Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-16-1999 CC Adopted MinutesREGULAR MEETING – February 16, 1999 A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, February 16, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m., by Mayor Houston. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Howard, Lockhart, McCormick, Zika and Mayor Houston. ABSENT: None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Houston led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES 7:05 p.m.3.1(700-10) New employees were introduced: Amy Cunningham, Administrative Assistant in Police Services, was previously a Family Support Officer for San Mateo County. Ferdinand Del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer, worked in Public Works for Alameda County for 14 years. Steven Yee, Assistant Civil Engineer, previously worked in the City of Albany, for the Cities of Stockton, Sacramento and Lodi and for Sacramento County. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 60 APPOINTMENTS TO TRI-VALLEY COMMUNITY TELEVISION BOARD 7:08 p.m.3.2(110-30) Mayor Houston stated the City has received correspondence stating that Edy Coleman, the City of Dublin’s appointment to the CTV Board, has resigned. In addition, the term of the City’s second representative, Claudia McCormick, is due to expire in February, 1999. The Mayor has reappointed Claudia McCormick, and has appointed Valerie A. Barnes to replace Edy Coleman. On motion of Cm. Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the Council confirmed the appointments of Claudia McCormick and Valerie Barnes as the City’s representatives on the CTV Board to terms expiring in February of 2001. Outdoor/Sidewalk Sales (650-40 Tom Benigno congratulated the 2 new Councilmembers. He stated he wished to discuss the City’s Ordinances. This week, outdoor flower displays were put up at 2 service stations; Arco and Shell. He voiced his objections to the proprietors. This is a public access issue and one of rights and also of double standards. In 1995, he tried to get a permit for outside produce sales when he had Veronica’s Market and was unable to do so. The Council has said they want to create some nice customer oriented little restaurants and he was aware of a nearby restaurant that tried to get some outdoor tables allowed and they were turned down. Mayor Houston advised that he had received 2 letters from individuals on this subject and he had referred them to Staff. This has to do with the City’s policy on outdoor sales and who is allowed to do this. This subject should be on a future agenda. Heritage Tree Ordinance (910-40) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 61 Tom Ford, Tina Place noted that at a recent City Council meeting, Claudia McCormick requested we look at a heritage tree ordinance. He reported that Livermore has one. He highly commended her on this and stated he would be happy to help move this forward. CONSENT CALENDAR 7:12 p.m.(Item No.’s 4.1 through 4.14) Cm. McCormick requested that Item 4.9 be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. On motion of Cm. Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved (4.1) Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 2, 1999; Accepted (4.2 150-70) $1,000 gift from the Altamont Cruisers to purchase Red Ribbon Week educational materials related to substance abuse, and approved the Budget Change Form; Adopted (4.3 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 15 – 99 AWARDING CONTRACT 98-11A HERITAGE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE I TO GRADE TECH, INC. ($45,800) Adopted (4.4 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 16 – 99 ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE REPAIR OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS DEEMED TO BE PEDESTRIAN HAZARDS (CITY-FUNDED REPAIR PROGRAM) and approved budget appropriation from New Revenues for the Handicap Ramp Program; authorized Staff to advertise Contract 99-02, Sidewalk Remove & Replace for bids; and authorized funding for Contract 98-02, Sidewalk Grinding; CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 62 Adopted (4.5 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 17 – 99 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH JENNIFER LIN REGARDING PROJECT STUDY REPORT FOR I-580/FALLON ROAD/EL CHARRO ROAD INTERCHANGE Adopted (4.6 930-10) RESOLUTION NO. 18 – 99 AUTHORIZATION FOR GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES (TLC) PROGRAM FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE IRON HORSE TRAIL AND ALAMO CANAL PED-BICYCLE PATH PROJECT Received (4.7 330-50) Financial Reports for December 1998 and January 1999; Authorized (4.8 600-30) Staff to advertise Contract 99-03 for bids, 1998-99 Annual Street Repair and Overlay Project; Adopted (4.10 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 19 – 99 APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES WITH CCS PLANNING AND ENGINEERING, INC. ($307,000) Adopted (4.11 600-40) RESOLUTION NO. 20 – 99 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 63 ALAMEDA COUNTY SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY (ACSPA) FOR THE PREPARATION OF PERMIT ENGINEERING EVALUATION REPORTS (PEER) AND THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES REPORTS (PS&E) FOR I-580/HACIENDA DRIVE INTERCHANGE AND FOR THE LEFT TURN POCKET FOR KOLL DEVELOPMENT FROM TASSAJARA ROAD Adopted (4.12 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 21 – 99 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH HIGH QUALITY ENGINEERING FOR CONSULTING SERVICES (NOT TO EXCEED $127,290) and authorized a Capital Improvement Project for the construction of improvements to the I-580/Hacienda Drive interchange, the design of which is to be completed in FY 1998-99; and approved the Budget Change; Authorized (4.13 600-30) Staff to advertise Contract 99-03, Emerald Glen Park, Phase I Construction, for bids; Approved (4.14 300-40) the Warrant Register in the amount of $1,394,861.43. Cm. McCormick pulled Item 4.9 related to consultant services for the widening of Dublin Boulevard from Dougherty Road to Scarlett Drive and expressed concern regarding the design because this is one of the main gateways into Dublin and we need to be a little more creative here. She asked if the City Council could look at the designs before it goes forward. Public Works Director Thompson explained that the road was widened years ago. There is probably some opportunity to do something a little different. City Manager Ambrose stated it is standard practice to bring these before the City Council, so they will have an opportunity to review the designs. On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Lockhart and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted (4.9 600-30) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 64 RESOLUTION NO. 22 – 99 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH BRIAN KANGAS FOULK FOR CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE WIDENING OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD FROM DOUGHERTY ROAD TO SCARLETT DRIVE (TO MAXIMUM $129,800) Mayor Houston advised that he was moving all the new items of business forward on the agenda, so the next items heard would be Items 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3. Items 6.1 and 7.2 would follow, with Item 7.1 related to the Ridgeland Voters Voice Initiative being last on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING MINORS ENGAGED IN DOOR-TO-DOOR SALES 7:52 p.m.6.1(585-60) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. City Attorney Silver presented the Staff Report and advised that Cm. McCormick requested that Staff look into this issue. The State recently enacted new regulations to improve the rights and safety of minors employed in door-to-door sales. Consistent with the new regulations, Staff proposes to amend Chapter 4.16 (Peddlers) of the Dublin Municipal Code to broaden the definition of peddlers to include employers and supervisors of minors involved in door-to-door sales. Consistent with the regulations, the proposed ordinance does not require registration of minors who are: 1) news carriers who solicit subscriptions or sell papers; 2) acting on behalf of a charitable or non-profit organization such as the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts; or 3) certain other minors identified in proposed Section 4.16.050(J). Cm. Lockhart stated door-to-door sales have typically been an issue in our community. They come into businesses selling everything. They don’t take no very well, and they CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 65 don’t want to show a permit. What kind of teeth do we really have? They come and go at will. Is there an answer for these people? Lt. Farruggia stated in most cases, they don’t have a permit. When they check, most times they will just pack up and leave town. They generally come from a community other than Dublin. They come into the community and juveniles are just dropped off. The best thing to do is give the Police Department a call. They will come out and make contact and identify them and make them aware of our laws. If they meet the requirements, they can operate legally. If not, it usually discourages them. Cm. Lockhart stated she is usually hesitant to call the police. Lt. Farruggia stated it does serve another purpose. They would rather be called. Part of it is identification, which is important. No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an