Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.01 Approve 01-10-1989 Minutes r ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - January 10, 1989 An Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Tuesday, January 10, 1989, in the Board Room of the Dublin Unified School District, 7471 Larkdale Avenue. The meeting was called to order at 7 : 07 p.m. , by Mayor Paul Moffatt. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Moffatt. Councilmember Hegarty arrived at the meeting at 7 : 15 p.m. HANSEN RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY, EIR, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PREZONING, TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 5766, AND ANNEXATION REQUEST Mayor Moffatt indicated that it appears that at least 2 additional meetings will be necessary to discuss this topic, so he opened the discussion regarding potential dates. The Council scheduled the next meetings for Tuesday, January 24, 1989 at 7 : 00 p.m. , at this same location. The following meeting was scheduled for Thursday, February 16th at 7 : 00 p.m. , with a location to be determined. Senior Planner O'Halloran advised that this public hearing was continued from the December 13, 1988 Council meeting. To date, the City has held 3 public hearings and 1 public field trip to the project site. These hearings have been for discussion on issues related to the 147 acre proposed Hansen Ranch Project . Venture Corporation/Hansen Hill Development Corporation is proposing a General Plan Amendment to consider a 240 dwelling unit residential development on this site, which is west of Silvergate Drive and north of Hansen Drive. At previous meetings, the Council began discussions on the four major issues identified as : Issue No. 1 : Conflict with Open Space Policies of the General Plan. The project proposes to fill the heavily wooded ravine and develop the area with single family houses . Certain areas with slopes over 30% would be graded to allow residential development. Issue No. 2 : Type and Number of Dwelling Units (Land Use Designation and Density) for the Developable Areas . Issue No. 3 : Significant Environmental Impacts on Oak/Bay Woodlands and Stream (Riparian) Corridor. Issue No. 4 : Significant Environmental Impacts from Mass Grading. CM-8-16 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 10, 1989 A I i S Staff explained that in addition to the Council's review of the four major issues above, discussion and resolution of the following issues are also necessary: 5 . Adding entire project site to Primary Planning Area 6. Amending tables and figures regarding residential development sites 7 . Amending policies and map regarding Hansen Drive extension 8 . Amending policies and map regarding alternate roadway to serve project 9 . Amending policies regarding 'Maximum acceptable level of service for major street intersections 10 . Amending policies regarding fire protection buffer zones 11 . Amending policies regarding open space maintenance The Applicant submitted a revised General Plan Amendment proposal to the Planning Department on December 28, 1988 . The revised proposal 1 ) reduces the number of dwelling units to 240; 2) modifies the on-site vehicular circulation and eliminates the need for the proposed emergency access road located north of the project and relocates the road away from the existing Kaufman & Broad townhouses; 3) proposes unit development within Area 1 impacting significant oak woodland vegetation on site and off site on the Valley Christian Center; 4) proposes filling of a portion of the swale area contrary to City Council direction; 5) eliminates the proposed 17 units between the knolls; 6) proposes filling in the area between the two knolls; and 7) includes unit development and a new cul- de-sac within Area 3 located in the northwestern portion of the site impacting both oak/bay woodlands and 30% slope areas. The Applicant' s revised proposal includes three major areas on site which conflict with the City' s existing open space policies . Area 1 : The Applicant proposes grading, street improvements and development of approximately nine units . Residential development within this area is in direct conflict with the City's General Plan Policies 3 . 1A and 3 .1B relating to preservation of oak woodland vegetation and 300 slopes. Development in this area will result in significant impacts on site and off site in that the Applicant proposes grading off site on the adjacent Valley Christian Center site. Area 1 also includes riparian/ creek corridor vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed multi-family development. Area 2 : The Applicant is proposing to fill the southeast portion of the swale area in which the City Council specifically and unanimously directed the Applicant to eliminate filling of the swale area. The filling of any portion of the swale area is in conflict with the City' s General Plan Policies 3 .1A and 3 .1B relating to the preservation of oak woodland and riparian vegetation and 30% slope areas. Area 3 : The Applicant proposes grading (cut and fill) , roadway improvements and additional residential lots. Residential development within Area 3 is in conflict with General Plan Policies 3.1A and 3 .1B in that this area consists of oak woodland vegetation and 30% slopes. CM-8-17 Adjourned Regular Meeting - January 10, 1989 Ms . O'Halloran explained that the main differences with the revised plan relate to a reduction of units from 245 to 240, modification of vehicular access and relocation of the road. Gordon Jacoby stated he would like to repeat some of the information presented by Ms. O'Halloran in a little slower fashion so the Council could see all the changes that have been made since their last map. There were roadway changes, removal of development changes, and grading changes throughout the project. They made an effort to change everything where concerns had been raised throughout the whole process. They moved the entrance road closer to the creek so the roadway would not be near the townhomes. They pushed the townhomes to the north side of the road, thereby pulling the road as far as they could away from the townhomes . They were contacted by the new Fire Chief who, in the last 4 or 5 months, has changed the policies regarding roadways. As a result of meeting with the Fire Chief, they realigned the roadway such that there will always be 2 access points into the loop road. Mr. Jacoby next discussed moving all the houses out of the swale. He stated he did take exception to the Staff Report as they propose no housing there. The Staff Report seems to imply that they are proposing homes in this area. They shifted the road on the northwest end of the property substantially down to move it out of the tree area and also further away from the swale area. With the last proposal, they were uncertain as to where they would put the fill. They decided that trying to build up in between the two knolls was not in anyone's interest, and so they did not pursue that effort. Mr. Jacoby advised that they are now proposing putting in a mound and presented a cross section drawing illustrating how this would look. The primary reason for doing this was to make sure they have the least amount of dirt hauled off the site on local roads. This would be a controlled fill which would be reseeded and in effect, form more of a ridgeline between the two knolls, although the two knoll points would still be higher. The ridgelines would be more visible as a backdrop to the homes nearby. One of the reasons they originally proposed filling the swale was because of the imbalance of dirt. He thought the primary area of conflict was the location of where they put the road and the grading required to do this . To take the road from one side to the other, they are proposing putting in some fill, as this is the only way they can bring the road from one side to the other side of the property. Behind the fill which goes in to support the road, they have room for homes. If they remove the homes, there will still be fill in this area. By moving the road down, they have been able to leave a lot of trees intact. They shifted the road to save as many trees as they could. Some areas have to be graded anyway in order to put the loop road in and/or to replace the landslide area. Mr. Jacoby felt it was very expensive to put in a loop road and then have no homes built along it. They are putting the custom lots in this area. He displayed a map which indicated a dark line outlining their recommen- dation as part of their proposal for 'General Plan. They felt' they' dealt with the issues of grading and tree saving as sensitively as possible. CM-8-18 Adjourned Regular Meeting - January 10, 1989 Ms . O'Halloran advised that Mark Trembley with EIP was present and could address some of the issues related to the open space area. Mark Trembley stated that their analysis of the Draft EIR dated December, 1987, and Final EIR dated May, 1988, was a different project in some respects. In the original EIR, there was about 1 .6 million cubic yards of cut and about 1 . 