this Ordinance. She stated she doesn't envy their job. The role of government is
to balance all of the interests in the community and create policies that represent all in
the community. Our 5% has not created any housing in the community. This Ordinance
will do a good job representing a population that has been underserved up to this point.
To put it at 10%, you would have 7.5% must build, but only a 2.5% in~lieu option. The
15% will really only raise the in~lieu portion by 2.5%. There is a group in Dublin that
need rental opportunities. What will the impact be if we reduce the 15% to 10% and
how will future housing programs be impacted?
John Chapman, Danville, stated he serves on the Tri~Valley Vision Team, and another
group that grants money and they are deeply connected to low income. He discussed a
paradox in the last few years. Several trends impact prices and incomes have not kept
pace with childcare and housing. Affordable housing has fallen off. It is all about how
and where we build affordable housing. The East Bay and Tri~Valley are sprinkled with
wonderful opportunities where affordable units exist. This Ordinance will
institutionalize something that middle and upper income people take for granted.
Inclusionary zoning increases the chances that low and moderate income people can live
in desirable neighborhoods. This includes police officers, teachers and productive
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 201
members of our community. Being last means we can be best. Danville has 15% and
San Ramon recently adopted 25%.
Ruthy Talansky, Senior Project Manager with EAH, Inc., stated they have been developing
affordable housing in the Bay area for over $0 years. She agreed that the 15% is a great
leap, but well worth the leap. The flexibility in this Ordinance is very important. Many
residents cannot afford a single family detached home, even with a subsidy. She
addressed Mr. Serna's comments about inclusionary zoning being paid for on the backs
of homebuyers. One of the options is the developer will make less profit. It is not only
that the market rate buyers will have to bear the brunt of the Ordinance. She
commended all the work the City has done.
Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing.
Cm. Oravetz asked how much in~lieu fees money we have.
Mr. Peabody responded we have between $6 and $7 million.
Cm. Oravetz asked if this included the $1 million we put in this year.
Mr. Ambrose stated the $1 million was predicated on us having a $4.5 million surplus.
We will have a better idea if the City will realize a 2001 ~2002 surplus after we put the
2002~2003 budget together.
Cm. Oravetz asked where we are with the commercial linkage fee.
Mr. Peabody advised that we are working on the schedule and still waiting for the census
information we need. It may well be close to the end of the year before Staff can come
back with specific recommendations. We have between 5 and ¢ million square feet of
commercial and if we use what Pleasanton uses, 50 cents, this would raise $2.5 million
in commercial linkage money. Many cities have a fee of 50 or 75 or 80 cents. It is not a
tremendous source of income.
Mayor Lockhart asked if it is possible to tie a linkage fee to a waiver program.
Mr. Ambrose stated these are two separate things. How do you decide how a fee by one
developer would allow you to waive a fee for another developer?
Mayor Lockhart gave example of affordable senior housing and asked if we could cross
the pools of money.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 202
Cm. Sbranti stated once money goes into the pot, we can designate how to use the money.
Ms. Silver explained the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, the in-lieu fee and the
commercial linkage fee. The study will look to see if the development of projects
generate the need for affordable housing as a result of the employees who will be
working at those projects. The study will look to see if there is a nexus between an office
or commercial site and affordable housing.
Mr. Ambrose stated when we get our 2000 census data, we can get the consultant going
on the study. We can only say what our neighboring communities are doing at this
point.
Ms. Silver advised that if the study concludes that there is a need, then the uses can be
determined based on the study.
Cm. Sbranti commented when the study goes forward, any commercial building we can
use that for any kind of low and moderate housing options. He asked about how many
square feet of commercial we have.
Mr. Peabody stated we have close to 6 million square feet of commercial to go in our 10
million remaining square feet in eastern Dublin.
Cm. Zika talked about rezoned areas in western Dublin.
Mr. Peabody stated this would be added to the fee.
Cm. McCormick asked for clarification about the issue of land dedication that Mr.
Inderbitzen brought up.
