Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.01 Draft 05-21-2002 Minute REGULAR MEETING- May 21, 2002 CLOSED SESSION ~ closed session was held at 6:30 p.m., regarding: '1. Conference with Legal Counsel- Existing Litigation - Government Code Section Ii4956.9(a) - Name of Case: Livermore Area Recreation and Park District v. City of Dublin, Alameda Superior Court No. 2002049773 Conference with Legal Counsel- Existing Litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(a) - Name of Case: Pilchard v. City of Dublin, Alameda Superior Court Case No. V-018364-6 A regular meeting of the. Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, May 21, 2002, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by Mayor Lockhart. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers McCormick, Oravetz, Sbranti and Zika, and Mayor Lockhart. ABSENT: None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Mayor McCormick led the Council, Staff and those present in the. pledge of allegiance to the flag. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTION Mayor Lockhart announced that there was no reportable action. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 220 RECOGNITION OF 2,002 DUBLIN PRIDE WEEK POSTER CONTEST WlNNERS~ "MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN DUBLIN" VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATIONS AND "DONATE A TREE" PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS 7:01 p.m. $.1 (150-80) Mayor Lockhart thanked Vice Mayor. McCormick for all of her hard work making Dublin Pride Week a great success° The City CoUncil formally recognized winners of the Dublin Pride Week Poster Contest, "Make A Difference in Dublin" activities, and "Donate-a-Tree" participants. Organizations recognized for "Make A Difference in Dublin" projects included: Creek Clean-Up: Dublin Lions Club, Tri~Valley Teen Group, Dublin High School Leadership Class, Dublin Leo Club, as well as many families and individuals. "Drains to the Bay" Storm Drain Painting: Dublin 4~H Club Kaleidoscope Activity Center Project: Stan Ostrowski and Bovis Corporation, as well as other contractors. Senior Yard Clean~Up and Repair Projects: John Morrison. Post Contest First Place Prize Winners: Nicole S°nobe Dougherty Elementary Michael Pecota Wells Middle School Brandon Krumbach Dougherty Elementary Tomohiko Minase Frederiksen Elementary Claire Newman Murray Elementary Maddie McClay Murray Elementary Poster Contest Grand Prize Winner: Matt Pecota, 4th Grade, Nielsen Elementary. "Donate~A~Tree" Program participants: Rascano Family, Dublin Women's Club, Melody and Bart Schumer (Dublin Auto Works), Georgean Vonheeder~Leopold, Luso American Life Insurance Society, ValleyCare Health Systems, Livermore Dublin Disposal, Paul and Barbara Moffatt, Wells Middle School Student Body, the Terbijhe Family, Virginia Pippen and Sharon Clay. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 2 I · G REGULAR MEE~I IN Date May 21,2002 PAGE 221 Cm. McCormick thanked the Chamber of Commerce and Livermore Dublin Disposal for all their help on the Committee. She also thanked the principal of Wells School~ Staffmember Jason Behrmann and MCE. PROCLAMATION 7:18 p.m. 3.2 (610~50) Mayor Lockhart read a proclamation recognizing Quarry Lane School Students Alejandra Dean, Nicole Rumore, Sara Savarani and Christy Tadros for their 1st place win in the l0th Annual ExploraVision International Science Competition. A Certificate of Recognition was presented to each student. CONSENT CALENDAR 7:26 p.m. Items 4.1 through 4.10 Cm. McCormick pulled Items 4.2, 4.5, and 4.6 from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Lockhart pulled Items 4.7 and 4.9 from the Consent Calendar. On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Zika~ and by unanimous vote~ the Council took the following actions: Approved (4.1) Minutes of Special Meeting of May 1, 2002, and Regular Meeting of May 7, 2002; Received (4.3 330~50) the Financial Report for the Month of April 2002; Adopted (4.4 590~40) RESOLUTION NO. 58 - 02 AUTHORIZING APPLICATION TO CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION FOR GRANT FUNDING RELATED TO TRAFFIC SIGNAL BATFERY BACKUP SYSTEMS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 2 I REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 222 Adopted (4.8 600~$5) RESOLUTION NO. 59 - 02 AWARDING CONTRACT NO. 02-05 2001-2002 ANNUAL SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM TO VALLEY SLURRY SEAL COMPANY Approved (4. I0 300-40) the Warrant Register in the amount of $1,020,053.25. Cm. McCormick pulled Item 4.2 and asked why this item was on the Consent Calendar when the Staff Report recommendation indicated this was a Public Hearing. Community Development Director Eddie Peabody indicated that it was a clerical error; a public hearing was not necessary. On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted (4.2 600-40) RESOLUTION NO. 60 - 02 AUTHORIZING A COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE ALAMEDA URBAN COUNTY CDBG/HOME FUNDS PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 2003-2005 (THREE YEARS) Cm. McCormick pulled Item 4.5 and noted that the Staff Report indicated that the overflow architect would be assisting with the proposed Transit center. She indicated that we should be careful to hire an architect with very specialized experience dealing with transit centers. This is an extremely important project, and we need to do it right. Associate Planner Kristi Bascom indicated that the contract is actually for an architectural consultant to work on a wide variety of projects. The transit center was included as an example of expected future projects. This architect may or may not work on the transit center project. Cm. McCormick asked if there were plans to bring in a specialized architect for the transit center. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 223 City Manager Richard Ambrose advised that it is not an issue that Staff has discussed at this point. We don't have a building architect on Staff. We are currently using contract architect Larry Cannon to assist Staff in reviewing the appearance of proposed structures. However, the proposed architect's work could include the transit center, juvenile hall, etc. Staff can further evaluate both Cannon and Babcock's experience. Mayor Lockhart asked if the proper time to address Cm. McCormick's concerns be at the time we are specifically talking about the transit center? Planning Manager Jeri Ram advised that Staff is currently processing the transit center. We are looking at the Master Plan only, not architecture at this point. When we have a project come in, where it's residential or commercial, we use existing Staff or we ask for assistance from a variety of consultants. Larry Cannon is one of our consulting architects. He works with the Applicant's architect to come up with solutions that meet Citywide goals. Currently, we are looking for an additional architect as a backup, particularly for eastern Dublin projects. Cm. McCormick reiterated her concern that we choose an architect with specialized transit center experience, and suggested that Staff bring the issue back as an agenda item. Cm. Oravetz also expressed his concern that we have an experienced architect on this project. Mr. Ambrose asked if the Council's concerns would be alleviated if either Babcock or Cannon had the necessary experience? The Council concurred. Ms. Ram advised that Larry Cannon does have the experience. He has been working on the Pleasant Hill BART Station and he's worked in the Contra Costa County's Redevelopment Agency. We are trying to get a broad range of experience for incoming projects. On motion by Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Sbranti, and with a unanimous vote, the Council adopted (4.5 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 61 -02 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH DAVID BABCOCK AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT, ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS FOR OVERFLOW SERVICES IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RELATED TO PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS and authorized the Community Development Director to execute the agreement. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME £ 1 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 224 Cm. McCormick pulled Item 4.6 and asked what was happening in terms of a possible change in location for the Juvenile Justice Facility? Ms. Bascom advised that the County, in addition to pursing an alternative location, would continue to study environmental issues for the Eastern Dublin site. The DEIR will be released this summer, and a consultant needs to be on board and prepared when the document is released. Cm. McCormick noted that we would need the consultant to review the proposed Courthouse, regardless of whether or not the Juvenile Justice Facility went forward. On motion by Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and with a unanimous vote, the Council adopted (4.6 600~30) RESOLUTION NO. 62 - 02 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH JERRY HAAG TO CONDUCT A REVIEW AND PREPARE COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT AND FINAL VERSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED EAST COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER AND JUVENILE JUSTICE FACILITY and authorized the Community Development Director to execute the agreement. Mayor Lockhart pulled Item 4.7, indicating that the property owner had submitted written concerns regarding Staff's proposals. Senior Planner Andy Byde clarified that two letters had been received from Attorney Anthony Varni, representing the Jordan Family. The first letter objected to Staff entering the property without permission. The proposed resolution specifies that Staff will work with the property owner and their attorney to gain access to the property. Regarding the second issue, a previously unreleased environmental analysis, including biological issues of Staff concern, for the property, was released earlier this week. This information has been given to our biological consultant for review. This work represents approximately 50% of what the City needs to know in order to make a decision whether or not the 14.1 acres can be used for a sports park. In addition, Mr. Varni has requested that our selected consultant meet with the consultant that did the work previously in 2000-2001 to fine-tune the scope. Staff agreed With Mr. VamPs request. Mayor Lockhart clarified that we would still select a consultant and work with the property owners to look at the land and complete the biological studies. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 225 Mr. Byde concurred, indicating that staff is working with time constraints to evaluate this year to determine whether or not California tiger salamander larvae are in some of the area ponds. On motion by Cm. sbranti, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted (4.7 600-30/420-10) RESOLUTION NO. 63 - 02 SELECTION OF LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR THE BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE JORDON PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE THE CONTRACT RESOLUTION NO. 64- 02 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO DESIGNATE SUCH PERSONS AS ARE APPROPRIATE TO ENTER THE JORDAN PROPERTY TO MAKE EXAMINATIONS AND SURVEYS AS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF FALLON ROAD AND THE SPORTS PARK SITE AND TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND OCCUPANTS AS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65105 and authorized the City Manager to execute the agreement with LSA Associates, Inc., not to exceed $6,000. Mayor Lockhart pulled Item 4.9 and asked the specific location of the path. Is it the paved trail that goes back to the BART Station? Public Works Director Lee Thompson advised that this path goes in back of Park Sierra apartments where it turns and comes past the Civic Center to the freeway. Mayor Lockhart clarified that the path goes down by the canal and comes up by the new library. Mr. Thompson concurred. Mr. Ambrose indicated that this trail should ultimately connect to Bernal Avenue in Pleasanton. It will fie into the Iron Horse Trail in the approximate area of the Park Sierra project. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 P. EGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 On motion of Mayor Lockhart, sed°nded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote the Council adopted (4.9 600-35) RESOLUTION NO. 65 -02 AWARDING CONTRACT NO. 02~04 ALAMO CANAL BIKE PATH FROM THE IRON HORSE TRAIL JUNCTION TO 1-580 PUBLIC HEARING URGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE PENALTY FOR FIREWORKS VIOLATIONS TO AN INFECTION 7:40 p.m. 6.1 (650~60) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Police Chief Gary Thuman presented the Staff Report and advised that, at its April 16, Z002, meeting, the City Council approved several recommendations made by the Fireworks Committee. One of the Committee recommendations was to reduce the penalty for violations of the City's Fireworks Ordinance from a misdemeanor to an infraction in order to minimize the impacts on the judicial system and increase the deterrent effect of the Ordinance through increased enforcement. In order to ensure its effectiveness during the fireworks season, Staff recommended that the Council adopt the urgency Ordinance, which would go into effect immediately. Cm. Zika asked for a brief explanation as to why we're making the penalty change. Chief Thuman indicated that the change would allow officers to simply issue a citation. It has a greater effect on those violating the Ordinance. Other cities have found it very effective. Mayor Lockhart asked if the Ordinance allows us to confiscate illegal fireworks? Captain Thuman advised that it does allow officers to confiscate, as well as giving flexibility to make arrests and prosecute. Elpi Abulencia, Linden Street, asked for clarification as to how the new penalties would minimize the burden to the judicial system. Is the $270 fine for the first offense? What about a second offense? Is it really a deterrent? CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLU1VIE 21 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21,2002 PAGE 227 Captain Thuman clarified that the first offense fine is $270, and the second and third offense fine could be up to $500. Other agencies have found the same penalties effective. The penalties keep the courts from being bogged down by misdemeanors. We will be heavily advertising the new zero tolerance policies to the community. Cm. Sbranti asked when a minor is caught with illegal fireworks, does the parent have to pay the penalty? Captain Thuman advised that the issue would go through the juvenile probation system. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted ORDINANCE NO. 6 - 02 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING SECTION 5.24.150 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PENALTY FOR FIREWORKS VIOLATIONS PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE EASTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY~ REMOVAL OF THE FUTURE STUDY AREA (INCLUDING DOOLAN CANYON) DESIGNATION~ AND MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE WESTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA MAPS 7:45 p.m. 6.2 (420~30) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Janet Harbin presented the Staff Report and advised that the Eastern Dublin Planning Area lies east of the area recently approved for annexation by LAFCO (the East Dublin Properties' proposal) and encompasses the Doolan Canyon area and the area labeled "14 Acres (Crosby)" on the General Plan Land Use Map. These lands lie north of I~580 and between the incorporated boundaries of Dublin, San Ramon and Livermore. The boundaries of the Eastern Dublin Extended Planning Area were adopted by the City Council on May 10, 1993. The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment originally proposed low and medium density residential uses with accessory neighbored commercials uses for the Doolan Canyon area and adjacent lands, which was outside the City's approved Sphere of cITY COUNCIL MINuTEs VOLUME 2 I REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 228 Influence (SOD. Instead, the Council adopted an Agricultural designation and designated the area east of the SOI, including Doolan Canyon, as Future Study Area. The Future Study Area designation required that, if and when, urban land uses were proposed, additional studies would be prepared to determine the most suitable type of development or preservation for that area. No additional studies to determine appropriate land uses or environmental conditions have been undertaken for this area since the designation was established in 1993. Therefore, Staff is recommending that this area, totaling approximately 2,744 acres, be removed from the General Plan planning area maps (Exhibits B-1 through B~5 of the draft resolution) and that the boundary of the Eastern Extended Planning Area be adjusted accordingly. In addition, Staff indicated that several General Plan text changes are necessary for consistency with the proposed modifications to the General Plan maps (Exhibit A of the draft resolution). In general, the textual changes delete references to the Future Study Area and revise the amount of acreage included in the Extended Planning Area for eastern Dublin. Staff also indicated that an adjustment to Central Parkway would be made that would address the concerns relayed by the City of Livermore in their letter, which was included in the Staff Report. John Ferreri, Acacia Partners, Pleasanton, stated that he and his partners have owned approximately 1,200 acres in Doolan Canyon for 20 years. They are unsure as to whether removing them from the General Plan is good or bad. However, he and his partners have read the Memorandum of Understanding and didn't see anything that would preclude them from requesting inclusion at a later date. He asked to be included in any future land use discussions that included their property. Pat Croak, Eastern Dublin Property Owner, referred to page 8 of 17 (Exhibit B~2) of the Staff Report and indicated that he felt that a particular line drawn through the area of Central Parkway was incorrect. Ms. Harbin clarified that Mr. Croak felt that the boundary line for the RRA area was incorrect. Mr. Croak indicated that he believed that it could clearly be seen on the proposed project maps in the EIR. That is not the boundary of the RRA; that the area below that is L1. He believes that it has been shown that way on all prior maps. Ms. Harbin indicated that Staff had reviewed the maps for consistency, but would check to make sure. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 229 Mayor Lockhart stated it was very important to make certain the map was correct. Mr. Peabody indicated that Staff would make this map consistent with the maps found in the EI1L This is a very large-scale map, and it is not Staff's intention to'make any changes that are not in the present General Plan designations. The map, when it is done, will be correct to the maps that have already been portrayed in the environmental documents. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted, with corrections to the map portrayed in Exhibit B-2, RESOLUTION NO. 66 - 02 APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR ADJUSTMENT OF THE EASTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY, REMOVAL OF THE FUTURE STUDY AREA (INCLUDING DOOLAN CANYON) DESIGNATION, AND MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE WESTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA MAPS PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENT TO DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR INCREASE IN THE SALARY FOR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL 7:55 p.m. (;.3 (700-20) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. City Attorney Elizabeth Silver presented the Staff Report and advised that this is the second reading of an Ordinance, which would provide for an increase to the current monthly compensation for Councilmembers in an amount of 5% per year for calendar years 2001 and 2002. The increase would become effective following the November 2002 election. The Mayor's salary will include an additional $100 per month, pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Section 2.08.040. The attached Ordinance will increase salaries for calendar years 2001 and 2002, as follows: current compensation - $565.68; 2001 increase - $593.96; 2002 increase ~ $623.66. The Mayor would continue to receive an extra $100 a month. Elpi Abulencia, Linden Street, indicated that this is a sensitive and important subject. He pointed out that when the Ordinance was introduced at the last Council meeting, there CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 230 was one Councilmember who was against the raise. He asked about the criteria in raising the salaries, and wondered if the Council received bonuses as well. Will they be receiving a raise every year? City Manager Richard Ambrose explained the rules in raising Council salaries, indicating that the raises are restricted by the State Government Code and capped at 5% per year. The Council can only raise its salary every two years because it's only effective after a regular November election. Some of the current Council may not be in office if and when the Ordinance goes into effect. The Council could choose to not adopt a raise, but if they do adopt the Ordinance, they must comply with the law. Cm. Oravetz confirmed that he was the dissenter and noted that he will be on the Council if and when the raises go into effect. He indicated that he felt that with all of anticipated budget hardships, the Council should set an example and not vote a raise for themselves. Cm. McCormick asked if Cm. Oravetz would waive his increase if the Ordinance passed? Cm. Oravetz indicated that he might if it was an option. Mayor Lockhart indicated that in the past the Council didn't give itself a raise for years, and when they caught up the increase was large. By increasing it regularly, we are keeping it in line for the next Council. It will be a steady, small increase. Cm. Sbranti noted that there hadn't been an increase since 1999. Cm. Zika advised that Council doesn't get bonuses, but they do get a performance review every four years. If they get re~elected, they did a good job. The job is not for the money, but to give back to the community. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by a 4 ~ I vote (Oravetz opposed), the Council adopted ORDINANCE NO. 7 - 02 AMENDING DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.08.020 AND PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE SALARY FOR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 2 I KEGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 231 PUBLIC HEARING - PA 0I~038 AMENDMENTS TO THE INCLUSIONARY ZONING REGULATIONS 8:06 p.m. 6.4 (450~20) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Community Development Director Eddie Peabody presented the Staff Report and advised that this was the second reading of an Ordinance amending the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68) of the Dublin Municipal Code. Specific elements of this Ordinance included the requirement of 12.5% of any residential project to be affordable for a period of 55 years. Up to 5% of the total 12.5% of affordable units may pay an in~ lieu fee. If affordable units cannot be built on site, the City Council may allow land dedication, construction of required affordable units off site and the possible waiver of requirements or approval of alternative methods of compliance. Mr. Peabody further advised that Staff is offering an alternative Ordinance for Council consideration and indicated that Section 8.68.040(C3) relating to security for land dedication of property by an applicant in~lieu of constructing affordable units was deleted by the City Council when the Ordinance was introduced at the May 7, 2002 Council meeting. As there was some confusion as to the intent of this section, Staff researched the purpose and suggests that the language originally proposed, with some modifications, be included in the Ordinance. The reason for this section is to insure that the value of the property dedicated to the City or non~profit developer covered the cost of the land on which to build the required units and the cost to build the affordable units. Thus the value of the dedication would be large enough to allow the ultimate construction of the affordable units required and the proper size of property to accommodate their construction. Staff recommended that the City Council conduct the public hearing, deliberate, waive the reading and either ADOPT the Ordinance (Attachment 1) amending Chapter 8.66 of the Dublin Municipal Code related to the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations -OR~ INTRODUCE the alternate Ordinance (Attachment 2) with the proposed Amendment to Section 8.68.040.C.3 related to land dedication, as proposed by Staff. Staff also offered a third option: ADOPT the Ordinance (Attachment 1) as introduced at the last Council meeting, and instruct Staff to return with any necessary amendments, if warranted after further study of the land dedication issue. Although, there are no immediate pending projects in front of Staff, it is most important that the Council adopt the Ordinance so Staff can get started. Particularly, since the in~lieu fees and affordable housing policy are in place. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 232 Cm. Zika asked how do we value the land? If a developer is building single~family residences and decides to dedicate the land in~lieu of building the required 7.5%, do we value the land at single~family residential value or multi~family residential value, which is what it will be more than likely used for as a higher density? Mr. Peabody indicated that Staff hadn't looked at the issue completely, but suggested that it would be related directly to what is the amount of land the developer needs to build the required units (whether moderate, low or very low), and secondly what would be the cost to build those units. The assumption could be very well that, as we have in our percentages 50% of them are moderate, 20% are low, 30% are very low, we would sit down and determine some fair representation of what it would cost to build that particular unit. It may be that, with a small project, the amount of land that is dedicated needs to be combined with other dedications to have a large enough unit so that a logical project could be built. For a very small subdivision, maybe the land dedication mechanism may not work. On a very large project, it may have much more merit. Cm. Zika expressed concern that if a group got together and decided to dedicate all the land to one corner, all of the affordable housing units would end up in one corner rather than spread throughout the community. Mr. Peabody indicated that, according to the Ordinance, the Council makes the decisions on the land dedication. If one of the policies within the Ordinance is to spread those units around as equitably as we can, and the idea ofconcentrating all affordable units may not be acceptable to the Council at all. The Council may prefer to have smaller projects spread throughout a larger geographic area. Marty Inderbitzen, on behalf of Dublin Ranch, expressed his surprise that this issue has come up after the first reading of the Ordinance and encouraged Council to adopt the Ordinance as proposed. The value of land in dollars is not as relevant as the value of the land in terms of its ability to produce the kinds of affordable units the Council deems important. The Council makes the ultimate decision. He does not see the benefit in trying to figure out if the developer or the landowner has given the City enough in dollar value. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. Cm. Zika stated that we should go through with the second reading, but revisit the section if it is confusing and come back with changes. Cm. McCormick agreed. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 233 Mayor Lockhart indicated that we don't want to be in position of discouraging alternative development; that was the main purpose of having the flexibility in Ordinance. Everyone needs to know exactly how the Ordinance will work to create a level playing field. She would concur with Option 3, to adopt the Ordinance, as introduced at the previous Council meeting, and look at it again later, if necessary. On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted ORDINANCE NO. 8 - 02 AMENDING CHAPTER 8.68 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO INCLUSIONARY ZONING REGULATIONS and instructed Staff to return to Council with proposed amendments to the Ordinance, if necessary after further study of the issue. MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC UTILITY FEASIBILITY STUDY- TECHNICAL BRIEFING PAPER 8:21 p.m. 7.1 (1020-40) Economic Development Director Chris Foss presented the Staff Report and advised that on February $, 2002, the City Council approved a Consultant Services Agreement with Environmental Services Associates (ESA) to complete a Municipal Electric Utility Feasibility Study. As requested in the Feasibility Study, the Technical Briefing Paper includes a brief background on the restructuring of California's Electric Utilities (AB 1890), provides a summary of California's electric industry, outlines the factors that led to the energy crisis of 2000~2001, and outlines three ($) potential electricity options for the City. He introduced John Forsythe, ESA, to discuss the Technical Briefing Paper. Mr. Forsythe summarized the information included in the Technical Briefing Paper, indicating that the three options offered include: (1) the establishment of a municipal utility; (2) the aggregation of the community's energy needs; and ($) the consideration of an Energy Element to the City's General Plan. Due to the risks involved in municipalization and the prohibition on aggregation at this