Ordinance amending Chapter 4.16 of the Dublin Municipal Code. RECESS At 8:11 p.m., Mayor Houston called for a short recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:20 p.m., with all Councilmembers present. REPORT FROM DUBLIN RIDGELAND VOTERS’ VOICE INITIATIVE COMMITTEE 8:20 p.m.7.1(420-70) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 66 Cm. Lockhart presented the report and summarized that she and Cm. Howard served as the Council’s appointees on the Dublin Ridgeland Voters’ Voice Initiative Committee. The proponents are Morgan King, David Bewley and John Anderson. A representative of the Community Development Department and the City Attorney’s Office also assisted. The Committee discussed a proposed initiative regarding future development in the unincorporated Western Extended Planning Area. The Committee held 9 public meetings to review various aspects of the original proposed initiative as well as the potential of an Urban Limit Line initiative approach. In January, the Committee met twice and formulated specific recommendations to be sent to the City Council, along with other recommendations regarding Sphere of Influence and a moratorium until voter resolution of a proposed City Initiative. The recommendations were: 1)An Urban Limit Line should be adopted by initiative for areas beyond the Western City Limits to not allow new development in the Western Extended Planning Area for a period of 30 years unless specific GP Amendments have been approved by the City Council and submitted to the voters of the City for final approval. City Attorney Silver distributed copies of a revised Attachment 3 (draft resolution approving a GPA to establish an Urban Limit Line for Western Dublin). A sentence was added to the end of the first paragraph on page 3, “Urban Limit Line. . . . Any request to change the Urban Limit Line must be accompanied by a request to amend the land use She explained that this sentence was added for designation to an urban designation.” clarification purposes. Ms. Silver stated attachment 3 is a proposed amendment to the GP to establish the Urban Limit Line that voters would vote on if the City Council places this on the ballot. This would be the actual amendment to the GP providing for an Urban Limit Line. The added sentence would clarify what it already says. Any proposal for a new land use designation would have to be for an urban designation. The Nielsens would have to come in for an urban designation of their property which means a residential designation. This merely clarifies the recommendation from the Committee. 2)A City Council measure to adopt this Urban Limit Line should be put on the ballot for voter resolution at a regular election in 2000. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 67 3)A moratorium on submittal or approval of any new GP Amendments in areas beyond the proposed Urban Limit Line should be adopted by the City Council until voter resolution of the proposed Initiative. 4)If an Initiative is approved by the voters, consideration should be given to petitioning LAFCO to remove areas now in the Dublin Sphere of Influence in the Western Extended Planning Area and returning them to Alameda County jurisdiction. Cm. Lockhart stated since that time she has received a letter from Roxanne Nielsen saying they’re not in any hurry to do this. After the election, we could consider whether or not they are interested in being dropped. 5)No specific recommendation was made regarding the request of the Nielsen family to have their property immediately adjacent to the Western City Limits left out of the area to be included as a part of the proposed Urban Limit Line boundary. Mr. Peabody discussed the recommendations and questions. 1.The City Council should determine if growth limitations should be instituted for the Western Extended Planning Area. 2.If limitations are appropriate, decide whether the Committee’s ULL approach is the proper method to handle growth limitations. 3.Review the Committee’s recommendations (present western City Limits) as the boundary that should be used as an ULL. Review other suggestions (i.e., exclusion of the Nielsen property). 4.Decide where the line should be established. 5.Approve Alternative A or B, calling for a special or regular election to submit a measure to the voters to adopt an ULL in the Western Extended Planning Area with a specific date for an election. 6.Adopt resolution initiating a GPA for the properties located within the City of Dublin’s Sphere of Influence, west of the existing City Limits. This will allow a moratorium to be established to prohibit the filing and approval of any GPA for this area until the voters have decided on the proposed measure. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 68 7.Adopt urgency Ordinance (4/5 vote required) establishing a 45 day moratorium on future GPA in the Western Extended Planning Area. 8.Decide whether Councilmembers should write the argument in favor of the measure and whether others should be allowed to join in argument. 9.Instruct Staff to return with a report within 45 days regarding whether the moratorium should be extended for 10 months and 15 days. 10.Instruct Staff to refer a proposal to delete areas within the Western Extended Planning Area from the City’s adopted Sphere of Influence to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), should the measure establishing an ULL be approved by the voters of the City of Dublin. Two draft resolutions were provided for Council consideration. Both resolutions propose a measure to the voters to amend the general plan to establish an Urban Limit Line for the western hills. The proposed measure is in the form of a resolution which, if a majority of the voters approve it, will be adopted by the people of the City, rather than by the Council. One resolution would call a special election which could be on June 8, 1999, November 2, 1999, March 7, 2000 or April 7, 2000 to consider the proposed GPA. Costs for a special election would be approximately $14,000 - $22,000. The other resolution would call a regular election, which would be held on November 7, 2000. Costs to place a measure on the ballot of a regular election would be approximately $1,500. Both resolutions provide the option to the Council to designate one or more members of the Council to write the argument in favor of the measure. The resolution must specify the individuals to write the argument and whether it is on behalf of the entire Council. The draft language would also allow for others to sign the argument with the approval of the Council. The ULL is defined as the current western Dublin City Limits, and all lands beyond the City Limits/ULL would be designated Rural Residential/Agriculture in the General Plan. The intent of the ULL is to mark the westernmost boundary of urbanization in Dublin. In order to move the ULL, a future developer would have to process a GPA showing the proposed new location of the ULL and the proposed land use designation changes from Rural Residential /Agriculture to urban designation(s); secure approval from the City Council and place the matter before the voters in an election to ratify the proposed change. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 69 Cm. Lockhart advised that the Committee is recommending that the Council adopt an identical amendment to the GP to adopt an ULL for the Western Hills so that an ULL is in effect at the earliest practicable time. If the Council does so amend the GP, the amendment could be changed by the Council through the same process, whereas an ULL adopted by the voters can only be amended or repealed by the voters. The process for amending the GP requires that the Council initiate a GPA study. A resolution would do that. Under state law, the proposed amendment requires CEQA review and public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. If initiated, Staff anticipates that the process would be complete after the initiative has been resolved by the voters. If the Council adopts the resolution to initiate a GPA study, the Council may adopt an ordinance on an urgency basis to impose a 45 day moratorium on processing any applications for land use approvals in the area subject to the study pending completion of the study. The moratorium ordinance would impose such a moratorium immediately. State law requires the Council to report on the progress of the study within 45 days. The Council may continue the moratorium for another 10 months and 15 days after the initial 45 day moratorium. Mayor Houston advised that the Councilmembers had each gone through all the backup materials and know what has occurred. He requested that the speakers not rehash what has already occurred. Deborah Campbell, 8774 Longford Way, stated she believes people who are property owners, whether by purchasing or inheritance, should have the right to use their land in the way they see fit. It is all our responsibilities when purchasing properties or a home to make sure we understand what the property around it is about, what it has to offer in the future, and what it has as far as development potential. It is our responsibility to know what exactly is going to happen and the potential for the future. She understands people’s complaints in saying they want the land to be left open, but we need to find out in advance what is in store for vacant property. Martin Kludjian, 6588 Amador Valley Boulevard submitted a written statement, “If you own property (land), only you, the owner should be able to request a zoning change.” CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 70 Roxanne Nielsen, 11637 Alegre Drive read a letter to the Council: “Tonight, you will be making very difficult decisions. You will vote on whether the City is going to propose an Urban Limit Line and if so, the placement of that boundary. The Nielsen family owns a total of 467 acres in the Western Extended Planning Area (WEPA). A parcel of that land lies contiguous to the city borders. It has only about 40 developable acres. I respectfully submit the following evidence and documentation to support the inclusion of this parcel within the ULL boundaries: 1.Letters of testimony from the founding city council members stating that in the drawing of the city of Dublin’s boundaries at the time of incorporation, this parcel of land was intended to be part of the city. (see letters from Burton, Hegarty and Jeffrey (sic)-Sailors). 