Mr. Peabody referenced page 4 of proposed Ordinance, Section 8.68.040 C #3. The
reason this was put in was an attempt to ensure these units would be built. He stated this
particular portion could be eliminated as far as he was concerned.
Cm. Sbranti stated with regard to the Planning Commission memo, in looking at the
fiscal impact and how this meets with our General Plan. In the exception of affordable
housing we would allow fee waivers in the east. What would be the fiscal impact on the
general fund?
Mr. Peabody stated we would require 7.5% build and 7.5% pay fees and we have about
10,000 units left to go, using this approach and a development impact fee requirement
fee of $45,000 per unit, this would be waiving $35 million in fees.
CITY CO0~CiL ~~
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 203
Mr. Ambrose clarified that if you exempt a certain element, you can't pass the cost on to
other developers because they are only paying their share of the impact on infrastructure.
This could be pretty significant. Once you open this door the impacts could be
significant.
Cm. Sbranti agreed that the fiscal impacts are pretty substantial.
Mayor Lockhart stated she remembered back to the 1903 annexation when a major
promise was made to residents, and that was that new development would pay for itself.
Cm. Oravetz stated he thought the Planning Commission was interested in flexibility.
Mr. Ambrose stated deferral was put in as flexibility.
Cm. Zika stated you can have the same practical effect by helping the low income units
be fiscally viable. This way you don't start a bad trend. The in~lieu money could help
pay down the cost of low and very low units. We haven't determined which method we
will use on the for sale units. Some participation could be used with shared equity. He
stated he did not feel 30 years is enough. It should be in perpetuity.
Cm. Sbranti commented on the numbers presented by Phil Serna and the impacts on
market rate housing. He asked if the City has any numbers or estimates independent of
the numbers presented on the cost of market housing?
Mr. Peabody stated we used some of his numbers in the development of the Ordinance.
Mayor Lockhart asked about the 30 years. A lot of communities, on the rental units, are
doing this in perpetuity.
Mr. Peabody stated he is familiar with 55 years for rental housing. The 30~year term
that we have comes from our present Ordinance, which is a standard mortgage term. If
financing were provided by agencies that have a higher term, we would use a longer
period.
Cm. Zika stated the state issues low income tax credits and this is where the 55 year
figure came from.
Mayor Lockhart asked if we can change ours?
Mr. Peabody stated yes. For rental housing the term is generally 5 $ years.
CITY COUNCIL ~N~$
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May ?, 2002
PAGE 204
Mayor Lockhart suggested looking at 55 years for rental units and for sale units.
Mayor Lockhart stated she was concerned when we take pot shots at neighboring cities.
This does not benefit us or our neighboring cities. Each city has their own reason for
what they are doing.
Mayor Lockhart asked about Mr. Inderbitzen's concerns with using the term
project/development.
Mr. Peabody stated the premise of the Ordinance is any project over 20 units has to deal
with the conditions. We can straighten this out. If you do more than 20 units in a single
development project, you have got to do the Ordinance.
Mr. Ambrose stated there is one development in Dublin Ranch with 7 distinct subdivision
projects. Phase 1 had 0 different subdivisions.
Ms. Silver stated this doesn't arise at the zoning level, but the determination is made at
the tentative map time. Staff looks to see if it is 20 or more units. Section 8.68.050 C
Conditions of Approval is quite clear. ~Any tentative map, condit~bnal use perrni6 or site
development review approving resident'al development projects subject to this chapter
shall contain condi~'ons suf~'cient to ensure compliance with the provisions of this
chapter. Such conch'tions shall detail the number of affordable units required, specify the
schedule of construction of affordable units, set forth the applicanFs manner of
compliance with this chapter, and require the execution of an agreement imposin$
appropriate resale controls and/or rental restrictions on the affordable units."
Cm. Sbranti stated this does seem like an important distinction.
Mr. Ambrose stated when you look at a large area such as Dublin Ranch, sometimes you
don't know how many tentative maps you will get. If you look at it at the PD or zoning
level, you may miss your 7.5%.