time, ESA evaluated the option of developing a City Energy Element as a method of assuring some measure of local control over energy matters in the future. A draft Energy Element would require approximately 90~150 days to prepare at an estimated cost of $55,000. At this time, there is no available Staff in the Planning Division to manage this CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 234 project. If the City Council is interested in pursuing the creation of an Energy Element in the City's General Plan, Staff recommends that this Element be deferred and accomplished along with the update of the entire General Plan. Cm. Sbranti asked if there have been studies for a regional power authority, where we could share the cost and responsibility. Cm. Oravetz indicated that had been discussed regionally, but no one was interested. Mayor Lockhart agreed that there was no consensus on doing a regional study, which is why Dublin looked at going it alone. It's a monumental task. Cm. Sbranti expressed concern with Dublin going alone with this project. Cm. Zika pointed out that if we had a generation facility, we would also have to own the transmission and distribution for the sector that we would control. Mr. Forsythe agreed and indicated that to ensure the ultimate reliability of a local system, Dublin would have to island itself from the existing transmission system. It would be done by either isolating that transmission system and purchasing those power lines, or by building a redundant system, which is not cost effective. Mr. Foss pointed out that PG&E would fight for us not to acquire the facilities. One of the things that benefit the system is that the system is open and you could pull power from other places if you're not generating enough on your own. One of the drawbacks becomes if you are open and somebody else needs the power, you might not get it. A redundant system is financially infeasible. There are many municipal utilities that are hemorrhaging money. They made money during the high times, but with the energy prices going down, there are rate increases all over the State from municipal utilities. Mayor Lockhart explained that when discussion first came to Council by the previous Mayor, we were working under a much different time. We were looking at power shortages in the future, big companies looking at Dublin and wanting to know how we would provide them with power. Now, larger companies are coming with their own power sources. It was a good question and a great exercise. She liked the idea of including an Energy Element in the General Plan update. We are not feeling the urgency now that we felt at the time. Cm. Sbranti stated he also felt that, although things are not perfect, the worse is behind us at this point. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 23.~ Council and Staff discussed the situations concerning existing and proposed municipal utilities. Cm. Oravetz complimented ESA on its thorough report, and indicated that he felt adding an Energy Element in our General Plan was the best option. He asked if the report could go out to the citizens of Dublin. Mr. Foss indicated that copies could be made available. Mayor Lockhart asked if it could go on our website? Cm. McCormick asked if adopting an Energy Element would include non~traditional forms of energy, such as solar panels, green building, etc.? Mr. Foss advised that Staff would look at all elements. The new solar system at Santa Rita jail is a prime example. The Council directed Staff to place the report on the City's website and include an Energy Element in the General Plan when it is updated. SAFEWAY - PUBLIC ART 8:35 p.m. 7.2 (900~50) Recreation Supervisor Bonnie Leonard presented the Staff Report and advised that, at its January 15, 2002, meeting, the City Council clarified the public art condition for the Safeway, Inc., retail development on Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road. At that time, the Council concurred that it would like a clock tower on the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road and that artwork at the main entrance at Dublin Boulevard was unnecessary. Ms. Leonard outlined the two proposals which Staff was directed by Council to prepare: one to include a clock tower which integrated art into the design, and one to include an old-fashioned clock with accompanying bronze artwork. It was the consensus of the Heritage & Cultural Arts Commission that the bronze sculpture was not appropriate for the Safeway location. The Commission felt it would be better suited for a plaza or a park, and recommended that the Council place it at a more appropriate location. The Commission recommended that the Council select the stainless steel art clock entitled "Dublin Time" by artist Dan Dykes. Safeway is satisfied with either proposal. CITY COUNCIL MINU'rtI$ VOLUME £ 1 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 236 Cm. Oravetz asked if the clock would chime? Lynne Baer, Dublin Fine Arts Foundation, advised that the street corner was too busy and noisy for chimes. Cm. Oravetz asked which proposal Ms. Baer liked? Ms. Baer indicated that the site location is almost as important as the piece of art. The art clock is very site specific; it was made with the site in mind. She outlined the different ways the art clock was designed for the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road. Her concern regarding the old-fashioned clock tower and bronze sculpture was that the scale of the sculpture and clock was wrong. It would get lost on that corner. The sculpture needs an area where people can sit with it; this site is not pedestrian friendly. Cm. Sbranti asked which direction the clock would face? Ms. Baer. indicated that the clock would face into the middle of the intersection so it would be visible from several different angles. The artist will make sure that the stainless steel is not overly reflective. The stainless steel will be graffiti~proofed, as well. Mayor Lockhart asked if the clock base was skateboardable? Ms. Baer indicated that the base would be landscaped to deter skateboarders. Judy Lussie, H&CA Commission, indicated that the Commission voted unanimously for the Stainless steel art clock. They looked for uniqueness, design and site appropriateness. She discussed the various art elements that would compliment the site. The sculpture of the children is delightful, but to put it in a parking lot would be creating a dangerous situation. It is better suited to a park. Elpi Abulencia stated that art has a message. This art should convey a message of pride of Dublin. A clock is all right, but maybe there are other alternatives. Mayor Lockhart commented that she preferred the art clock. She liked its artistry and its height. Considering it will be next to the artwork on the underpass, it will be a perfect accessory. She indicated that she loved the bench, and hopes the Council will have the opportunity in the not too distant future to consider it for a more suitable location. CITY COUNCIL MI~TEs VOLUME £ 1 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 237 Cm. Sbranti concurred with Mayor Lockhart, and agreed whole-heartedly with the H&CA Commission's analysis and recommendation. He stated that maybe later we could find an appropriate place for the other piece. Cm. Zika stated he still liked the traditional clock and the bronze sculpture. Cm. Oravetz concurred with Cm. Sbranti. On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Sbranti, and by a 4 - 1 vote (Zika opposed), the Council selected Proposal 1 - Dan Dykes stainless steel