1 million cubic yards of fill indicated. Mr. Jacoby advised that these figures related to the project about 4 generations back. Mr. Trembley questioned what the estimated amounts of cut and fill were at this time. Mr. Jacoby stated they are at this point, estimating about 900, 000 cubic yards of cut and probably 750, 000-800, 000 cubic yards of fill. There would be about 150, 000-200, 000 excess cubic yards of cut and this was largely the purpose for the mound. Mr. Trembley indicated that the transfer of the fill from the swale area to the 2 knolls will save some off haul. The 200, 000 cubic yards of excess dirt would equate to approximately 10, 000 truckloads needing to be hauled. Mr. Jacoby stated that the purpose of the mound was to not have to take any dirt whatsoever off the site. Mr. Trembley discussed a letter from the Department of Fish & Game which he felt may become important. The letter did not get included in the EIR. The 45 day circulation period for the Draft EIR was December 23, 1987 to February 5, 1988, and the City did not receive the letter until August 2nd, although it was dated February 3rd. The Applicant will have to satisfy them on the stream alteration. These are the biologists that went out into the field about a year ago and made some agreements about what they would be willing to buy off on. Some of the redesign they requested has been done. Mr. Trembley stated he wanted to caution the Applicant that when the Department of Fish & Game comes back and still see the cut and fill,. they will most likely give them some problems . They will probably want more than a 30' buffer along the stream. Mr. Jacoby stated that he appreciated the comments and further that he has worked a lot with the Department of Fish & Game and Fish & Wildlife. He felt they had taken the necessary steps for stream improvement, and are comfortable with what they are proposing. They are about 200, away from the area in question rather than the required 301 . They will walk them back on the site to give them a feel for the distance. Often times, the person who writes the report is not the same person who has walked the site. Mr. Thompson discussed the area of jurisdiction of the Department of Fish & Game. They may get into 't he areas of where the fill was eliminated. They may also be concerned in the area where the road crosses the stream. They are mainly concerned regarding the wildlife corridor. CM-8-19 Adjourned Regular Meeting - January 10, 1989 7 1 Mr. Jacoby stated Fish & Game's primary interest is in the creek and has to do with flood control measures being proposed in the drainage to temporarily pond water that runs through. They would also be doing some selective rock placing, or rip rapping to the stream, so that the water continues to move in the existing stream bed. Cm. Jeffery questioned how the animal movement would occur. Mr. Jacoby indicated that a large size corregated metal pipe would be put into place with supports and with the road over the top. This would allow both animal and water movement. Cm. Jeffery asked if these would be similar to the culverts under I-680 . She felt this could become a security problem with kids going into the pipes. Mr. Jacoby stated that since this has actually not yet been engineered, they could comment no further. Cm. Hegarty felt that by eliminating certain homes, trees could be saved. Ms. O'Halloran advised that there was a tree survey completed by the Applicant in the EIR and Staff recommended that the Applicant be directed to prepare a new drawing at the same scale. Cm. Hegarty questioned if the Council was considering a General Plan Amendment or a plan from the developer. He felt the Council was getting the cart before the horse. City Attorney Nave advised that their proposal is the first one to come in in the extended planning area that brings these issues before the City Council to decide. This will affect their specific development based on how the Council determines it should be tailored. Mr. Jacoby felt part of the confusion stems from the fact that about 1 1 /2 years ago, they prepared and had accepted. a tentative map and planned development. All of these were reviewed as being complete. They are now at a much greater detail . Cm. Hegarty clarified the fact that the City could have made all these decisions without any developer presenting a plan. Cm. Jeffery questioned with regard to the scenic corridor on the other side of I-580, and the mound and fill of the swale, was part of this plan to hide these homes from I-580 . Mr. Jacoby stated no that most of the houses will not be visible and are hidden from view from I-580 . Elliott Healy stated he was concerned about the things that were discussed at the last meeting regarding the visual impact this project will have. He thought the Council had decided that photos should be taken of the major ridgelines from various locations in town. CM-8-20 Adjourned Regular Meeting - January 10, 1989 Mayor Moffatt stated that with the elimination of the high point of the area, this became secondary. Ms . O'Halloran advised that the reason why photos were not taken was mainly due to the weather. Weather permitting, these can still be taken, should the Council so direct. Mr. Healy stated he felt the Council made a good decision with regard to the swale area, and felt the Council should stick by this decision and allow no homes in the open space designated areas. Marjorie LaBar stated that with regard to the proposed mound, there is a large piece of land on the next property over being discussed for park dedication. She questioned what sort of visibility and where this mound was in relationship to the other piece of property. She also asked if this would be finished in one season or torn up for years. Ms. LaBar stated she was happy to see the road pushed back and questioned how necessary the homes were along this area. It appears that only about 5 or 6 homes are being proposed on this cul-de-sac. A cross section drawing requested earlier would show a lot more detail. In Area 3, the damage that would be done for the limited number of houses did not seem justified. Bob Anderson indicated that the Planning Staff did a study and came up with a number of 179 homes and he felt this would be a good starting point and questioned why the City did not go with this. Richard Heckler questioned if the loop road in Area 3 absolutely had to be there and also questioned if houses were being proposed on either side of the road. He felt this was a hollow argument that just because they must fill for the road, they might as well put in homes. Mr. Jacoby pointed out on the displayed drawings where grading would support the roadway. Custom homes would be located in this area. They needed to make some repairs due to the slide area. They would be regrading and revegetating. There will be a transition between the homes, the buffered landscaping and the natural landscaping. Mayor Moffatt asked what was the guarantee that the house does not go down the hill. Mr. Jacoby advised that they will put in proper materials and drainage to stop the slippage in the slide area. The dirt is moving down naturally now. Part of the ultimate guarantee lies with the builder. Mr. Jacoby stated that while he didn' t wish to beat a dead horse, with a General Plan, you can' t always anticipate exactly where the roadway is going to go through. They recognize that there are policies and concerns, but there are also City policies which do call for roadways . You can only look at these types of things when you get down to detail. In their proposal, they have tried to minimize conflicts wherever they. . can, and 'at the same time recognize- that there