Mr. Peabody commented that in the first phase of Dublin Ranch, it started out with one
owner, but it split into multiple owners who eventually owned the whole project.
Cm. Zika clarified that we want all the units disbursed throughout a project.
Mayor Lockhart asked for an explanation of waiver ability of the City Council.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 205 .
Mr. Peabody stated the new Ordinance says you may waive wholly or partially the
conditions of this Ordinance if the Council should so choose. This would be on a case~
by~case basis.
Mayor Lockhart stated earlier someone had a question about units being built
concurrently.
Mr. Peabody stated this was put in for a reason. Affordable housing units must be built
when the rest of the project is built. In long~term projects, there has to be some
assurances that the units will be built.
Cm. Sbranti had questions related to the proposed in-lieu increase. Do we know the
percentage or dollar increase over the current fee? How does this approximate per
dwelling unit7
Mr. Ambrose stated this is an unfair comparison. This compares part of the requirement
of the new Ordinance to all of the requirements of the current Ordinance since we are
not building anything, but just collecting a fee. If you have a 4,000 sq ft home it would
be $8,000 per unit.
Mayor Lockhart stated a year ago, the Council made a commitment to use the fee to build
housing.
Cm. Oravetz stated he felt we are in a good position. No matter what we decide on
tonight, we will have a 7.5% must build. The commercial linkage fee is a big unknown
at this time. We could have another big bucket of money. We don't want to put this all
on the backs of developers. Why not go a little slower and increase the fee from 5% to
10%7
Mayor Lockhart stated she did not feel we are going too fast. It has taken us 20 years to
get to this point. She commented she was disappointed that no one from the Planning
Commission showed up to discuss their strong feelings and actions.
Cm. Zika stated he felt 10% is too low but 15% may be too high. He has fought for
affordable units since the day he got on the City Council. It is not fair to put it all on the
backs of new development. He suggested we allow 7.5% must build and allow 4.5 % in~
lieu fees and make up the rest with the linkage fee. If they build the 7.5% must build,
then this gets us to 12%.
Cm. McCormick stated it is really not fair that many parents cannot have their children
live in the same community. She stated she is really passionate about this. She never has
CITY COUNC~ ~N~S
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 206
a week go by that people don't talk to her about the need for affordable housing. We
need to fix this and this is our opportunity to fix it. To squabble about 1% here and there
is ridiculous. We have 20 years of wrongs to right. Bite the bullet and d° what's right.
Mayor Lockhart stated she felt the people she represents are those Who do her nails, cut
her hair, and teach her grandchildren. There are actually people on waiting lists to buy
homes. This is still happening in the Valley. The people they need to represent are the
ones who are clogging the freeway because they can't afford to live here. This is the
opportunity to do something for these people. You can't have it both ways. Staff has
done an excellent job coming up with a hybrid ordinance that can work; 15% with 7.5%
must build and then 7.5% for us to do something for ourselves.
Cm. Oravetz stated he had no problem with the 7.5% must build. Cm. Zika has offered
up a compromise and he stated he felt 12.5% would be a win/win situation.
Cm. Sbranti stated everyone is committed to affordable housing. The 7.5% must build is
absolute. A year ago he would have said yes to 15% because we didn't have any
programs. With some of the programs we want to do, we will need more than the 2.5%
in the pot. He is looking at 12.5%. This gives us 7.5 must build and still 5%. The
developers will not lose whether we go with 15 or 20 or 5. When businesses have a cost,
they pass it on to consumers. One of his goals is to develop affordable by design. We can
look at ways to develop units under 11 O0 square feet for sale. In this case, going from
$300,000 to $315,000 could break the deal. He suggested we go with 7.5% must build
with 5% inclusionary which gives a total of 12.5%. This is part of our ongoing process.
This is not the end of the game. As we move forward, if we aren't collecting enough
money, we may increase the 5%.