art clock for the Safeway location. DAY ON THE GLEN COMMUNITY LIAISON COMMITrEE 8:56 p.m. 8.1 (110-30) Parks and Community Services Manager Paul McCreary presented the Staff Report and advised that at its April 3, 2002, Goals and Objectives Meeting, the Council gave a high priority to developing a community participation process, similar to the St. Patrick's Day Liaison Committee, for planning the 2002 Day on the Glen Festival. St. Patrick's Day Committee meetings are held four times per year and typically have been attended by representatives of groups planning event activities. Representatives from the City Council and Parks & Community Services Commission have also participated in the past. Mr. McCreary summarized Staff recommendations for the establishment of the Committee, the Committee purpose and proposed meeting schedule. If approved, Staff would coordinate the participation of representatives deemed appropriate by the Council. Staff would also solicit participation from the general public by distributing press releases, posting notices at City facilities, and mailing flyers to local non-profit groups and homeowners' associations near the park. Cm. Sbranti asked about time line in terms of doing a first meeting on May $0th. It may be too soon to notice the meeting to all participants. Mr. McCreary advised that the letter is ready to go out tomorrow. Staff wanted to meet before June so as not to conflict with summer vacation schedules. Council representation on the Committee was discussed and all concurred with the appointment of Cm. Sbranti. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 238 On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the Committee format and appointed Cm. Sbranfi as the City Council representative to the Committee for the 2002 festival. PROPOSAL TO INITIATE A PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC FACILITIES GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY (PA 0Z~ 17 9:00 p.m. 8.2 (420~30/410-55) Associate Planner Pierce Macdonald presented the Staff Report and advised that at its April 3, 2002, Goals & Objectives meeting, the City Council approved a goal to study and increase the areas available for Public/Semi-Public Facilities. In general, Public/Semi~ Public Facilities (which include schools, libraries, religious institutions, utility buildings, BART and similar uses) are allowed in all zoning districts west of Dougherty Road with a Conditional Use Permit. Areas east of Dougherty Road must be developed in accordance with Planned Developments, as required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Ms. Macdonald indicated that the uses are classified and described in the General Plan and in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and pointed out the important differences between the designations of Public/Semi~public Facilities in the General Plan and in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Based on a preliminary review, Staff believes there is reason to study the adequacy of land available to non-governmental Public/Semi-Public Facilities in the city because of the large difference in the amount of land currently used for non-governmental Public/Semi-Public Facilities and the land dedicated for such use in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Mayor Lockhart asked why the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was written differently from the General Plan7 Ms. Macdonald indicated that the Specific Plan is more detailed. Mr. Peabody indicated that when the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was adopted, an element for public uses was not identified. In the case of the existing Dublin area, which was developed under conventional zoning, only a Conditional Use Permit was required. Because existing Dublin was developed by multiple ownerships and smaller parcels, it was much easier for them to develop uses, particularly for churches. The ownership in Eastern Dublin has always been very large ownerships, and we've consistently developed the area through a Planned Development procedure. In other communities, church sites, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 239 etc., are sometimes laid out along with residential and school sites. That has not been the practice in Dublin. Mr. Peabody further indicated that if the Council felt that the provision of sites for Public & Semi~Public uses are an important element of future land use, then the best way to do it, given what we're working with which is mostly Eastern Dublin, is to undertake the General Plan and Specific Plan Study. Mayor Lockhart asked about the 160.3 acres referred to in the Staff Report and asked if it included the high school site? Ms. Macdonald indicated yes, and advised that the 160.3 acres included all the school sites within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Marry Inderbitzen indicated that no action was necessary. Public/Semi~public Facilities are important uses, but in both the existing primary planning areas, a thoughtful process did go forward. The Staff Report juxtaposes the General Plan and Specific Plan with regard to how it identifies public and semi~public uses, and makes an issue about the distinction between how schools are dealt with and the public and semi~public land use designation. It is important to recognize that, in the hierarchy of land uses, there is a land use designation that is identified in the General Plan and then a Zoning Code that deals with specific kinds of land uses through out the city. The primary planning area identifies public/semi~public uses. Basically, that is a designation of existing fact. When the public/semi~public uses are laid out in the General Plan that identifies school sites as public/semi~public uses because they exist. In the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, those uses were identified more specifically as school sites because it was known then that we needed to identify where the school sites would be and chose to be more specific rather to generalize them as public/semi~public sites. On a side note, he didn't think the school site designation in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan intended to accommodate private schools. Mr. Inderbitzen further indicated that he felt the tables were confusing when trying to compare the uses. It leads to a comparison that isn't useful. The acreage is inaccurate, as school sites have been deleted. If the question is where do uses go that are typically owned by governments or public entities, then the plan does identify those uses, whether looking at the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan or the existing primary areas. If the questions is where do community facilities go that are not government or publicly~owned, we need to look at the Zoning Code and realize that those uses are available to go almost anywhere by virtue of a Conditional Use Permit. The extensive studies are not needed. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21,2002 Cm. Oravetz indicated that he, as a Planning Commissioner, had the opportunity to put public/semi~public uses on the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan map. Mr. Peabody indicated yes, but the Planning Commission only put three uses on the map. Cm. Oravetz indicated the City now has a second chance to include those areas in the newly annexed area. Cm. Zika expressed concern that multi~family zoned areas would be too expensive for churches. He would like a study to tell us how adequate we are and what we have. We need to have enough area for things like post offices, churches, etc. He also expressed concern with how adequately the School District has forecasted how many students they will have and how much land they need. Once this land is gone, it's gone. Cm. Oravetz stated we would have a great opportunity to make changes in the new land we just annexed. Mayor Lockhart asked if private schools and daycare facilities are listed under public/semi~public uses? Ms. Macdonald indicated that she thought the definition of schools in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes private schools and deferred to the City Attorney. Ms. Silver indicated that Mr. Inderbitzen is correct in that the definition for schools in the Eastern Dublin area is for public schools, not private. For example, the Quarry Lane School site was originally designated residential. Mr. Peabody advised that it was developed in the County. If it had been developed in the City originally, there could have been a Planned Development there and a private school. We've never had a specific private school other than Quarry Lane designated anywhere in Eastern Dublin. Mr. Ambrose indicated that the difference was that there was a pre~existing building used as a community facility that was part of the complex, making it more difficult for residential development. Ms. Silver indicated the way the Council has dealt with Eastern Dublin is different from the rest of the City. Existing Dublin projects use the Zoning Ordinance, which has lengthy definitions of the different types of uses. The grid within the ZO outlines the different zoning districts, what is allowed in those districts, what types of permits are needed, and who approves the permits. In Eastern Dublin, there are the General Plan CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 241 designations. In the Zoning, which is done through the PD process, the Council writes what the zoning is for each area. Historically, churches and schools are located in residential districts, but can be located in other districts, too. Through the zoning in Eastern Dublin, which is tailored for each site, the Council can include these kinds of community facilities. Mayor Lockhart asked if that would be a reason to do the study to identify basic areas for things like that? Ms. Silver indicated that, with the study, we could be more specific in the General Plan and Specific Plan. Mayor Lockhart asked if daycare facilities fall under that also? Ms. Silver indicated that they could. Cm. Zika made a motion to approve the study request, which was seconded by Cm. McCormick. Cm. Sbranti stated he felt the numbers were compelling enough when you look at the map to condone a study. Although, one could appreciate the acreage in the Planned Development that is already set aside for community facilities, one would also need to acknowledge that we are talking about a lot of acres in the whole community. We need to look at opportunities to create even more. Cm. Oravetz advised that he felt we already have this built in through our program. Mayor Lockhart stated she wanted a clearer picture as to what the future could hold for the rest of our community, and to make sure we were all looking at the same picture. Public/Semi~Public uses need to know what opportunities are available to them. We are not threatening existing or future landowners; we are just trying to present everyone with an organized plan. Cm. Sbranti concurred with Cm. Zika when he said, "once it's built, it's built." He also agreed with Cm. Oravetz in that beyond the study, there are mechanisms that the Planning Commission can implement to create these facilities. Cm. McCormick pointed out that when the School District gave back 24 acres, it was immediately proposed to become homes. It leads her to believe that there will not be a lot of opportunities or incentives for public facilities to locate anywhere in Eastern Dublin. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 242 Cm. Oravetz stated that the Council will have the opportunity to deny the application for those additional homes. Cm. McCormick indicated that we could avoid that with future planning. Cm. Oravetz advised that he was hearing the arguments, but was struggling with the idea of doing a Specific Plan Amendment Study when the plans exists for us now. On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by a 4 - 1 vote (Oravetz opposed), the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 67-02 APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY FOR PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY FOR THE AREA F PORTION OF DUBLIN RANCH (PA 01~37) $:41 p.m. $.$ (420~30/410~55) Ms. Bascom indicated that Staff had received a request from the Applicant to continue the item to June 4, 2002 meeting. The Council concurred to continue the item to the June 4, 2002, Council meeting. PROPOSAL FOR ADDITIONAL DIVERSION SERVICES 9:41 p.m. 8.4 (810~60) Administrative Analyst Jason Behrmann presented the Staff Report and advised that at its February 5, 2002 meeting, the City Council requested that Livermore Dublin Disposal (LDD) submit a proposal for four new diversion programs including an electronic waste (e-waste) collection event, a household hazardous waste collection event, curbside used oil recycling and commercial food waste recycling. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 243 Mr. Behrmann outlined the proposed diversion programs and the costs associated with each. The e~waste and household hazardous materials collection event ($54,$67/year), as well as the used oil curbside collection program ($20,580/year) can be funded using existing grant funds. The commercial food waste program ($277,929/year) would need to be funded through a combination of grants and higher commercial garbage rates. The costs associated with these programs would be partially offset by an additional $51,435/year in franchise fees. While there are adequate funds to implement these new programs, there will be little revenue remaining to fund additional programs for the remainder of the current Solid Waste Franchise Agreement. Mr. Behrmann noted that even with the potential increase, Dublin's rates would still be approximately 35% lower than the average commercial rates for Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon. All commercial customers would also have the opportunity of reducing their solid waste charges by adding either food waste or traditional recycling programs and reducing their solid waste service level. Mayor Lockhart asked if Waste Management Recycle Authority has a program that helps schools take on a food waste-recycling program to help offset additional fees. Mr. Behrmann wasn't aware of any specific food waste programs for the schools. They offer two different programs for food waste, in general. One is a $25/ton subsidy, which is included in this cost estimate. Also, after the first year of the program, there is an opportunity to receive an incentive grant based on how well the program is doing. Mayor Lockhart indicated that it might be a good program to suggest. Cm. Oravetz referred to commercial food waste recycling and noted that Staff was proposing to raise the commercial garbage rates by 13.27%. Before he would be willing to consider that, he asked how we would explain the increase to business owners in Dublin. Mr. Behrmann advised that this would not be a mandatory program. Their rates would go up, but participating in the non-mandatory incentive programs would offset the additional costs. Mayor Lockhart pointed out that the rate would go up 1 $%, but they could get a 