is a road and circulation program needed, in addition to their desire to build some homes. CM-8-21 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 10, 1989 Cm. Jeffery questioned with regard to the custom lots if this is something they design the homes for or does someone buy the lot and then go out and get an architect to design the home. Mr. Jacoby advised that it is more of the latter. Cm. Jeffery indicated she did not remember specific policies related to hillside development, or homes built on stilts or built right into the hillside. Ms. O'Halloran indicated that there are no specific policies that relate to hillside development. There are policies that relate to 30% slope areas, but not on the actual construction requirement, or design review, etc. John Tragio thanked Mr. Jacoby for moving the road away from Winding Trails Road. His concerns relate to the boundary line and the fact that the creek is not straight, but rather snakes around. He asked for clarification of the point where the road crosses the creek. Mr. Jacoby pointed out the location of the covered bridge and indicated that there is only one creek crossing even though the creek snakes around. RECESS Mayor Moffatt called a short recess. All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened. zev Kahn stated the unforeseen boulders in this area needed to be discussed. Bordeaux Estates has a large collection of boulders. It was his understanding that Valley Christian Center used their boulders as decoration. These large boulders cannot be landscaped and will need to be removed from the property. These should' be considered when you discuss loads going out of the area, at least in the Environmental Impacts Report. Mr. Kahn felt that with the development and roads going in, some considerations needs to be discussed relative to public access to the open space areas . With regard to densities, Mr. Kahn indicated that Staff came up with a lower number. The numbers proposed by the developer are higher than the property can even hold. He felt consideration should be given as to how this development will look from I-580 . All one has to do is look at the Pulte Homes, and this will certainly keep your eye off of anything else around. Mr. Ambrose suggested that the Council stick to one General Plan issue at a time. This would be more productive. Issues related to the tentative map and planned development will come at a later point in time. The first item that needs to be resolved is the appropriateness of developing CM-8-22 Adjourned Regular Meeting - January 10, 1989 the open space areas, as proposed by the Applicant. When the Council reaches some closure on this issue, then it would be appropriate to move onto the next issue. Ray Alsdorf stated he hopes the developer will provide a clear indication of where the bridge will cross. Perhaps they could go out and flag this point. If you look at other cities in the area, there has been a move toward slow growth. We should look at whether residents want this area to develop and if so, how fast. Mr. Alsdorf urged the City Council to find out if everyone wants to see development in the hills. We should have developed the General Plan for this area and then ask the developer to modify their plans for the area. He felt that traffic related issues are a major concern in that any new development will certainly add to the congestion. Mayor Moffatt stated he wished to get on with some of the concepts at this time, particularly the conflict with open space policies of the General Plan. Some resolution should be reached with regard to 3 . 1A, preserve oak woodlands, 3 . 1B, maintain slopes over 30%, and 3 . 1C. , continue requiring reservation of steep slopes and ridges as open space. Cm. Hegarty felt we should preserve the natural areas. Where natural creeks are concerned, we should have some sort of policy as to when roads go in, the development should take place on the opposite side of the creek. His concern was that whenever backyards face creek areas, you run into problems . No lots should back onto a creek. Cm. Jeffery stated she realizes that there are some areas where some trees will have to go for roads to be put in. We should try to minimize the loss of trees wherever possible. In Area 1 , we need to compromise somehow. In general though, she felt we should preserve the woodlands and the 30% slope areas. She felt additional information was needed, however, in order to determine if we can achieve what we want with the policy as it stands. Cm. Vonheeder felt part of the problem is that there are different interpretations as to what is required and what is being done to get a road in. She would prefer to see houses that have vegetation in an area, rather than a crib wall. Most of the areas in conflict don' t even have lots proposed on them. The conflict is whether the grading is necessary to the degree being proposed. The Council still doesn' t know how much the new plan environmentally impacts the area. She felt part of the problem relates to the fact that the Council is trying to deal with 3 procedures at once. They are looking at the detail for procedure number 3 when trying to make a decision for number 1 . Cm. Vonheeder felt that there was no problem with what was said in the General Plan. Cm. Snyder suggested that it might be easier to have each person say what they would like to have happen and then build the appropriate statement around that. He did not feel there was a general consensus in Areas 1 and 3, or a willingness to fill those areas for road purposes. If there isn' t, the Council needs to say this, and then go on to something else. CM-8-23 Adjourned Regular Meeting - January 10, 1989 Mayor Moffatt asked if the Council felt that fill was appropriate for a road in Area 1 . Cm. Snyder stated as the General Plan policy is now written, no, it is not appropriate. The same applies to Area 3. Cm. Jeffery asked if there was a way to provide flexibility for the benefit of a project without a substantial loss of trees. Mr. Nave indicated that the goal at this point is to determine whether or not 3. 1A of the General Plan should control the proposal as to Areas 1 , 2 and 3; and if so, the Applicant will need to go back to the drawing board, and the same will hold true with 3 . 1B and 3 . 1C. Cm. Hegarty stated that there is 150 acres in discussion. If you have a natural creek and a development is allowed to block it off, then it becomes almost like private property. :What are we preserving the natural resources for? For everyone in Dublin to enjoy these natural resources, we must see that they are accessible to everyone. Cm. Jeffery made a motion which was seconded by Cm. Snyder, to reaffirm the General Plan Policies 3 . 1A, 3 . 1B, and 3. 1C for the entire project. Cm. Jeffery asked if the Department of Fish & Game has a certain radius away from a creek which is considered a protected area and restricted. Mr. Trembley stated that a buffer strip is usually 30-100' from the bank of the creek, but they will barter. Council discussion ensued related to amending 3 . 1A to add "buffer patterned after Fish & Game" . Cm. Jeffery felt that if this is something that is required by Fish & Game anyway, there is no point in putting this in. Cm. Jeffery suggested that perhaps the Council could make a statement of explanation as far as the intent of the Council. Cm. Jeffery indicated she was mostly concerned regarding the creeks . Can the Council reaffirm the General Plan statements and include a statemewnt of intent of what the Council means by preserving natural creeks . Mr. Nave stated he felt it would be appropriate for the Council to specify exactly what they mean by setting it forth in the policy. Cm. Jeffery questioned if this would be considered a change in the General Plan or a clarification. Mr. Nave stated it would be a clarification. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the Council reaffirmed the General Plan Policies 3 . 1A, 3 . 1B, and 3 . 