2.A portion of this parcel is already in the city limits. (see parcel map). 3.City facilities are on this property, both Black Reservoir and sewer lines. 4.There are no other existing Dublin city tanks or sewer lines outside of the city’s limits. 5.DSRSD records will confirm that Mr. Nielsen participated in the funding of Black Reservoir. It was required that the tank be designed for larger capacity. 6.A map of West Side Water Master Plan shows Black Reservoir intended service for future development. 7.The sewer lines are of a capacity to handle future development. 8.There are three city streets stubbed up to provide access to this property. 9.Despite its zoning, this land contiguous to the city limits has no agriculture value. It is bordered by residential developments on three sides. 10.It is the policy of the Greenbelt Alliance to support developments that are contiguous to city borders, rather than to support development in green belts. 11.According to the Alameda County General Plan, East county Area Plan (ECAP), Volume 1, Table 2, “General Criteria For Locating The Urban Growth Boundary” (pgs T-5 & 6), this parcel meets the criteria to be inside the boundary line. · “Seek to include an appropriate amount of land within the boundary to accommodate projected growth.” · Open space areas can exist within an UGB. It is feasible a large portion of this parcel could be designated for open space in the future, providing hiking trails and public land for the city. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 71 · Topography: “UG areas include lands that are generally flat and developable.” This parcel has protected ridgelands as well as approximately 40 acres that are flat and developable. · Visual Resources: “UG areas include lands near existing development which are not visually significant, elevations over 800 feet.” This parcel is bordered by residential development on three of its borders. On the south the city limits goes beyond the property line of this parcel. The elevation cap by our gulp is 740 feet. · Soil Stability: “UG areas include lands near existing development having stable soils.” This parcel has land that meets that criterion. In addition, any required studies would address this thoroughly. · Agriculture: “UG areas include some agricultural lands near existing or planned development.” · Infrastructure: “UG areas include lands currently served or proposed to be served by infrastructure”. This parcel has city infrastructure on it, both water and sewer. The water master plan map for the western area verifies “proposed to be served” criteria. People may be asking, “Why did you wait 17 years to correct the mistake in the city boundaries?” The city incorporated in 1982, at which time the boundaries were set. This parcel of land was intended to be annexed in the future and an accurate boundary was not considered to be an urgent priority given the scope of the monumental and overwhelming task of creating a city. Five years later the process began that would annex the land with the Eden Development. This now brings us to today and this issue. Most of the supporters of this initiative are residents of the neighborhood adjacent to the property under discussion. In fact, they have admitted that the initiative process began in part as a response to the possibility of development on my family’s land. Using this process to require my family to maintain this property to provide a view for these residents is not only self-serving, it is clearly unfair to ask that we provide this aesthetic benefit at our expense. The quality of life in the remainder of the city will not be impacted by the low density development that is possible on these 40 acres. Excluding this parcel of the Nielsen property from within the boundary of the proposed Urban Limit Line is not justified, nor fair, and its exclusion has legal ramifications which they hope they are not forced to pursue. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Nielsen Family. Signed/Roxanne Nielsen” CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 72 She shared pictures and stated the ridgelines are already protected. Lona McCallister, 4700 Bel Roma Road, Livermore stated she is secretary to the local grassroots organization, Citizens for Property Rights, People for the USA. They are a non-profit grassroots organization to support individual private property rights. She supports moderation, credibility and balance. She wants to give voice to the people who have spoken out against the Dublin Ridgelands Voters Voice Initiative and presented 54 cards from citizens with concerns about the voters voice initiative. They will continue to educate people about the issues. The cards read: “NO ON DRVVI Dublin Ridgelands Voters Voice Initiative. To: Dublin City Council Citizens have a right to the initiative process but that does not make DRVVI “right”. I believe only fair and equitable ways to control traffic & growth should be sought. DRVVI takes public control of private property and devalues the land forcing private landowners to provide a public benefit . . . . this is unfair!” Marjorie Labar, 11707 Juarez Court, spoke regarding intentions toward the Nielsen property. In the record of public hearings for the Hansen Hill Development going all the way back to 1986, the City was put on notice that putting in stub streets was growth conducive. She asked when the 2000 Presidential Primary Election will be held. Staff responded that it will be in March, 2000. She stated she would like to get this on the ballot sooner. Any action the City Council takes regarding ULLs has been upheld by the highest courts in the land. You would not be changing their current designation. The people who elected you have decided there has been enough growth to the west. We have a very adequate land reserve on the east side for any conceivable future growth. The record shows a constant trend toward limiting growth on the western ridges. The property Ms. Nielsen discussed is steep and is prone to landslides. There has been a lot of long and hard work that has gone into establishing the lines and we should stick with the City limits. Paul Moffatt, 11742 Solana Drive related some history. He was part of the DUMAC committee, which got us to the point of being incorporated. He talked about representative property rights. He was one of the original Council-members. He was Mayor for 2 years and on the Council for 15 years. He owned a retail pharmacy in Dublin and he served the Nielsen family for 4 generations. They are neighbors and have been here for many years. The study used by LAFCO to determine whether the City could incorporate was referenced, with boundaries on the north by the County land, on the south by I-580, on the east by Dougherty Road and on the west by foothills. They CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 73 felt this statement meant to the top of the foothills. It was agreed upon by LAFCO that the western area should be areas already designated as housing areas by the County. The foothill tops were not brought into this particular document, however they indicated Dublin’s Sphere of Influence did go to east Doolan Road and west to Eden Canyon. This was area set aside for the City to grow into when it needed to. The tops of ridges were chosen because of drainage. The City of Dublin GP Volume I in 1984 was drafted, with maps showing where the primary zoning areas were and as a result this map shows the prime zoning areas being considered at that time were essentially the tops of the ridges. It included some of the extended planning area, which went to the top of the hills. As of 1984, the Nielsen property has been included in City planning. It was hoped that that area would be annexed. This is one of the reasons Mr. Nielsen allowed DSRSD to put the Bill Black Reservoir up there. This is why they have water and why they have sewage. This area is still part of the City planning. Mayor Houston stated when he hears it was supposed to be in the City but it didn’t get in, when you hear this, this doesn’t seem very credible. Why wasn’t the property included at that time? Mr. Moffatt stated they wanted to incorporate the urbanized areas into Dublin. Mayor Houston commented on a survey that wasn’t done. He asked Mr. Ambrose to comment. Mr. Ambrose stated he wasn’t involved when the actual boundaries were drawn. He came 3 months after incorporation. Mr. Moffatt stated part of the area was planned before it was brought into the City. With regard to a moratorium, he has a problem. This restricts the City Council’s representation. In 1967 there was a thrust to incorporate Dublin at that time and it was denied by LAFCO. One of the reasons was that Stoneridge Mall was being considered. This meant big bucks to Pleasanton. Murray School District was viewed for what Dublin was to be. Both residents and landowners have rights. Anything that ties the Council’s hands is very risky. LAFCO could certainly take away all the land to the west. Castro Valley is talking about incorporation and potentially they could do the same thing Pleasanton could do and incorporate the land to the west. He felt the County wants to have it developed. He urged the Council to take the time necessary to deliberate this carefully. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 74 Mr. Ambrose stated the line adjacent to Nielsen property was not the City’s westerly boundary at incorporation. There were some modifications to the line made since 1982. Morgan King, 8348 Creekside Drive, stated many individuals were in the audience to support the initiative. He asked them to stand up. On behalf of all those who support the initiative, he expressed thanks to Rich Ambrose, Eddie Peabody, Kit Faubion, Libby Silver, Carol Cirelli, Cm. Lockhart and Cm. Howard for their generous cooperation, professionalism and expertise. Roxanne Nielsen who is a formidable person to have against them and other individuals who will come forward with arguments against the initiative with statements about whether property owners should be allowed to develop their land, all of them are irrelevant. Not one is why Dublin voters shouldn’t have a say. He has not heard one reason why voters should not have a say. The right to the initiative process is contained in the California Constitution. This is being used all over California. Milpitas just passed one last Fall. There seems to be a tremendous amount of fear of the voters. Do we trust them or not? They seem to feel the voters will always turn down every proposal. It’s 50/50 now with proposal on the west and east. How can you have more even odds? There are lots of things that voters may approve. Tract homes probably will not be one of them. When you say, taking away development rights, the initiative does not take away anything, it just puts it on the ballot. These property owners don’t have any development rights now. It currently permits one unit per hundred acres. Nobody gave them any binding promise that it would be anything different from this. The City of Dublin has always had the option to say no to requests to develop. The only difference is instead of 5 people, it will be 13,000 people deciding. There has been talk about some kind of a promise made some 17 years ago and it seems the individuals involved with incorporating the city are taking umbrage that people moving in since then have different opinions. The voters are the shareholders. Families who have moved here in the last few years have their own opinions. This promise supposedly made 17 years ago, would be a violation of the Brown Act. There’s nothing in the record that has this decision. He found something interesting in reviewing the Brown Act, Section 54956.6. As used in this chapter, action taken means a collective decision made by a majority of the members of a legislative body, a collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a legislative body to make a positive or a negative decision. This promise seems unreasonable. Mr. King stated the Committee proponents request that the City allow them to sign off on the ballot argument. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 75 Mark Ferguson, 21120 Eden Canyon Road, Castro Valley spoke on behalf of the citizens for property rights. Their committee received the final draft last Friday. They asked for more time to understand the packet. They ask that the City Council not adopt the resolution as worded because of objectivity. It should be written with language that is truthful. It is vague and misleading. Areas do exist that are suitable for residential housing. What criteria will be used to determine what is safe or otherwise? How is the City going to promote agriculture and doesn’t the City need agreement with the landowners. They oppose this because it puts a heavy burden on voters. Dublin’s growth should be led by the City Council and planners. The 30 years provision, they oppose. They propose a short term voter mechanism to see if it is workable. They oppose the Urban Limit Line and request a study to determine the projected growth so the needed land will be inside the Urban Limit Line. The fiscal impacts on Dublin and on landowners must be studied. What other impacts will there be? These answers will allow voters to make appropriate choices. They feel there are more appropriate answers than what the Committee came up with. Livermore is currently negotiating to be fair to landowners. He encouraged the City Council to develop a study group to consider these impacts. David Vrba, 8115 Brittany Drive, stated he and his wife Deana represent 3 other residents. None are politicians or lawyers, but just common folk. They are all in favor of the right to vote. Tom Schweser, 11576 Manzanita Lane, stated he has been a resident of Dublin for 35 years. He was the public member of LAFCO for 22 years and Chair most of that time. He was there when the Sphere of Influence was established for Dublin and when it approved the vote for the City. He opposes the Urban Limit Line at the existing City Limits. What gives these people the right to prevent landowners from exercising their rights? He is sickened when people say keep the hills the way they are now. If they want to keep them, buy them. Now that they’re here, they say they don’t want development above them. A community to remain healthy, has to grow and rebuild in the older commercial areas. We need to round out the western area. He understands their reluctance from working with the Committee. This seems to be a done deal. He hopes the property owners will be given a fair shake and that we don’t sell them down the river. Rory MacLean, 8341 Creekside Drive, stated people have all spoken very eloquently and made points clearly. With all due respect to those who arrived many years ago, we need CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 76 to look at where we are today, not 20 or 30 years ago. He feels people in Dublin will give others a fair shake. Voters will give them a fair shake. There are a lot of special interests at stake here. We need to look to the interests of many, as would be expressed with a vote. Tom Mooers, 1372 North Main Street, Suite 203, Walnut Creek, stated he is the East Bay Field Director for Greenbelt Alliance. He was shocked to hear that they may support continuing to pave over the greenbelt hills of Dublin. There is really no need to set aside land for development with the traffic nightmare and smog which is getting worse. Christina Bond, 11182 Brittany Lane submitted that the color of her house does affect the community. It affects the value and quality of life of those around her. She sees no reason why the Nielsen property should be exempt from this initiative. If voters approve it, it should be allowed to develop. She requested the Council to please establish an Urban Limit Line at the City Limits. Tony Fields, 22084 Eden Canyon, Castro Valley, stated he is against the initiative. He spoke with Cm. Lockhart quite a few times. You cannot see nothing if the property ever comes to be developed. The only way will be from an airplane. There’s hills all around it. He requested that people go over and look at it. Dave Burton, 11396 Dillon Way, stated he is one of the old timers referred to. They promised the Nielsens that their property was where the boundary was. The line up on the hill is the old VCSD line and it was already engineered. This was the reason it was picked. They weren’t even a legislative body, but just a group of citizens. He thanked the Committee who spent a lot of time on this. Political realism means we will probably have a vote. The 20 years recommended is a timeframe for planning. This is 10 Council elections. Having it at the November 7, 2000 election will save money. A Council sponsored initiative is the way to go. There’s no problem with having a moratorium until the election. He believes the Nielsen property belongs in the City. If we have an election, he suspects it will win. A camel is a horse put together by a committee. There’s too much vindictiveness that’s gone into this already. Mr. King is personalizing this. He stated he accepts the fact that we will have an election. Bruce Goslin, 8067 Brittany Drive was called to speak. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 77 David Bewley advised that Mr. Goslin had to leave and stated he was requested to speak on his behalf since he had to leave. He wanted to state for the record he was one of the main proponents for the referendum for the east area. He supports the right to vote and supports the current City limits. David Bewley, 11166 Brittany Lane, stated speaking for himself, he is one of the co- authors of the original initiative. They came to have an open process so everyone can participate. Structured meetings give everybody a chance to talk. This was chosen rather than gathering signatures. They chose this approach in order to get together. They’ve been working on this for several years. It has been a complex process. There is no disrespect intended toward the landowners. The end result in coming down to the City and what has resulted is an Urban Limit Line essentially drafted by the City. It keeps the spirit and intent of the GP as we know it today. What they are doing is not a denial of anybody’s rights. What this is all about is just a right to vote. Courts have ruled repeatedly that it is not radical nor a violation for citizens to be added to the approval process. This takes away none of the basic powers of the City. We won’t have a camel because the City won’t allow a camel. When a plan is submitted, then and only then, it goes to a vote of the citizens. This makes it a very open process. This is going on statewide in many communities. This is not a blanket denial of growth or for anyone to seek development. It is wrong to say this process is restricting their right to develop. They’re confusing the right to seek to develop, not the right to develop. This all came about because of many years of development and piecemeal development. The fact is there is no control taken of private property here. They will continue to be the ones to make the decision on whether to seek to develop. We’re adding a right, not taking away one. We’re adding a right for citizens to take the decision seriously. With regard to statement of land being devalued, it is agricultural right now. They specifically left the door open. They could have gone for a citizen’s initiative with Urban Limit Line without right to seek development. Everything they could do before can still be done. The only thing different is the right of the people to vote. The Nielsen property is not in the City Limits right now, so the issue is whether they are subject to the provisions of voting like everybody else. This issue can and should be addressed by the City Council. Why did nothing happen for 17 years and why was no GPA proposed? Why did no elected official request that they be put in the City for 17 years? If you look at intent, it’s really just an idea. This land is being left and is being governed by Alameda County. They are not changing it or restricting it. They just want to vote on it. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 78 John Anderson, 11174 Brittany Lane, stated he felt most of the previous speakers covered points he would have made. This is a very simple process that has been cloaked. There is no legal right to develop. There is, in the introduction of the GP, a specified list of rights for the citizens of this community. Those rights should be extended to the right to vote on anything, but only after the City Council has reviewed and approved it. There are a lot of personality attacks that have taken place through this process. The majority vote of the citizens will be the ones to decide. He does not comprehend the fear of having a vote. A referendum happens afterward and an initiative beforehand. A development is an irreversible process that has a definite impact on the quality of life of the citizens of this community. Residents have a right to vote on what will be the irreversible impact. Margaret Davis, 7362 Larkdale Avenue, submitted a written statement. “It is not fair to ask the property owners in the western area of Dublin to provide, at their expense, open space for the adjacent residents. The needs of this community 30 years from now are not known and no initiative affecting development over that time should be adopted.” Janine Saake, 11198 Brittany Lane, submitted a written statement. “Please establish an Urban Limit line at the present city limits! The Dublin voters should have the right to vote on any development in Dublin. It is not that we are against future development. Rather, we want to be absolutely certain that all issues concerning development are thoroughly investigated and explored including traffic issues, safety issues, land issues, etc. Thank You!” Tom Benigno, 6546 Cottonwood Circle, stated he spent 6 or 7 meetings and for about 21 hours he listened to the panel discuss this initiative. He watched very carefully. He mentioned this when the panel was first empanelled. We needed to have the other side represented at these meetings. He mentioned this to Mr. King. Most of the people who stood up earlier were not at the meetings. Not until this evening did he know what this was truly about; voting. Mr. Nielsen had to sell land to survive. If he had not, most of these same people would not live on the hill. He stated he is not really for or against this, but would like to see the people get together. Margaret J. Tracy, 1262 Madison Avenue, Livermore, stated she is a 3 generation rd resident and for 42 years has lived in Livermore. She is on the Board of Preserve Area Ridgelands, enthusiastic supporters of DVVI. Cities have grown and times are changing with need to protect resources wisely. Water and land – she called to their attention, Zone 7’s 20 year water supply update. There is a big thick EIR that goes with this. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 79 There is a large area of the diagram of future water supply that is left blank. There is not a sustainable water supply to support the 3 valley cities’ water demand. It’s time to be realistic and practical. A second publication was referenced related to the National Research Council 1998 issues on potable use. Mayor Houston asked that she concentrate her comments on the items being discussed. Ms. Tracy stated she still wished to discuss water as it is relevant. Dublin residents have worked long and hard to prepare the initiative and the PARC Board encourages the proposed western city limits. She asked, what is the role of City government in speculation of land? Susan Nelson Bewley, 11166 Brittany Lane, addressed the issue of promises by former Councilmembers without prior notice and input would violate the Brown Act. The Nielsens proposed 70 homes in the past and this would create 700 vehicles coming down Brittany and Silvergate. The Dublin interchange is quite full right now. They could build right now 4 ranch type homes and recoup their investment. They could create an open area or park up there. They could recoup some of their taxes and it would be legal without any changes. Regarding the infrastructure and the water tower, Schaefer is paying, and sometimes developers have to pay a Mello-Roos tax. The Nielsens have the last open hills facing Dublin. Dublin citizens have a stake in their community. None of us will be here very long. What do we want to leave for future generations? Give people a choice at the voters booth. Kevin Dielissen, 11334 Village View Court, stated he has been a resident for 20 years. He felt Mayor Houston made a good point that we have a beautiful City. We need to balance growth. A recent newspaper article said this would devalue the land, but he did not feel this is the case. There has not been a trust with what the Council and planners have done in the past. They seem to talk for the developers. Citizens want to be a part of the decision. He stated he is a real estate broker. The Nielsens have a right to sell their property. He advised that he owns several Dublin properties. People want to have a say in what it’s going to look like. Linda Knapp, 7360 Hansen Drive, submitted a written statement, which was read: “What we do regarding development of the Western Foothills directly affects crime and traffic congestion. We cannot predict 20 years into the future. Let future residents wait for older homes CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 80 to sell as we have done. The voters of Dublin are intelligent enough to decide this issue. Support the Initiative.” Robert Lew, 6990 Village Parkway #210, submitted a written statement, which was read: “(1) Urban Limit Line should be considered City wide as a whole, not piecemeal. (2) Any attempt to stall/stop development should be considered City wide as a whole, not piecemeal. (3) General plan amendment studies should be performed prior to any initiative, determination of urban limit lines, or prior to any election or vote. Do the studies first, so everyone can make educated decisions.” Cathy Kuhn, 8429 Creekside Drive, stated she felt there has been a lot of time and effort put into this Urban Limit Line and it deserves to go to the voters. The City Limit line happens to be at her back fence and she felt we should stay with that. We are not stopping people from coming forward with good development, but any development presented should be thoroughly studied. It is very steep, and she’s concerned about that. Dublin should follow Contra Costa County who recently implemented an Urban Limit Line. Richard Guarienti, 8279 Rhoda Avenue, stated he is not a rancher nor neighbor to Nielsen property, not an attorney, and not representing a majority of Dublin. He spoke about Iron Horse Trail a while back and Emerald Glen Park. He is interested in looking to the future. He agreed that voters should have a say. We should think about what’s going to happen 20, 30 and 40 years from now. We should think about kids going on field trips and what they will see. What can we look forward to in the future. What is the possibility and let’s look at the options. He appreciates letting voters have their say. There’s a vision to have a trail connector to Pleasanton Ridge. Ted Seito, 11486 Silvergate Drive, submitted a written statement, which was read: “The report & recommendations proposes a way to secure the voice of the people of Dublin. Let us vote on an Urban Limit Line as the current