20% discount for participating in the incentives programs. It could actually get a 7% decrease in rates. It's a very good incentive to join the program. CITY COUNCIL ~NUTE$ VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Dale May 21,2002 PAGE 244 Cm. Oravetz concurred, but asked that Staff talk to the Chamber to give them a heads up, or some other mechanism to talk to business owners. He stated he thought it was a good plan, but didn't like upping the rates without getting input from the business community. Cm. McCormick clarified that we can afford all of the programs except for the commercial waste? Mr. Behrmann indicated yes, through the grant programs. Annette Borges, Livermore Dublin Disposal, referred to the food waste program and indicated that when Dr. Singh conducted the AB 939 study to get us to over 50% diversion, the restaurants were surveyed at that time. We have a list of those who wanted to participate. The feedback was very good. Cm. Oravetz asked if all of the restaurant in Dublin were contacted. Ms. Borges was unsure of how many businesses were contacted, but reiterated that the feedback was very positive. Mayor Lockhart asked if the proposal would allow for extra pickups? Ms. Borges indicated that it would be a full route of 5 days a week to keep the spoiled food from causing odor, etc. Mayor Lockhart stated that it was Council's job to make tough decisions for people to lead them in the direction we need to go to get us to the 75% diversion rate. Cm. Zika asked if a 5 day a week pick up meant no pick up on Saturday and Sunday? Ms. Borges indicated that there is no pick up on Sunday, but Saturday pick up will be considered. Cm. Zika asked if we have any feel about what the need is for the oil recycling program? Ms. Borges indicated that Waste Management picks up 700~800 gallons of used oil on a monthly basis in San Ramon. Mayor Lockhart advised that most of the surrounding cities participant in the used oil recycling program. Mayor Lockhart asked if auto batteries recycling would be a once~a~year program? CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 245 Ms. Borges advised that it would be an annual event that we could combine with the e- waste event. Combining the events would save a lot of money in publicity and manpower. Mayor Lockhart referred to the hazardous household waste program and asked if some type of receptacle was needed for people to keep the hazardous waste in until clean up? Ms. Borges stated that it wasn't a major issue. Mr. Ambrose indicated that the other issue for e~waste and household hazardous waste would be to find a location to hold the event. Cm. Sbranti asked where San Ramon does theirs? Ms. Borges advised that they hold it in a City facility, perhaps their corporation yard. Mayor Lockhart indicated she liked all the programs. They support our goals in the County and for the City. Cm. Oravetz indicated that he was in favor of the e~waste and used oil programs. He's already mentioned that he is hesitant to raise the 13.27% commercial rates until the businesses are informed, so he would oppose that program at this time. Cm. McCormick pointed out that Ms. Borges had indicated that they had been informed. Cm. Oravetz indicated that he thought the survey might be too informal a way to notify the business owners. Ms. Borges advised that it was a formal study during which time the businesses were directly contacted. Cm. Oravetz advised that he would like to see a copy of that study before he votes for the increase. Mr. Behrmann indicated that he would get a copy of Dr. Singh's study to him. The Council and Staff discussed how much a small restaurant might be charged, and agreed that business owners should be formally advised as to how to participate in the incentive programs before the increase went into effect. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21,2002 PAGE 246 Mr. Behrmann advised that Staff has had difficulty encouraging businesses to recycle. Lower rates discourage recycling. The combination of potential higher bills with money saving incentive programs might help. Mr. Ambrose clarified that the Council would not be approving a rate increase tonight. Tonight Council will be providing Staff with direction to put the 13.27% into the rate calculation, which Staff will bring back to the June 4*h meeting. Cm. McCormick made a motion to accept the e~waste and household hazardous waste collection as one event, the residential curbside used oil collection, and the commercial food waste program, which was seconded by Mayor Lockhart. Cm. Oravetz asked to make a substitute motion to delete commercial food waste at this time. As there was no second to the substitute motion, the motion died. Mayor Lockhart called for the question on the original motion. On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Mayor Lockhart, and by 4 ~ 1 vote (Oravetz opposed), the Council accepted the e~waste and household hazardous waste collection as one event, the residential curbside used oil collection, and the commercial food waste program. OTHER BUSINESS 10:05 p.m. Mr. Ambrose reminded the Council that a Dougherty Regional Fire Authority meeting would be held Tuesday, May 28 at 6 p.m. in San Ramon. Cm. Oravetz thanked the Chamber of Commerce for a great golf tournament yesterday. He had a good time. He also found out that the Dublin Ranch Course would be ready next year. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 247 Cm. Zika attended the Tri~Valley Agriculture Water Task Force meeting, which is trying to determine whether they can get water for agriculture out here and at what cost. This is a long process. Cm. Zika attended a Smart Growth meeting in San Leandro. Unfortunately, it was a repeat of last year's meeting. There was no clear discussion of all the options or an exchange of ideas. Cm. Sbranti attended the League's Legislative Days in Sacramento; it was very successful and a great show of unity. There is no good news regarding next year's budget. Preliminary indication shows that it could have been worse for the cities, though, things could still change. The League pointed out that, without the cities, the deficit would actually be higher if the I~RAF money that rightfully belongs to local government was returned, as it should have been. Cm. McCormick attended the regular Alameda County Housing Authority meeting. She attended the DPIE dinner and art auction with Cm. Sbranti and Mayor Lockhart, which seemed very successful. Dublin hosted the Alameda County Art Commission Workshop, which she attended. She went to the Valley Community Health Center for an update on the services they are providing to Dubliners. She attended the Community Planning and Housing Committee Meeting from the Tri~Valley Business Council, during which time they gave a presentation on the proposed transit center. This was the reason she expressed concern earlier in the meeting regarding the experience of the transit center architect. Mayor Lockhart distributed the Alameda County Waste Management Authority's and Alameda County Source Reduction & Recycling's brochure "Innovation. Leadership, Stewardship," regarding types of recycling programs offered in Alameda County and indicating why we're known nationally for what we're doing. cITY CouNCIL ~NuTE$ VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 248 ADJOURNMENT 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:16 p.m. Minutes taken and prepared by Fawn Holman, Deputy City Clerk. Mayor Al'rEST: City Clerk CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING Date May 21, 2002 PAGE 249