1C for the entire project. CM-8-24 Adjourned Regular Meeting - January 10, 1989 The next item of discussion related to the significant environmental impacts of the project. Cm. Vonheeder felt that the Council was back to trying to define what is significant. She understood that there was about 6, 000 trees on the site and at one point, we would be loosing about 600. She asked for current information related to trees. Mark Trembley discussed the original numbers and percentages contained in the Draft EIR. Ms. O'Halloran advised that there are 600 major trees affected, as indicated on the November 14th Staff Report. They have requested the Applicant to update this information. Mr. Jacoby indicated that they only surveyed trees that had the possibility of being affected. Cm. Vonheeder felt that the actual number we are now talking about is 109 trees. This number does not seem to be significant, if you are talking about 5, 000 trees . Mr. Jacoby stated that a good number of these are located in areas that would be graded as a result of putting in a roadway. Cm. Snyder questioned the relevancy of this issue. He thought the Council had already dealt with this. Cm. Jeffery advised that they' re trying to determine, "what is significant" . Ms. O'Halloran advised that issues 1 and 2 can be combined as there is really no specific policy that uses the term "significant" . Mayor Moffatt indicated that the Council would next discuss the issue of significant environmental impacts from mass grading. Cm. Snyder questioned why 3 . 1D was deleted from the listed policies. Ms. O'Halloran advised that the policies identified were the ones that Staff felt applied to this particular development. Mayor Moffatt felt one of the questions in his mind was with regard to where the ridgelines were, or where one viewed the ridgelines from. He questioned the definition of where you stand in order to look up the ridgeline, and how close. He felt this was one of the issues that has been stalled. Mr. Ambrose indicated that the Council's existing policy identifies where one would stand. It says you stand on I-580 or I-680 or major arterial streets. CM-8-25 Adjourned Regular Meeting - January 10, 1989 Ms. O'Halloran indicated that Staff is looking for specific direction on whether the knolls are considered to be a ridgeline and whether the filling would be in conflict with the General Plan policies that are identified. Sections 3 . 1C and 3.3F are implemented during the subdivision and the planned development stage and the policies now do not specifically prohibit grading within open space areas. The determination as to whether the filling of the knoll area is in conflict with these policies can occur at the subdivision stage when the actual grading plans come in. The Council could clarify this and amend the General Plan and include an additional policy, or clarify their intent. Cm. Vonheeder stated she did not feel that grading is in conflict with this particular policy. Cm. Hegarty stated that when you do mass grading, you scar the area. There is a certain amount of grading that must take place and any grading must be done with a permit with inspections. A study also has to be done. Cm. Jeffery felt that sometimes, grading or moving of earth can be for the betterment of an area. Mr. Ambrose indicated that there are several options. The Council can leave the policy as it is and when they come in with a planned development tentative map, they will have to take their chances; or the Council can be more specific and say, yes, this is a ridgeline that was discussed in the General Plan and they either need to preserve it or we would consider the fill as enhancement or it. is not a ridgeline. From everyone' s standpoint, Mr. Ambrose felt it would be more helpful if that clarification is made at this time. Cm. Jeffery stated she felt that in the beginning when the Council talked about ridgelines and 30% slopes, what was used as a guide was to think in terms of not wanting the hills scared or cut away. If you can improve a situation by giving a greater buffer to homes and improve the scenic corridor, she did not feel that this harms it at all. Mr. Ambrose summarized that what he heard the Council saying is that it is a ridgeline and they are viewing it as an enhancement to the rideline in this case. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, second by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the Council reaffirmed Policies 3 . 3E and 3 . 3F. Mayor Moffatt indicated the Council would next discuss the number and types of dwelling units and land use designation and density for the developable areas . Cm. Snyder questioned how past decisions at this meeting would affect the acreage figure under consideration. CM-8-26 Adjourned Regular Meeting January 10, 1989 1 I Ms. O'Halloran stated she felt the acreage figure would be more in line with Staff' s acreage figure. The Council has not yet gotten into the actual land use designations, but so far has only discussed whether or not it is developable. Staff would need to do some new calculations. Strict interpretations of the policies may change some of the acreage in Area 3 . Mayor Moffatt asked why Staff did not recommend any patio units. It appears that single family units is the only difference between Staff and the Applicant' s recommendations: Ms. O'Halloran explained and advised that the General Plan bases density on gross acreage. The actual idea of having patio homes would be determined at the subdivision stage. Cm. Hegarty stated with regard to the number of single family homes he would like to see . 5 - 2 .8 as medium density. He felt that Bordeaux Estates is too dense and the lots too narrow. Cm. Vonheeder stated she felt the topography of this land will dictate the densities . Cm. Hegarty felt that if you make the low density number low enough, we are protected. Ms . O'Halloran pointed out the Planning Commission' s recommendation to allow .9 - 6 per acre and establish a cap on the number of units that could be built. Mr. Ambrose stated that in the current General Plan there are caps established regarding the total number of units . Cm. Jeffery asked if Staff' s recommendation was based on the current General Plan. Ms . O'Halloran advised yes, it was based on those areas considered to be buildable. Cm. Snyder made a motion which was seconded by Cm. Jeffery to have 2 designations. Density for single family homes would be 0 .9 - 6.0 with a maximum number of units at 146 . The medium density would be 6.1 - 8 . 0 with a maximum number of units at 50 . Mr. Healy indicated he has a problem with these figures. He asked if these figures could be. related to square footages. Mayor Moffatt explained that at this point, the Council is discussing land issues . Ms . LaBar requested the City Council to look at the actual property when considering the overall densities. There may be places that in order to save something, special consideration could be given to permit clustering CM-8-27 Adjourned Regular Meeting - January 10, 1989 homes. She felt this issue needed more discussion. There should be some room for compromise. This concept was totally ignored by the Planning Commission. Mr. Jacoby expressed concern in that he felt he had been shut out of this discussion and this area is a very critical one to them. Cm. Jeffery and Cm. Vonheeder agreed that the Applicant needs to have opportunity for input, and further, that this would be a good stopping point for this meeting. Cm. Snyder and Cm. Jeffery agreed to table the motion until the Applicant can give testimony related to densities. Mayor Moffatt reported that the meeting would continue on January 24th. Recreational Vehicle Storage Area Cm. Jeffery requested that the City Manager place an item on the next regular meeting agenda related to writing a letter to the Board of Supervisors expressing opposition to the recreational vehicle storage area along I-580 . ADJOURNMENT Mayor Moffatt announced that the next meeting on the Hansen Hill develop- ment project will be on Tuesday, January 24th at 7 :00 p.m. , at the same location. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10 : 22 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CM-8-28 Adjourned Regular Meeting _ January 10, 1989 REGULAR MEETING - January 23, 1989 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, January 23, 1989, in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7 :35 p.m. , by Mayor Paul Moffatt. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Moffatt. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle- giance to the flag. * * * * PRESENTATION BY BART Representatives of BART addressed the Council and presented information related to the proposed BART Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Project. Newly elected Board member Erlene DeMarcus addressed the Council and advised that this presentation is for informational purposes only, but that on February 2, 1989, at 7 :30 p.m. , there will be a public hearing in the Little Theatre of Dublin High School. Marianne Payne, Project Manager, advised that they are up and running with the Dublin/Pleasanton line. They plan to complete the EIR in December, 1989, with a draft document out sometime this summer. Steve Kellogg with Woodward/Clyde stated they are beginning the environmental review process and gave a brief overview of the project. They are in the preliminary engineering stages. Bob Garretson, Project Manager for DP advised that the extension will access the Bayfair Station to continue the line east. They are studying closely with CalTrans how they will get into the median of Highway 238. They are looking at tail track/no tail track to carry them through the I-580/I-680 interchange. Steve Kellogg identified some of the key issues and advised that they are soliciting public comments for a 30 day period. Kay Wilson, a member of the Woodward/Clyde consulting team, reported that they have been meeting with local planning department staffs. They will be having another round of public meetings later in the year. Cm. Jeffery asked if crossing I-680 was considered a design issue. x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x CM-8-29 Regular Meeting - January 23, 1989 Mr. Garretson stated yes, they are having trouble getting the BART tracks there without major design changes. They will be looking at the possibility of going in a subway situation. Marianne Payne stated that in summary, they are pushing forward to the east. They will be considering another site in east Livermore and will be looking at a potential site location. * * * * CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 9, 1989; Received a report related to the heating system repairs made at the Senior Center (American Heating - $16, 923) ; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 7 - 89 ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE REPAIR OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS DEEMED TO BE PEDESTRIAN HAZARDS and authorized Staff to advertise Contract 89-2 Annual Sidewalk Safety Repair for bids; Retained the firm of Beals/Lechner Associates, Inc. , to provide landscape architectural services for the renovation of Shannon Park and directed Staff to prepare the necessary documents to execute the contract agreement at a cost not to exceed $54, 300; Approved the RFP' s for Telecommunications System and Telephone/Data Cabling and Paging System for the Civic Center and authorized Staff to circulate them among providers . The Council also waived the formal bidding requirements and authorized Staff to negotiate a system package for approval by the City Council; . Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $842, 458. 30 . * * * * COMMUNITY CALENDAR Staff advised that on Friday afternoon, January 20, 1989, bids were opened for the printing of a Community Calendar. A total of 8 bids were received. The bid specifications contained 2 options: Alternate #1 for a cover which has 4 colors on one side and Alternate #2 for 2 colors on both sides of the cover. x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x CM-8-30 Regular Meeting - January 23, 1989 On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council awarded the bid for the printing of the 1989 calendar using Alternate #1 to AMP Printing, Inc. * * * * DIRECTLY ELECTED MAYOR At the City Council meeting of November 28, 1988, , the City Attorney' s Office was directed to prepare a report regarding those provisions of law which relate to the direct election of the Mayor. City Attorney Nave advised that the issues to be dealt with include: 1 . Should the City Council present to the voters the issue of whether the Office of Mayor should be directly elected? 2 . If so, when should the question be presented to the electorate? 3 . Should the Mayor receive compensation in addition to the compensation received as a Councilmember? 4 . If the Mayor should receive additional compensation, should the electorate decide the amount, or should the Council decide the amount by Ordinance after the election? Mr. Nave advised that there is no difference as far as powers and duties of the office. With regard to salary, the law provides that a directly elected mayor can receive a salary over and above what they receive as a councilmember. In the event that the City Council does not vote to submit an ordinance calling for a directly elected mayor, the voters may, by the initiative process, petition the City Council to submit this question to the voters . Cm. Jeffery asked if the Council could determine whether the term would be 2 years or 4 years. Mr. Nave advised that this would be determined by election. Cm. Vonheeder questioned if it was determined by ballot instances where a mayor controls appointments . She also questioned how the salary could be determined. Mr. Nave advised that his understanding is that this policy is set by the City Council. With regard to salary, Staff has been unable to find any law that relates to a ceiling. The code is silent on this . Mayor Moffatt questioned if the salary of the mayor is in addition to the salary as a councilmember. Mr. Nave indicated this was correct. Bill Foster addressed the Council and stated that he had no ax to grind. He is a property owner in Dublin of both residential and commercial property. He has been an insurance agent for 20 years and is past president of the Chamber of Commerce. He felt all the insurance initiatives on the last ballot caused a tremendous amount of confusion. x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x CM-8-31 Regular Meeting - January 23, 1989 Mr. Foster stated that the general consensus was that people elect representatives to make laws. The initiative process is the last resort for the people. He felt the people should be able to select a mayor, and further that it would be much better for the Council to put this issue on the ballot rather than having a small group of self-serving citizens come up with the wording. The Council can put the words in proper sequence with the help of the City Attorney. He felt it was time for Dublin to evolve by electing a mayor, not just selecting one. The important office of mayor should always be elected by the people. Harvey Scudder stated he would like to think that the primary representa- tive of Dublin would be elected by the people. An appointive office conveys a different idea. He felt the process would be improved by electing a mayor. Don Schuitemaker stated he agreed with the 2 previous speakers . Dublin has grown enough and it' s now time for : the people to select a mayor. Leonard DeStefano stated his concurrence. He felt it is time for the City of Dublin' s people to vote and make this selection. He stated he had made some telephone calls and had a list of at least 10 other people who concur. Dave Burton stated he was glad to finally see this coming about. He felt Dublin needs the identification and ability for the people to identify with the election process of a mayor. Mr. Nave advised that there are 3 things that can happen in setting the amount of compensation. If the Council determines that it would put such an ordinance on the ballot, it can determine as part of that ordinance, with the question submitted to the voters, or it could set the amount and have the amount that the Council sets voted upon, or it could choose not to do anything until after and set it by ordinance after there is a directly elected Mayor. Cm. Hegarty stated he wished to clarify the fact that there is absolutely no difference in the powers and duties of an elected mayor. Cm. Snyder made a. motion to adopt a resolution submitting an initiative ordinance to the voters regarding a directly elected mayor at an election on June 5, 1990 and setting a total compensation amount of $500 per month. This motion died due to lack of a second. Cm. Snyder felt it would be much wiser for the City Council to act on this rather than turn it over to the community. We have seen too much confusion in the initiative process. He would rather see this decision made by the 5 City Councilmembers. Cm. Jeffery asked if a petition passes through the community, doesn' t it come to the Council to form the