Cm. McCormick made a motion, which was seconded by Mayor Lockhart, to waive the
reading and introduce the Ordinance recommended by Staff, and to adopt the two
Resolutions. Also, amend the land dedication section and eliminate this from the
Ordinance. Also, change the years on both rental properties and for sale units from 30
years to 55 years. This motion was defeated due to NO votes cast by Councilmembers
Oravetz, Sbranti and Zika.
Cm. Sbranti made a motion to introduce the Ordinance with the exception of doing
12.5% with 7.5% must build. Section 8.68.O40A in-lieu fee would therefore change to
40% from half. He also included the change in years on both rental properties and for
sale units from 30 years to 55 years. He agreed to include the other changes as
discussed.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 207
On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the Council
waived the reading and INTRODUCED an Ordinance amending Chapter 8.(38 of the
Dublin Municipal Code relating to Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Attachment 2); and
adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 56- 02
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 131-01
ESTABLISHING THE METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT
OF HOUSING IN-LIEU FEES
and
RESOLUTION NO. 57 -02
APPROVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRIORITY AREAS POLICY
RECESS
9:35 p.m.
Mayor Lockhart called for a short recess. All Councilmembers were present when the
meeting reconvened.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENTS TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE - DUBLIN
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.4
9:4(3 p.m. (3.3 ((340~40)
Mayor Lockhart stated this item was being pulled from the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
AMENDMENT TO DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE
FOR AN INCREASE IN THE SALARY FOR MEMBERS OF THE CITy COUNCIL
9:47 p.m. (3.4 (700~20)
Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing.
CITY CO~CIL
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 208
City Attorney Elizabeth Silver presented the Staff Report and advised that in accordance
with State Law, this proposed Ordinance would increase the salary for Councilmembers
by 5% for calendar years 2001 and 2002 (from $565.68 to $623.66 per month) effective
following the November 2002 election. The Mayor receives an additional $100 per
month.
The last increase in Council salaries was effective following the November 2000 election.
No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue.
Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing.
Cm. Oravetz stated he opposes this. There is something inherently wrong with
politicians giving themselves a raise.
Cm. Sbranti asked how this is calculated.
Mr. Ambrose explained that the formula is provided by State Law.
Cm. Sbranti stated he felt incrementally is more fair.
Mayor Lockhart stated this is not a Council that operates by committee. They operate
with one stipend amount.
On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by majority vote, the Council
waived the reading and INTRODUCED the Ordinance amending Dublin Municipal Code
Section 2.08.020 and providing for an increase in the salary for members of the City
Council. Cm. Oravetz voted in opposition to the motion.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS
9:52 p.m. 7.1 (200-30)
Administrative Analyst Jason Behrmann presented the Staff Report and advised that at the
request of Council, Staff has worked with a design consultant to develop two Council
Chamber lighting improvement alternatives that would be appropriate for a Council
Chamber broadcast setting.
Mr. Behrmann discussed the two options, track lighting or recessed fixture.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 209
The track lighting option would affix 12 fixtures directed at the Council dais and a
separate track with two fixtures directed at the public podium to the ceiling. The
advantage of track lighting is that it is a flexible, movable system that can be easily
adjusted. The total cost of the track lighting, including installation, is approximately
$25,750.
A second option for consideration is recessed fixtures that would be inset in the ceiling.
The primary advantage of the recessed fixtures is the aesthetics. The recessed fixtures
would cost approximately $$$,055.
Cm. McCormick asked about the circumstances that would need the flexibility of track
lighting.
Mr. Behrmann stated if other groups conducted meetings in the Chambers, the track
lighting could be maneuvered to accommodate different setups.
Cm. McCormick asked if Brian Kane & Associates had suggested pink lights?
Mr. Behrmann advised that the design was similar to video conferencing. The wattage
would be the same whether it is track or recessed lighting.
Mayor Lockhart indicated that she would like to see us do it the right way.
Cm. Oravetz stated the DUSD has been talking about televising their meetings and felt
the City should offer them the use of this facility for their meetings.