city limit.” Linda Laforet, 4003 Lock Lomand Way, Livermore, submitted a written statement, which was read: “How can the writers of the voter’s Initiative be opposed to houses in the hills when they purchased their homes in the hills?” John C. Rasmussen, 6100 Highland Road, Pleasanton, submitted a written statement, which was read: “This Proposed initiative could cost the taxpayers in Higher Taxes, Lost Tax Revenue, Legal Suits. I hope it was not written by the creators as a political platform, But for the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 81 citizens (sic) of Dublin. I’m very concerned about Private Property Rights and fairness, to all the people.” Tamera Nielsen, 11637 Alegre Drive requested the Council support the resolution for a GPA study, but it must be done before citizens vote. This is so important. Having a study after is illogical. If the citizens want an election, they should pay for it. Mayor Houston closed the public comment portion and stated the Council would discuss the issues. RECESS At 10:28 p.m., Mayor Houston called for a short recess. At 10:39 p.m., the meeting was reconvened with all Councilmembers present. Mayor Houston discussed the basic issues and items 4 through 12 under the recommendation portion of the Staff Report. Do we want an Urban Limit Line in general, and if so, where does the line go? Should we have a vote and if so, when? Then they need to discuss the issue of a moratorium. Cm. McCormick asked with regard to the water tank that was brought up, who paid for it? Mr. Thompson stated he thought Bordeaux Estates had to pay. Tom McCormick, representing DSRSD, stated that area was developed by 4 partners of which the Nielsens were one. They put the tank in that location so water could be brought across VCC and Bordeaux Estates. They put up the money and paid for it. The tank sits on Nielsen property. All of the other tanks that he knows about, the land was bought by DSRSD. He was not on the Board at the time this occurred. Cm. Lockhart stated there is a tank in the east that is owned by the City of Pleasanton. Mr. McCormick stated the City of Pleasanton is in the process of buying the land from the Lin family. The tanks are very expensive; actual costs depend on the size. The costs are recovered by charging developers a charge to connect. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 82 Cm. McCormick stated she brought this up because this has been one of the selling points on the part of the Nielsens that it was for future development in the area. The tank is in use now by homeowners. Mr. McCormick stated it was constructed to serve the homes. It was not oversized to do anything proposed in the future. VCC had to put up a gigantic wooden barrel initially. Mayor Houston felt the cost is a very important concept. No where else in the City do we have infrastructure where improvements were oversized for the future and money was put up for this. He requested that this be put aside and dealt with later. Transfer of rights and County programs could be discussed later. Cm. Lockhart stated she does definitely understand that this is an emotional issue and there are people on both sides of wherever you draw the line. As far as doing an initiative, an initiative is a fact of life. Residents do have a right to do it. The fact that the City is working with them has been a bone of contention, especially for some of the ranchers. She wanted to serve on the committee because she felt there was a basic question encased in the middle of a lot of words. The basic question is philosophy of growth and the quality of life in Dublin. She felt it was important for the City to pursue the question. She wants to hear the answer from 13,000 voters and what their philosophy is. What gives us quality in our community. She also sees this issue of Urban Limit Line as basically shifting the burden of proof. It is a major shift. A developer buys the land, puts together a plan, the City Council looks at it and says okay, it’s good for Dublin. The 5 people do their best to make the decision for the community. If residents don’t agree, they’ve always had the option for gathering signatures and putting it on the ballot. All this is doing is shifting the burden of proof instead of residents looking at it after the fact. We are saying to the developer, make your plan and take it to the City Council and if you get approval, take it to the people to see what they think of it. It’s a little harder on the developer, but not quite as hard on the residents. Cm. Zika stated he felt basically this is ballot box planning, the worst kind of planning in the world. In 1993 people didn’t like the proposal to the west. Citizens will or won’t object to what they perceive as a well planned development. Even though 79% of the people don’t want to expand to the west, if they like it, they will accept it. We’re not stopping development, it just has to be super duper. There are opportunities for things other than development. Cm. Howard stated she agreed with Cm. Zika’s comments. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 83 Mayor Houston stated he is also very interested in what they’ve done in south Livermore. This problem won’t go away until the various methods have all been explored. Until the transfer has taken place, it’s not a done deal. He would like to see how these types of things come together to create a win/win situation. This is not the end. It’s not going to be settled once and for all, unless we start being creative and figure out as a community how the transfer can take place. We must start getting real on values and expectations. He complimented Cm. Lockhart for doing a fine job. There is currently no project and it is ridiculous having people negotiating for houses when we don’t have a project. Intelligent decisions cannot be made until they have a project to discuss. Until then, there is nothing to talk about. It has been very difficult to talk about this intelligently without knowing the scope of the problem. Over $30,000 has been spent studying this for all these meetings. We were chasing windmills because we don’t have a plan presented. It is difficult to judge something when there is no project. With regard to the idea of promoting agriculture, he wasn’t sure what this meant. Cm. Lockhart stated they didn’t have a specific discussion on promoting agriculture. They would like to see it zoned as it is currently zoned. Mayor Houston stated he would go along 100% with the moratorium. This is a moot point. Regarding the GPA, it seemed odd that you would vote first and have the GPA later. The GPA should be done before the vote. We can’t have the vote before we can accomplish the GPA. Lastly, if we are going to vote on all new development, what is the purpose of the Urban Limit Line? How does it add or subtract to the process? Cm. Zika stated the original perception was the City Council wasn’t listening to the citizens. They got tired of coming down and arguing against growth and development in the west. This got turned around to an Urban Limit Line. It is legally correct and sufficient and everybody understands what it does; it limits growth. Cm. Lockhart felt the Urban Limit Line was a description of a growth boundary. The whole initiative process was to say this is where Dublin stops. They wanted a line that says this is where development stops in the western hills. There is no project, but this is a process. Voters want a chance to make the decision. It’s not taking away somebody’s rights but it is putting it under closer scrutiny. She felt the GPA study would go concurrently with the election. November of 2000 would give enough time to get the information out. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 84 Mayor Houston stated in other areas where you have an Urban Limit Line, it is not always consistent with City limits. If it’s outside, then you have two lines. Cm. McCormick stated some of the property owners have said they would like to be removed from our Sphere of Influence. Cm. Lockhart stated she felt this would be a good question to go in the GPA study. Not all of them are asking for this. Item 4: Determine if the ULL approach is appropriate to control development in Western Dublin. City Attorney Silver stated a consensus would be fine on Item 4. In discussing where the Urban Limit Line would be could also be by consensus. Items 7 through 12 should have a vote. By a consensus, the Council determined that yes, the ULL approach is appropriate to control development in Western Dublin. Item 5: Evaluate ULL (Western City Limits) as proposed by the Committee and other proposed boundaries (exempting Nielsen Property). Item 6: Establish specific boundary of the ULL as recommended by the Committee (present City Limits) or as modified by the City Council. Cm. Lockhart stated she felt it should be at City limits and exclude the Nielsen property, and Cm. Zika, Cm. Howard and Cm. McCormick agreed. Mayor Houston said he would include the Nielsen property, but the consensus was to exempt it. Item 7: Adopt Resolution placing a measure on the ballot to establish an ULL for the Western Hills and setting an election for a specific date (regular or special election dates) and adopting ballot language. Cm. Lockhart felt November of 2000 gives enough time to get the information out. This is appropriate and the least expensive. Cm. Zika concurred. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 85 Mayor Houston asked about March 2000 and if this would be a special election. City Clerk Kay Keck advised that any election date other than November of even numbered years would be considered a special election for the City of Dublin. The City could request to place a measure on the ballot of an established election date, and request that it be consolidated with whatever election is occurring. Mayor Houston felt June of this year is way too short a timeframe. The Council consensus was for the November 2000 ballot. With regard to the ballot argument language and who will write it, Cm. Zika proposed that the committee write it. Ms. Silver explained the Elections Code order for ballot arguments. Cm. Lockhart asked if the City Council could write the direct argument and the proponents potentially write a rebuttal. Ms. Silver stated the City Council would have the first option, but if they chose not to write one she discussed the order of how they would be accepted. Mayor Houston felt what goes on the ballot should be from the City Council. They need to designate who on the Council will write the argument, and to include the alternative language in Attachment 3 as proposed by the City Attorney. Item 7: Election date shall be November of 2000 Mayor Houston felt the subcommittee members should write the argument. Cm. Lockhart and Cm. Howard were authorized to write the ballot argument on behalf of the City Council. Cm. Zika asked if they write it and one or two of the Council accepts the draft then that represents the City Council. Ms. Silver stated this was correct. She asked if the City Council would authorize others to join in the argument. Cm. Lockhart stated she felt just the City Council should be put on the ballot argument. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 86 On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council established the election date for November 2000, designated Vice Mayor Lockhart and Cm. Howard to write the argument in favor of the measure, set the proposed Urban Limit Line at the City Limits, and included the alternative language read by the City Attorney. The Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 24 – 99 SUBMITTING A MEASURE TO THE VOTERS TO ADOPT AN URBAN LIMIT LINE IN THE WESTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA AT THE REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 7, 2000, CALLING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PROCEDURAL MATTERS, AND REQUESTING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE THE ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION Item 8: This establishes a moratorium. Resolution (4/5 vote required) initiating a GPA Study to implement the proposed ULL. This will allow a moratorium to prohibit any new GPA until the voters decide on the proposed measure.) Attachment 4 would initiate a GPA study and then they could adopt Attachment 5 (Item 9). On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 25 – 99 INITIATING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY FOR THOSE PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN SPHERE OF INFLUENCE WEST OF THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS On motion of Cm. Lockhart, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and on an urgency basis, adopted ORDINANCE NO. 3 – 99 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 87 PROCESSING AND APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR THE WESTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA PENDING THE COMPLETION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY ON ESTABLISHING AN URBAN LIMIT LINE Item 11: On motion of Mayor Houston, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the Council instructed Staff to return within 45 days to determine if a moratorium should be extended for 10 months and 15 days. Item 12: Instruct Staff to refer a proposal to delete areas within the Western Extended Planning Area from the City’s adopted Sphere of Influence to the Local Agency Formation Commission should the measure establishing an ULL be approved by the voters of the City of Dublin The Council agreed that this will be looked at with GPA study. REPORT ON CODE ENFORCEMENT AT SHAMROCK VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER 7:58 p.m.7.2(530-20) Community Development Director Peabody presented the Staff Report and provided an update of the status of code enforcement measures taken for the shopping center located on Amador Valley Boulevard, based on a complaint received from resident Marianne Stutchman. She stated she felt the Shamrock Village Shopping Center has been declining over the past several years. She suggested that trash enclosures be placed around the Center in various locations. In addition, she asked Staff to look into the number of trailers that the Goodwill Industries are allowed to have on the site. Mr. Peabody discussed the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Solid Waste Ordinance and the Property Maintenance Ordinance. He gave background information on the Shamrock Village Shopping Center, which was approved in 1960 by Alameda County. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 88 Mr. Peabody reviewed the options available to the City, which are enforcement of ordinances and conditional use permit, revocation of CUP for the Goodwill donation station, and design review of eventual redevelopment of the site. This area continues to be a dumping ground for many people. Cm. Howard stated she noticed that Goodwill only has one trailer as of today and a sign saying don’t leave anything unless they are open. Mr. Peabody stated people put donations and or trash there after 5 p.m. when the person leaves. He advised that the Starward site will be under construction sometime this Spring. Cm. Lockhart felt there’s probably a lot of boxes and cardboard being generated and asked if there is any recycling help being offered or anything that Waste Management could do? Mr. Peabody stated the biggest user of cardboard is Monument, but the real problem has been others with food establishments, which have their dumpsters filled with left over foodstuffs and this is another problem. The cardboard isn’t stacked in a nice clean stack to be picked up. People are also disposing of things next to the dumpsters that don’t originate from the businesses. Cm. Zika stated people who see people dumping things should take down license plates and give the information to the police. He commented that he liked Buzz’s letter of February 10. th Cm. Lockhart felt they are probably not the only businesses in town that have others using their dumpsters. Maryanne Stutchman, 7973 Caroline Court, thanked Staff for their help. She stated she’s lived there 17 years. She has seen big improvements in the last 2 weeks. CTV 30 was there filming this afternoon. Buzz has gotten Goodwill moving. She would look forward to having the trailer moved. She is also dealing with the property manager. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 89 Mayor Houston commented that this was just an update to make sure everything is going in the proper direction. REPORT ON CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE RENEWAL PROCESS & APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO SERVE ON THE TRI-VALLEY CITIES CABLE TV FRANCHISE RENEWAL COMMITTEE 7:15 p.m.8.1(1050-30/110-30) Management Assistant Sue Barnes presented the Staff Report and advised that the City of Dublin has begun the process to renew its cable television franchise agreement with TCI of California, which is due to expire on December 31, 2000. The City is coordinating renewal efforts with the Cities of Pleasanton, San Ramon and Livermore. Staff from the four cities have formed a “Tri-Valley Cities Cable Television Franchise Renewal Committee”, which has met several times to discuss various elements of the franchise renewal process. At this point, Staff is recommending that an elected official from each City be appointed to serve on the committee. The City Manager and/or his designee will lead the City’s negotiating team, but the elected official appointee may be called upon to assist with negotiations in the event of an impasse. Ms. Barnes reviewed the timeline relating to updating the ordinance as indicated in the Staff Report and stated Staff will return to the City Council in May with an anticipated schedule for the completion of the remaining franchise renewal tasks. Cm. Lockhart stated she is interested in serving. Ms. Barnes stated this could go on for an undetermined length of time. On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council appointed Cm. Lockhart to serve on the Tri-Valley Cities Cable Television Franchise Renewal Committee. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 90 ADOPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES RELATED TO COLLECTION AND ACCOUNTING FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES 7:18 p.m.8.2(390-20) Assistant City Manager Rankin presented the Staff Report and advised that the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee was enacted to address the financing of transportation improvements required as a result of new development. The purpose of the guidelines is to provide procedures for reimbursement, credit, or other administrative aspects of the Traffic Impact Fee Program. Cm. Zika mentioned the 10 years to use up credit and then they get another 10 years. When it terminates do they get a refund? Mr. Rankin responded no, they would lose the rights. By that time, they would probably already have written it off. Cm. Zika asked about category 3 improvements, which says they are facilities of a regional nature and questioned if this is the same thing with just another title. Mr. Rankin stated our category 3 dealt with a limited number of projects. Cm. Zika questioned the statement, at time permit is obtained. Mr. Rankin gave an example of Opus doing spec tilt up and they didn’t have an end user. We weren’t sure what the usage was going to be. For the actual Humphreys part of it, they pretty much knew what and how it was going to be used for. It is a one-time fee. If we don’t know, we charge the lowest fee possible and when they come in we can charge the incremental difference. The improvements are sized to deal with the entire Specific Plan area. Cm. Zika clarified that we have a fudge factor if the usage changes. On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Lockhart, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 23 – 99 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 91 ESTABLISHING ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES RELATED TO EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES EDUCATIONAL SUMMIT 7:26 p.m.8.3(515-60) Mayor Houston stated he wished this subject was what everyone was present for. This is a most important item. Mayor Houston advised that it will take the resources of all in the community to work together to provide for better schools within our community. We do have good schools, but with all the positive things happening in our City, this is one area that is frankly holding us back. We have the luxury and burden of living between two very good school districts. In his role of Mayor, when businesses and families are looking to come into the community, he gets comments every day of the week, that we need to look at what we as leaders can do. Are we going to sit back and say that’s just the way it is or are we going to make a commitment to surpass those around us? The schools require the care and support of everybody. To say this is the school board’s job, this kind of thinking just doesn’t cut it anymore. He presented this at the State of the City address before the Chamber of Commerce. It will be good to provide a forum for all the stakeholders to talk about and discuss our objectives and goals and where we want to be in the future. What type of school system do we want to see as we go into the next century? He would like to see 2 languages required. If you only know one language, you will have one hand tied behind your back in the future. We need to establish high standards and fight like heck to get there. The second part of the summit will be the 7 bold initiatives adopted by the School District. It’s important that we as a community know what these are and buy into them to leverage resources in the community to make it work. This is another key part of the educational summit. Mayor Houston advised that he was desirous of holding an Educational Summit with the School District and other parties interested in the quality of Dublin schools. This subject was discussed at the last City/School District Liaison Committee meeting and the School District representatives present supported the concept. What he suggested CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 92 would be to hold a facilitated workshop, which would begin on a Friday evening and conclude on a Saturday afternoon. The target date for the summit meeting would be in mid to late April; with April 16 and 17 as tentative dates. The School District will put thth out a written survey to the community. They will then follow up with break out sessions and have dialogue about our schools. The final component he envisions, because our School District has spent over $5 million putting in a computer system second to none. The problem is we don’t have enough computers connected to this $5 million system. His idea is we need to make sure computers are common in our schools. This should be state of the art computers and not the old 386’s. Every 3 students should have one computer. This is something nobody else has. Pleasanton’s ratio is 1 to 6; Livermore’s is 1 to 9. He is part of the Tri-Valley Community Fund allocations committee and they had lots of requests from teachers for one computer. We need to make computers common. Funding would be needed from everyone as a true community effort. We as a city will be the better for it. CTV has indicated that they would likely be able to televise the meeting at an estimated cost of $1,000. Mayor Houston proposed that the City fund the cost of the professional facilitator, refreshments and cost of televising the event. The total estimated cost is $5,000. Cm. McCormick asked if the School District requested this summit. Are they putting in any money? How did this happen? Mayor Houston stated it wasn’t their idea, it was his. He did not think they are putting in any money. They are meeting to discuss it this evening. His idea is that it is not just the School District’s job to educate our children. Cm. McCormick stated she would like to see them participate financially as well. Cm. Lockhart stated she felt because this is coming from the Mayor, and the concept is coming from the City side rather than the School District side, she does not have a problem funding the summit portion. People can come to City officials to discuss what they would like to see. This is an opportunity to show the School Board that the community desires an improvement in test scores. This would be a good way to get buy in. She would like to see what happens after the summit. The impetus would be coming from the community to the School Board. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 93 Mayor Houston stated the School District was excited at the liaison meeting about this. Their survey will cost more than our summit costs. They are excited about leveraging off our efforts. They feel televising it will be a great idea. They are contributing, but just haven’t said they will buy milk and cookies in April. Cm. Howard asked when the liaison meeting was held. Cm. Lockhart stated it was a week ago Monday. They discussed the 7 bold initiatives and the Superintendent and 2 School Board members who were there were very supportive of getting this going. They feel it fits in with their 7 bold initiatives. Mayor Houston stated one of the problems they have is that not many people in the community know what the 7 bold initiatives are. This would be a way to get people to buy into their already established goals. This is another way for them to leverage what they’ve already done to get bigger. Cm. Zika stated he had concerns about the City Council prodding over the School Board’s territory. He would like to hear from citizens and professional educators as to how they feel the City can help them. The Superintendent indicated that Dublin has a very favorable ratio of 4 ½ students to every computer. He’s not sure computers will do it. He’s interested in knowing what they feel we can do to help them with their 7 bold initiatives. He’s willing to fund a seminar to find out how we can help. Tom Benigno, 6546 Cottonwood Circle, stated he felt the Mayor has a wonderful idea. If we buy them now, it will cost less than in 5 years. We should buy the computers and get moving on it. He announced that he will donate one of his social security checks for this purpose. Mayor Houston felt if and when we decide which avenue to go, the City, businesses, community and other individuals will talk about how important it is. Denis King, 6988 Allegheny Drive, president of Frederiksen parent faculty club stated Cm. Lockhart had presented the initial stages of Mayor Houston’s idea to their group. This is a vehicle to get to success. This will put the City in a partnership in the classroom for our students to succeed. Two years ago they started raising money with a goal to upgrade their computer room. They will redo their computer lab by the end of this year. They have 15 Apple II’s. They will put these in the first grade and use them CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 94 as keyboarding stations. They would like to see their donation applied for future use and toward the goal of one computer for every 3 students. On motion of Cm. Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to participate in the Educational Summit and approved an additional appropriation of $5,000 from the Unallocated Reserves. OTHER BUSINESS 11:25 p.m. Upcoming Meetings (610-05) Mr. Ambrose reminded the Council of the City of Pleasanton liaison committee meeting on Friday at 9 a.m. Mr. Ambrose advised that the Library is holding a reception on February 21 at 2 p.m., st to celebrate the new Sunday hours. Mr. Ambrose stated the entire Council is invited to attend the March 10 Alameda th County Mayors Conference. Dublin is hosting and it will be held at the Monarch Hotel. Details will be distributed to the Council. Monument for Deputy Monego (580-40) Cm. McCormick stated she heard from Shawn Fontaine, the Boy Scout who wants to build a monument for Officer John Monego. He will probably start work in the middle of summer. It will be dedicated in early Fall. Recycling Programs (810-60) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 95 ( ( ADJOURNMENT 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:29 p.m. ATTEST: lerk k - Mayor CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 18 REGULAR MEETING February 16, 1999 PAGE 98