verbage. x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x CM-8-32 Regular Meeting - January 23, 1989 Mr. Nave stated no, that the verbage would be prepared by the proponents of an initiative petition. If that petition qualifies by receiving 15% of the signatures of registered voters in Dublin, or 10% if it calls for a special election, the Council would then have an opportunity to adopt an ordinance or call a special election or put it on the next general election ballot. The Council has the ability to have either 1 or 2 elections. Cm. Jeffery stated if the Council chose not to accept it then it goes on the ballot. If it was accepted, then it still goes on the ballot. If the Council adopts an ordinance, it must go before the voters. Mr. Schuitemaker questioned the reasons for the 4 Councilmember's opposition. Cm. Hegarty stated he would have no problem with this except that no one from the community has come to him indicating they want this to happen. With regard to comments about this being time for this to happen, he stated that Pleasanton just had this occur after many many years of being a City. If he saw that there was a problem, or the people made an issue of it, he would be happy to consider it. If a substantial number of residents raised the issue, he would be much more concerned. He did not see a problem with the current system. Cm. Jeffery advised that when Dublin first became a City and the Council/ Manager form of government was selected, it was decided that a Mayor should serve for a 2 year term. Every member on this Council has been elected by the people, just as an elected Mayor would be. If you have faith in any one of the elected people, you have faith in each Councilmember' s ability to lead. The rotation of a Mayor among the Council, helps to develop a strong sense of liaison within that Council. The powers are basically identical when the Council selects a Mayor, but it benefits the community by having this rapport developed amongst the Council. A directly elected Mayor would not have to work with a particular Councilmember if they chose not to. In most cases, Mayors are elected to 2 year terms and you then have an additional election issue to deal with. The Mayoral election takes to focus of the election. Cm. Snyder stated that at present, all decisions are not unanimous. There is no additional cost because we have an election every 2 years anyway. Cm. Jeffery clarified that the additional costs are to those running for that position. Cm. Hegarty felt this is a psychological issue. People feel that when they have a problem, they need to talk to the Mayor. In the end, the Mayor has only one vote and they must talk to each Councilmember, anyway. Under the present system, each Councilmember is more equal. He was concerned that if there is a directly elected Mayor, the attitude will be, if you want something done, go see the Mayor. Now, people can go to the City Council . x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x CM-8-33 Regular Meeting - January 23, 1989 1 Cm. Vonheeder felt that most of the citizens feel the Mayor has more power. This Council wants to present a 5-person front to represent the citizens interests, and when a Mayor is elected, the rest of the Council can be ignored. This was a big fear when the City was first formed. It costs a lot to campaign and she personally did not want to have a Mayoral candidate always having to collect money. This could be a big problem, even in a community as small as Dublin. The current selection process is the one time when each Councilmember must make personal decisions. This Council works so well together because the power is shared. The citizens benefit by having 5 people working on their behalf, not just one. Mayor Moffatt felt this question, even though it is an appropriate issue, discussion at this time was premature. However, by having this on the agenda at this time, it gives the City Council a year and a half to think about it. Harvey Scudder stated he thought there :was confusion on the part of the Council. A change was not suggested and supported due to problems or performance with the current system, but rather because the citizens perceive of a better way of selecting someone to represent the several thousand people in Dublin. No one spoke of a problem, but rather the process . Cm. Hegarty stated that when Dublin first became a City, there was argument after argument over whether to have a City Manager or a City Administrator. Bill Foster stated he was just concerned that a group of people will get an initiative and overrule the Council when they have the opportunity to exercise good sound judgement. This is the Council' s opportunity to leave its mark on Dublin by electing a Mayor. A small .group can get 10% of the votes and cause a special election and take away the Council' s right of judgement. Liz Schmitt stated she is opposed to an elected Mayor. She remembered the discussions at the time of incorporation on whether or not this would be an elected position. The decision was made to have a City Manager and not to have an elected Mayor. She did not see that anything was non- functioning in the City and, "if it ain' t broke, don' t fix it" . She indicated she is a strong believer in passing the power. There are Mayors who are elected in this Valley, who are never "unelected" . Since there was no further discussion on this topic, Mayor Moffatt indicated that the Council would go on to the next item of business. * * * CHILD CARE SERVICES ONE-TIME-ONLY FUNDING THRU STATE DEPT OF EDUCATION Recreation Director Lowart advised that the State Department of Education has announced the availability of one-time only funds to cities and counties for planning and coordinating activities within local governments to facilitate the availability of child development services. x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x CM-8-34 Regular Meeting - January 23, 1989 The funds will be made available upon approval of proposals, but must be spent prior to December 31 , 1990 . Applications are due by January 27, 1989 and grants of up to $25, 000 each will be awarded on a competitive basis. Staff has discussed this grant opportunity with Resources for Family Development, and they have been advised that the State is expecting a large number of applications for the limited funds available. The RFD has recommended that the Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton submit a single application to the State. It is felt that a joint application will greatly improve the possibility of being funded and will allow the 3 cooperating jurisdictions an opportunity to address a valleywide issue. Each City would apply for an equal share of the total $25, 000 grant and would be responsible for an equal share of the required 25% match. This match may be in in-kind services, such as postage, duplicating or limited clerical support. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 8 - 89 IN SUPPORT OF CHILD CARE SERVICES TO MEET EXISTING NEED AND APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR CHILD CARE SERVICES If the grant application is successful, the Council authorized Staff to develop a contract appropriate for administering the grant funds with Livermore and Pleasanton. * * * * DUBLIN SPORTS GROUNDS-USE REQUEST FROM SOROPTIMIST INT'L OF DUBLIN Recreation Director Lowart advised that the Soroptimist International of Dublin are requesting exclusive use of the Dublin Sports Grounds for the purpose of holding their third annual Shamrock Ascot Concours d'Elegance on Sunday, August 6, 1989 . The proceeds from this event will be going to Valley Memorial Hospital Foundation, earmarked for the Breast Self- Examination Program and Soroptimist Service projects. For the past 2 years, the Concours d'Elegance has been held in conjunction with the Shamrock Potato Festival. However, the Soroptimist have indicated that they prefer to operate independently of the Festival and thus, the request for exclusive use. Their request asks that the City Council consider: 1 ) waiving the field use fees; 2) granting exclusive use of DSG from August 5, 1989 at noon until Sunday, August 6, 1989 at 6: 00 p.m. ; 3) allowing the Boy Scouts to spend the night in order to guard their equipment; 4) provide maintenance support to restock restrooms, unlock gates, empty garbage receptacles and provide traffic control to assist