Mayor Lockhart stated once we have televising capabilities, there are several other
groups that may want to use our facility.
Mr. Behrmann stated that at a recent school board meeting, there were comments about
asking the City for use of this facility.
Cm. Sbranti concurred once we do this, it could benefit everybody.
On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote, the
Council determined that additional lighting should be installed in the Council Chambers
to improve meeting broadcasts and selected the option for recessed fixtures.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME £ 1
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 210
DUBLIN PUBLIC LIBRARY TIME CAPSULE
10:04 p.m. 7.2 (940-50/910-40)
Parks & Community Services Director Diane Ix>wart presented the Staff Report and
discussed the many items that have been submitted to date for inclusion in the time
capsule, including a recent request from Mayor Lockhart to include the U.S. Flag that
was given to us by FDNY Firefighter Richard Dore, which was flown over the World
Trade Center since September 11,2001, terrorist attacks. In order to coordinate with the
Library construction schedule, the time capsule needs to be placed into the ground the
week of July 21, 2002.
Ms. Lowart advised that because of space constraints, it may not be possible to include all
of the items that have been submitted in the timecapsule. Therefore, Staff requested
direction on the following:
1. Should a subcommittee of the Council be formed to work with Staff on the selection
process or should Staff decide based on overall direction from the Council?
2. Are there items that are not on the list that the City Council would like to see included
in the time capsule?
Staff also requested direction from the Council as to whether there should be a ceremony
when the time capsule is placed in the ground.
Cm. McCormick indicated that, in looking over the list of proposed items, she felt we
should focus on items that just relate to Dublin. Store catalogs should be Dublin-based
stores. Also, why use room putting in magazines such as Time, which don't really relate
to Dublin? She was sure there are Coke and Pepsi museums somewhere already.
Everything should relate to the City.
Cm. Zika agreed with Cm. McCormick, and then asked if books and magazines would be
stored in an atmosphere where they are preserved? The Chamber of Commerce
magazine might be more appropriate than the SanJo~ or New' York Times.
Cm. Sbranti felt an aerial photo taken this year is important for historical perspective,
and making a concerted effort to get pictures of some of the community groups would be
interesting.
Ms. Lowart stated we are sending out reminder letters to local organizations indicating
that June 1 ~ is the actual deadline for item submittals.
CITY coUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
KEGUI~R MEETING
Malt 7, 2002
PAGE 211
Cm. Oravetz suggested High School and Middle School pictures could be included.
Cm. McCormick indicated that we should have a ceremcmy of some kind and document
where the time capsule was located.
Ms. Ix>wart stated the time capsule would be placed underneath a slab of concrete, which
will be labeled. Its location would also be documented in the City Clerk's Office.
The Council concurred.
Mayor Ix>ckhart recommended that she and Cm. McCormick serve on a selection
subcommittee.
The Council concurred.
CITY'S ANNUAL VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION AWARDS DINNER
10:12 p.m. 8.1 (610~50)
Assistant to the City Manager Julie Carter presented the Staff Report and advised that the
City held its first Awards Dinner on October 5, 2001 at the Monarch Hotel. A Council
sub~committee determined that the event should be held the first Friday in October
annually. The event was well attended with over 200 in attendance; however, it was
noted that several of the City's youth volunteers were unable to attend due to a conflict
with Dublin High School's Homecoming Football Game.
Ms. Carter advised that the DHS Homecoming Game will again conflict with the pre-
planned date of Friday, October 4th this year. Based upon this information, Staff
contacted the Monarch Hotel to confirm alternative dates available in October. The
Monarch Hotel has confirmed availability of the Grand Ball RoOm on Friday, OCtober
11th should the Council desire to move the annual date of this event.
Council agreed to a date of October 1 lth.
Mayor Lockhart indicated that she liked the idea of video the way we did last year, as
opposed to speakers talking about each group.
Mayor Lockhart and Cm. Zika will serve on the event committee.