cars on and off the field; 5) use of tables and chairs from Shannon Center; 6) permission to sell & serve alcoholic beverages on park property; and 7) use of the City' s banner poles on San Ramon Road from July 24th through August 7th. x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x CM-8-35 Regular Meeting - January 23, 1989 1 1 The Soroptimists have indicated that they will be able to provide the City with the required certificate of insurance for the event. Ms . Lowart advised that Staff was also approached in August, 1988, by the Board of Directors of the Shamrock Potato Festival requesting use for the same weekend. Since that time, the Board filed a use permit, but just recently followed up with a formal written request outlining the specific details of their use. Staff discussed the overlap in dates with both the Concours Chairperson for Soroptimist and the president of the Festival Board. Although the Festival Board would like to work cooperatively with the Soroptimists, the Soroptimists prefer to work independently. Staff discussed the requests with both of the groups and were of the opinion that the 2 events could operate independently and the only problem might be parking. If both events are held concurrently, it may be necessary to look at providing contract traffic control, as has been done in the past. Staff identified several items for Council consideration which related to: 1 ) field use fees; 2) exclusive use; 3) maintenance considerations; and 4) other items related to fees, food and alcoholic beverages. An unidentified representative from Soroptimists stated that they have concerns with participating with the Potato Festival due to complications with past events . Last year, the Festival was for only one day and then their event was the next day. The events were separated and this was what they were hoping would occur again this year. Advertising confusion occurs when 2 separate groups hold events on the same day on the same field. Some of the people coming into their event did not realize that there was a separate charge. No matter how much advertising they do to try to clarify this, not everyone understands. Ralph Hughes, 7581 Brighton Drive, President of the Shamrock Festival indicated that this non-profit corporation was first formed in late 1986, for the purpose of putting on the Potato Festival. When the corporation was formed, it was formed through a cooperative effort of a large group of people. The Lions Club, Rotary Club, Exchange Club and the Sorpotimists were directly involved in establishing the corporation. The stated purpose is to promote the City of Dublin. Even though there have been ups and downs, the Festival has come a long way. Last year, even though it was only a one-day event, it was attended by almost 5, 000 people. Putting this on is a major undertaking, which requires a great deal of money and commitment. This year, they are proposing a two-day event and at this time, are committed to the weekend of August 5 & 6 . They feel that the Dublin Sports Grounds is large enough to accommodate both groups . They requested that the Council delay a decision on this in order to give them a chance to meet with the Soroptimists later in the week to see what can be worked out. on motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonhee_der, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to delay a decision' in order that the two groups meet to try and work things out. x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x CM-8-36 Regular Meeting - January 23, 1989 1 Leonard DeStefano stated that with regard to the waiving of fees for non-profit organizations, it is quite costly to maintain the fields. To place cars on the fields and with a lot of foot traffic, damage will occur. He urged the Council to take this into consideration when they waive fees. * * * * 1989 GOALS & OBJECTIVES STUDY SESSION City Manager Ambrose advised that annually, the Council holds a secial meeting to define the Goals & Objectives for the City for the upcoming year. This meeting is generally held in February in order to provide Staff adequate time to incorporate the Council' s direction in the Preliminary Budget for the next Fiscal Year. Mr. Ambrose briefly covered the format elements related to this annual process. By a consensus of the Council, the date of Thursday, February 23, 1989, at 6: 30 p.m. , was selected for the special meeting to review Goals & Objectives . Staff was requested to find an appropriate meeting location. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE - DUBLIN CANYON ROAD Senior Planner Rod Barger advised that on January 5, 1989, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning of an 8.5 acre parcel located at 8555 Dublin Canyon Road (on the south side of I-580, approximately 1 . 2 miles east of Palo Verde/Eden Canyon Roads, between Castro Valley and Dublin) . The site is just west of the City of Pleasanton' s western Sphere of Influence boundary line. The rezoning changed the land use from the A (Agricultural) District to the PD (Planned Development) District. The PD District allows Agricultural District uses (subject to the regulations of that District) , and also allows as a Conditional Use, the open storage of recreational vehicles and boats . The rezoning will be effective on February 5, 1989. The subject property is presently used as a contractor' s storage yard. The County' s approval was based upon a conceptual plan showing an open asphalt paved storage yard containing 200 parking spaces. The use would be located on a flat portion of the site that was at one time used to dump landfill during construction of I-580 . Ten to 12' high earth mounds would be provided to screen the use from the view of surrounding residents and commuters on I-580 . County Staff feels, however, that even with this mounding, the use would still be visible from I-580, as well as by surrounding residents . Mr. Barger advised that concerns can be voiced through the Public Hearing process in the immediate future. Cm. Jeffery asked if, in the public hearings it was brought out that I-580 is a scenic corridor. x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x CM-8-37 Regular Meeting - January 23, 1989 Mr. Barger advised yes and that the County approved it with conditions. Cm. Jeffery asked if there was any way to demonstrate that the berm idea won' t work. She stated that Livermore has already taken a stand against this. Mr. Barger indicated that the landscaping does take quite some time to take hold and it may be 5 years before the screening takes effect. Mayor Moffatt questioned a potential fire hazard. Mr. Barger stated that one of the conditions of approval called for a minimum 5, 000 gallon water tank to be provided as there is some fire potential in the area. Cm. Jeffery felt it would be appropriate for the City to send a letter to the Board of Supervisors and also maybe someone could attend the public hearing. Cm. Jeffery stated that Supervisor Campbell voted against this. Cm. Hegarty felt that if we oppose this, we must have some strong arguments . This area now looks like a dump site. Cm. Jeffery did not feel this is an appropriate use for this land. Mr. Barger stated that the meeting has not yet been scheduled and that he can make a personal request to receive the information. Cm. Vonheeder felt we must face reality and indicated that we are constantly trying to get people to get their RV's off the street. Perhaps the most we could ask for is for the screening to be sufficient. Cm. Snyder indicated that there is a similar situation in Castro Valley whereby they are attempting to remove these types of vehicles from their streets . He pointed out that Supervisor Campbell did support this . He expressed concern related to a proposed sign which would be 2' high and 24' long. The Rowell Ranch Rodeo sign was discussed. City Attorney Nave suggested that photos be taken of the housing developments with expensive homes that look down into this area. The . back of this site should be protected from our western hills. Photographic evidence would be important. Cm. Hegarty stated he did not feel that this will affect or impact Dublin. This stretch of the freeway is not exactly the 17-mile drive. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote, the Council directed Staff to express its displeasure to the Board of Supervisors for their approval of this lot and to remind them that this is a scenic corridor. Someone from the City should speak at the public hearing. Cm. Hegarty voted against this motion. x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x CM-8-38 Regular Meeting - January 23, 1989 ALAMEDA COUNTY HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Planning Director Tong advised that Alameda County is designing a joint county-cities program to assist first time homebuyers. The Federal Technical Corrections and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 authorizes the issuance of Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC's) during 1989 . This program would allow the homebuyer a tax credit against federal personal income tax. The tax credit under the proposed program would be 20% of the annual mortgage interest. The tax credit would be in addition to the usual deduction of mortgage interest from gross income before calculating federal income tax. The remaining 80% of the mortgage interest could be used as a deduction in the usual manner. Eligible homes would be existing homes under $149, 400 and new homes under $159, 300. Eligible purchasers would be first time buyers with incomes under $43, 100 for one and two person households. Mr. Tong explained that this program would reduce the homebuyer's total net payment liability and make it possible to purchase a home that they might not otherwise be able to afford. Benefits from the joint county-cities program would be the joint, coordinated application process, central administration of the program by the County, sharing of start-up costs, and a coordinated lender outreach and education program. Start-up expenses are not expected to exceed $4, 000 In addition to the MCC Program, Alameda County is exploring possible interest in a Supplemental Mortgage Assistance Program. Staff did not recommend pursuing this program due to a lack of funds . Cm. Snyder asked that the Council consider the consequences of this type of a program across the country, where the rest of us do not have a similar benefit. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by majority vote, the Council indicated its interest in participating in the MCC Program and indicate no interest at this time in the Supplemental Mortgage Assistance Program. Cm. Snyder voted against this motion. * * * * SECRET WITNESS PROGRAM "WETIP" Lt. Jim Rose advised that the WeTip Secret Witness Program, which was formed in 1983, was designed to take anonymous information on. drug related activity and has been expanded to cover all types of crime. WeTip will provide computerized scanning and sorting of information with regard to wanted persons and/or M.O. ' s on specific major crimes in any area of the United States . WeTip services include toll free telephone service, promotional campaign, solicitation of information on specific crimes and distribution of rewards . x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x CM-8-39 Regular Meeting - January 23, 1989 Cm. Jeffery stated she thought this was basically a Southern California organization and questioned how they would work up in this area. Lt. Rose indicated that the organization is nationwide. They help by setting up a generic program in our community. Even though they are in Southern California, we can obtain information both statewide and nationwide. Mayor Moffatt questioned if one of our parks is vandalized and someone calls WeTip, how this would be handled. Lt. Rose gave a sample scenario. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the Agreement and authorized the City Manager to execute same. * * * * HEALTHY CITIES/HEALTHY COUNTIES PROGRAM - ALAMEDA COUNTY REQUEST Staff advised that an inquiry was recently received regarding the City' s interest in participating in the development of a "Healthy City Program" . The concept of this type of program is based upon a model developed by the World Health Organization. The overall goal is to initiate a process which will make health considerations an explicit priority in planning and decision making processes . The information provided by Alameda County is not specific enough to determine the precise role of the City. Since primary responsibility for Health Services rests with the counties, Staff felt it would be approp- riate for the County to coordinate these efforts. Cm. Jeffery stated she was not sure what survey information they could obtain from the City since we do not provide health services. Mayor Moffatt stated that Mrs . Davis had indicated to him that both the County and the State are interested in knowing what we are interested in and concerned about in our area. They talked about the smoking ordinance and other concerns. Their objective is merely a survey to determine what types of services the cities are interested in receiving. They are interested in sending literature. Cm. Jeffery felt this was basically a lobbying effort, and she was concerned with expending Staff time. Cm. Hegarty felt we should ask them to be more specific. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council took no specific action and directed Staff to ask for clarification. * * * * x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x CM-8-40 Regular Meeting - January 23, 1989 • J OTHER BUSINESS Tri-Valley Joint Council Meeting City Manager Ambrose reminded the Council of the Joint Tri-Valley Council meeting being held on Thursday, January 26th at 6:30 p.m. , at Mudd's Restaurant in San Ramon. * * * * Pool a. City Manager Ambrose advised that he had received a letter today from the Dublin Unified School District regarding the pool. Because the next Council meeting won' t be for 3 weeks, he wanted the Council to be aware of this, even though the item was not agendized for any action. The Coach of the swim team, with the help of the swim team booster club, has offered to raise $1 , 000 to help pay for the costs the City will incur. Cm. Jeffery felt that $1 , 000 is really not a sharing of the costs and we need to ask the School District for some commitment. She stated she was not ready to deal with this subject until this commitment is made. Cm. Vonheeder asked if the swim team could practice anywhere else. Mr. Ambrose stated he had talked to the Swim Coach and there is a slot available at Cal High, but it' s in the evening at 7 : 00 p.m. The Coach indicated he was not aware if there were costs associated. Mayor Moffatt asked when pool repairs were scheduled to start. Recreation Director Lowart advised that Staff is presently getting the bid specifications together. At the very earliest, they should begin around the first part of March. Cm. Snyder stated he would rather see the booster club use the money for the swim team rather than on the pool. * * * * Senior Citizens Advisory Committee Cm. Snyder announced that he had recently appointed Barbara Gifford to the Senior Citizens Advisory Committee. She has been quite active from the very beginning since the Senior Center first opened. * * * * City Council Salaries Cm. Snyder requested that the City Manager prepare the necessary ordinance which would increase the City Council salaries following the next election in November, 1990 . This information can be presented at any future meeting. x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x CM-8-41 Regular Meeting - January 23, 1989 Proposition 98 Cm. Jeffery advised that Proposition 98 is causing some real complica- tions in California's budget. There are several considerations underway, one of which would be to take schools out of the general fund and find a different way to fund schools, since they are going to be the recipient of a lot of money. A brochure was given to Staff to distribute to the Council related to what Caltax is proposing. Caltax is going to try to get this done as legislation, but if this doesn't happen, they are going to proceed with an initiative. "It would rewrite the Proposition 4 Gann Limitation. * * * * Alameda County Administrator Retirement Mayor Moffatt stated he would pass out information related to Mel Hing's upcoming retirement gala. The Council ;indicated they had already received the information. * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9 : 45 p.m. * * * * Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk * * * * x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x*+x CM-8-42 Regular Meeting - January 23, 1989