CITY COUNCIL
VOLUME 2 I
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 212
EMERALD GLEN PARK PHASE II - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
10:113 p.m. 8.2 (1300~30)
Parks & Facilities Development Manager Herma Lichtenstein presented the Staff Report
and advised that Phase II of Emerald Glen Park will complete the corner of the park at
Tassajara Road and Central Parkway, including a lake with fountain and arbor structure.
The project also includes a maintenance storage area, temporary parking, and street
frontage landscaping. In order to proceed with development of Phase II, the City retained
the services of Carducci Associates to work with the community on development of the
final design of the park improvements and to prepare the construction documents and
bid specifications.
The Emerald Glen Park Master Plan was approved by the City Council in 1998 and lays
the groundwork for development of the 51.7~acre park by documenting the goals,
priorities and design parameters that will govern the development of each phase of the
park.
Phase I was completed in FY 2000~01 and encompassed approximately 29.13 acres of the
park.
Ms. Lichtenstein discussed the Phase II improvements and design alternatives.
On April 15, 2002, the proposed design was presented to the Parks & Community
Services Commission. The Commission approved the design with the following
recommendations: delete the picnic tables adjacent to the water feature and replace
them with benches only; reconsider the gazebo structure in place of the arbor; and
expand the temporary parking lot. The Commission also expressed concern with the lack
of restroom facilities to serve this area of the park.
The current project budget is $1,457,900, which is based on the City's FY 2001 ~02
Update to the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. The current design estimate
totals $1,13t30,500 and includes the following: Water Feature ~ $1,141,004, Maintenance
Yard ~ $ 213:3,502, Temporary Parking ~ $122,8 t31, and Street Frontage Improvements ~
$133,134. During the next phase of the project, Staff and the Consultants will continue
to refine the scope of work to identify potential cost savings that can be achieved without
compromising the project design. Staff will also work to identify sources of additional
funding for the project.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 213
Ms. Lichtenstein advised that the proposed revised project schedule is:
Conceptual Design Approval May 7, 2002 (Council)
Construction Documents complete for Permit August 2002
Permit Set Approval September 17, 2002 (CounCil)
Issue for Bids January 2003
Award of Bid March 3, 2003 (Council)
Project Completion September 2003
At the April 2, 2002 meeting, the City Council approved an Agreement with the Dublin
Fine Arts Foundation and Artist Ned Kahn to design and construct an artwork for
Emerald Glen Park. As the artwork has not been approved by Dublin Fine Arts
Foundation, and because the artwork will have an impact on the construction
documents, the City's Consultant will be delayed in beginning work on the construction
documents. However, if the City Council approved the January 2003 bid date, the delay
in beginning development of the construction documents because of the artwork should
not affect the overall project schedule.
In summary, Staff requested that the City Council approve the Conceptual Design and
provide direction on the following items:
a) Replacement of picnic tables adjacent to water feature with benches
b) Replacement of arbor structure with gazebo
c) Expansion and/or paving of temporary parking area
d) IncluSion of temporary restroom facilities in this project
Mr. Vincent Lattanzio, Carducci Associates, made a PowerPoint presentation, which
outlined the various proposals.
Cm. Zika thanked him for the way Carducci Associates conducted the public meetings.
The public was given options and their opinions were considered and incorporated,
whenever possible.
Mayor Ix~ckhart asked for the exact location of the maintenance area.
Mr. Lattanzio stated it is off Gleason Road and showed the location on the map. It is to
the west of the ball field. Security lighting will be on all night.
Cm. Zika asked about getting strollers to certain areas of the park.
Ms. Lichtenstein stated they are still working on the issue.
cITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 2 I
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 214
Kasie Hildenbrand, Westwood Court, thanked City Staff and Carducci Associates. They
did a great job at the public meetings. Overall she felt the residents will be happy with
what ultimately goes out there. She would like to see us keep the picnic tables, and
would like to see some temporary restrooms rather than portables near the children's
playground. She urged us to complete Phase II as soon as possible.
Cm. Sbranti asked about the rationale behind replacing the picnic tables with benches.
Ms. Lichtenstein advised that there was a concern about having picnic tables so close to
the water might cause a trash issue with papers getting into the pond. The other issue
was the distance from the temporary parking to that area.
Ms. Hildenbrand thought the majority of people walk to the park and bring little totes
with them.
Rich Guarienti, Rhoda Avenue, voiced his support for this process. He has been one of
the original watchdogs for Emerald Glen Park. His questions to Carducci Associates were
quickly addressed. The water feature will be nice. From a senior point of view, it's nice
to have a place to sit down and rest your arms, and he supports having picnic tables and
not eliminating them. In the long term, he hoped there will be a way to walk around the
park without walking into the street, and suggested putting a sidewalk completely
around the park before finishing the rest.
Mayor Lockhart agreed that we need picnic tables. The picnic tables allow people the
opportunity to do more than just sit and reflect.
The Council concurred.
Cm. McCormick stated she liked the arbor structure.
Cm. Sbranti complimented Staff on the deconstruction plan for the park. The recycled
use of existing materials was very efficient.
On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Sbranti, and by unanimous vote, the
Council approved conceptual design, omiting Items A & B and including Items C & D.
CITY CO~CIL ~N~S
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 215
BROWN ACT AND POLITICAL REFORM ACT OUTLINE PRESENTATION
10:49 p.m. 8.5 (610-20)
City Attorney Elizabeth Silver presented the Staff Report and advised that the Council's
goals and objectives for FY 2001-02 call for a presentation to the Council on the Brown
Act and Political Reform Act. She introduced one of her partners, Leeann Randolph, who
would make the presentation.
Leeann Randolph made the presentation. Under the Brown Act, Ms. Randolph
summarized the topics: · General Rule
· Who is Covered?
· What is a Meeting?
· Types of Meetings or "Non~meetings".
Under the Political Reform Act: Conflicts of Interest, Ms. Randolph discussed the topics: · General Rule
· Public Official Defined
· Where is There a Conflict?
· Disqualification if Conflict Exists
· Limitations on Gifts
· How to Obtain Advice
· Penalties for Violation of the Political Reform Act
· Constitutional Prohibition
· Government Code Section 1000
· Common Law - Conflict of Interest
· Ex Parte Contracts
Cm. McCormick asked for the definition of "City business."
Ms. Randolph stated, as an example, Councilmembers could attend a League conference
session on commercial linkage fees, but could not discuss it, or come to a consensus, with
the other Councilmembers who make up a quorum at the conference on how it could
affect Dublin.
Ms. Randolph concluded her presentation by stating that whenever a Councilmember
had a question regarding possible conflicts, they should call the City Attorney's Office.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 216
OTHER BUSINESS
11:10 p.m.
Mr. Ambrose advised that a LAFCO hearing was scheduled for Thursday, May 9th at 4:30
p.m. in Castro Valley.
Mr. Ambrose indicated that a DRFA meeting was scheduled for ¢ p.m. on Tuesday, May
28*h, in San Ramon.
Mayor Lockhart requested updates on committee meetings attended by Council.
Cm. Oravetz attended a League East Bay Division meeting, during which time they
discussed youth in government. Another issue discussed and agreed upon was a cost
increase to $40 per meeting from the current $$0. The next meeting will be May 15.
Cm. Sbranti will represent the City at that meeting.
Cm. Oravetz also attended a LAVTA meeting, during which time internal issues were
discussed but nothing changed.
Cm. Zika attended a Valley-wide meeting with Post Office representatives on Thursday
May 2"u, and announced that, within next $0 days, signs will be posted limiting parking
to 15 minutes. The parking lot will be patrolled and tickets will be issued to violators.
Cm. Zika announced that the Post Office would also be open on Saturdays from 10 a.m.-
2 p.m. This is a big step forward. Post Office representatives had also requested
assistance from City Staff to pinpoint a location in Dublin for a new facility.
Cm. Sbranti attended an Alameda County Waste Management meeting, during which
time Dublin was commended and used us as a model for green waste recycling.
Cm. Sbranti indicated that he had heard a report from Alameda County Sheriff's Office
on the closure of the North County Jail, so this may be a potential site for other uses. It
has 500 beds.
Cm. McCormick advised that she had attended a League conference in Sacramento and
complimented Staff and City Manager Ambrose. During the "Assessing Financial
Oversight" Session, they were given a test about how much they knew about the
financial situation in their City. All of our Councilmembers got high marks.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR ~AEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 217
Cm. McCormick attended the ABAG General Assembly and voted on two issues. She
voted to raise the annual dues, which would mean a less than 5% increase for Dublin.
She voted against Torlakson's SB1243 to merge ABAG and MTC. The Bill actually gives
all the money to MTC and makes ABAG an advisory body. They decided to send it back to
Senator Torlakson and get all the parties together.
Cm. McCormick attended Santa Rita's solar energy grand opening event. They are taking
about 40% energy off the grid.
Cm. McCormick attended a Livermore/Dublin Liaison Committee meeting.
Mayor Lockhart indicated that she had attended the League's meeting in Sacramento on
April 17th. She then represented Dublin and the Tri-Valley at an inspirational event in
New York City April 22-24th at the invitation of FDNY Firefighter Richard Dore. On
April 25th she attended the Senior Center volunteer recognition event, which was very
special. The Livermore/Dublin Liaison Committee meeting resulted in a Memorandum
of Understanding between the City of Livermore and Dublin, and Livermore now
supports Dublin's annexation before LAFCO. She thanked Staff efforts'on this issue. She
attended a teacher grants award program on April 30th, which DPIE sponsored. DPIE
gave out almost $20,000 in grants to teachers. Also sponsored by DPIE is the upcoming
student art awards evening at Regal Cinemas on May 2~a, followed by the art auction on
May 10th.
Mayor Lockhart indicated that she attended a LAVTA meeting, during which time they
finally approved a vehicle locater system for bus service in the Valley. She then indicated
that four 5th grade students from Quarry Lane School won a great national science honor
and will be recognized at the May 21 st Council meeting.
Cm. Oravetz stated a resident had contacted the Council with concerns regarding the
lack of Megan's law information on our website. This information will be available on
our website in the near future.
Mayor Lockhart complimented Staff on a very nice Flag ceremony, which was held this
evening prior to the Council meeting. Dublin received a full-size, all-weather U.S. flag,
which was flown over the World Trade Center since September 11, 2001, as a gift from
visiting FDNY Firefighter Richard Dore. It will fly over City Hall until mid-July, when it
will be retired and included in the time capsule.
Mayor Lockhart gave invitations for the "Mutt Strut" fundraiser to each Councilmember.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
REGULAR MEETING
May 7, 2002
PAGE 218
CLOSED SESSION
11:28 p.m.
The Council recessed to a Closed Session to discuss:
1. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation - Government Code Section
54956.9(b) (1) - Facts and Circumstances: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(3) East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development
Plan, Annexation and Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
2. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation - Significant exposure to
litigation pursuant to subdivision (b)(1) of Government Code Section 54956.9 (one
potential case) Facts and Circumstances: Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(C):
Farmers Insurance Group claim.
3. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation - Significant exposure to
litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) (1) of Government Code Section 54956.9 (one
potential case) Facts and Circumstances: Government Code Section 54956(b)(3)(D)
Livermore Area Park and Recreation District announcement of intent to sue to challenge
East Dublin Properties Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
REPORT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION
Mayor Lockhart announced that there was no reportable action on Items 1 and 3.
On Item 2, Mayor Lockhart announced that the Council voted unanimously to approve a
settlement with Farmers Insurance to resolve a claim for subrogation in the amount of
$9,824.6t3. An agreement has not yet been prepared but will be available once signed.
ADJOURNMENT
11.1
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned
~'- '~O City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME £ 1
REGULAR MEETING
May ?, 2002
PAGE 219