Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.1 Approve 09-28-1992 Minutes REGULAR MEETING - September 28, 1992 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, September 28, 1992, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7: 35 p.m. , by Mayor Snyder. ROLL CALL & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Jeffery and Mayor Snyder. ABSENT: Councilmember Moffatt. CUSTOMER SERVICE AWARD FOR MONTH OF OCTOBER (150-90) City Manager Ambrose presented the October Customer Service Award to Katie Mooney, Finance Technician. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Moffatt absent) , the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 14 , 1992 ; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 116 - 92 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT FOR SUPPLEMENT NO. 002 REV. 1 FOR CYCLE 2 STATE-LOCAL PARTNERSHIP FUNDS SB 300 (600-50) Authorized Staff to issue a purchase order to Alameda County on a not- to-exceed basis for right-of-way appraisal services for the Dublin Boulevard widening project (600-40) ; Supported the Pervious Concrete Project (Shannon Center parking lot) and authorized submittal of a grant funding request to Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program (830-20) ; Authorized an additional appropriation of $53,755 for FY92-93 to the Planning Department Professional Services account for Western Dublin plans (600-30) ; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $282, 503 . 07 (300-40) . Dr. Zev Kahn requested that the Resolution opposing Proposition 166 be clarified to indicate that this is not a policy for the citizens, but rather only the City Council. He also opposed the Proposition, but for reasons other than those listed. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 358 Regular Meeting September 28, 1992 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES T0: h ITEM NO. Ad,,dk f, Cm. Jeffery advised that the League of California Cities looks at many propositions. On both of these, it was determined that they could bring great harm to cities in California. They would actually encourage businesses to move out of Dublin. Mayor Snyder advised that these are Resolutions of the City Council, and they dQ not necessarily represent the residents as a whole. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Moffatt absent) , the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 117 - 92 OPPOSING PROPOSITION 166 (660-40) and RESOLUTION NO. 118 - 92 OPPOSING PROPOSITION 167 (660-40) REQUEST FROM CITY OF LIVERMORE FOR SIX-MONTH DELAY OF LAFCO HEARING ON DOOLAN CANYON AREA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (620-60) Planning Director Tong advised that the City of Livermore is requesting up to a six-month delay for the LAFCO hearing on the Doolan Canyon area sphere of influence. Such a delay could add substantially to both consultant costs and Staff time. Cm. Jeffery stated she thought Livermore was the one that pushed for the date in the first place. She expressed concern in that this has already cost the taxpayers a lot of money. Cm. Burton asked how this request relates to the Tri-Valley Transportation Council's request for a 45-day extension. He attended the last TVTC meeting and they found themselves caught without enough time to comment as they are trying to get other things done. Their next meeting is October 28th. He questioned if the date could be extended by 21 days. Mayor Snyder stated he was at the LAFCO hearing when Livermore's request came up. Dublin was not notified in advance. The ultimate decision lies at the hands of LAFCO. He felt we should proceed with the set schedule. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Moffatt absent) , the Council determined that the schedule should be left as is. CM - VOL 11 - 359 Regular Meeting September 28, 1992 REQUEST BY TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL TO EXTEND EASTERN DUBLIN DRAFT EIR COMMENT PERIOD AN ADDITIONAL 45 DAYS (420-30) Planning Director Tong advised that the Tri-Valley Transportation Council is requesting an additional 45-day extension on the Eastern Dublin Draft EIR comment period. Such a delay could jeopardize the LAFCO hearing on the Doolan Canyon area and add substantially to both consultant costs and Staff time. Cm. Burton stated he felt the TVTC is a very important part in the evaluation process of the EIR and more time should be given if at all possible. City Manager Ambrose advised that there are 2 issues to consider. One issue deals with costs. Also, if LAFCO sticks to the date they have established, we would have to see if we can accommodate an additional 21 days in the schedule. Cm. Jeffery questioned if the TVTC could meet sooner than their next scheduled date of October 28th. Millie Greenberg, Chair of the TVTC and Danville Councilmember stated the JPA was formed to review transportation planning and facilities in the Tri-Valley Area. The EIR was released on August 28th; their first meeting was on September 23; and their next regular meeting is set for October 28th. Mayor Snyder pointed out that each one of the agencies had the DEIR at the specified time. He questioned if it was reasonable to presume that the agencies themselves have had a chance to review it. It seems we would be getting some information from neighboring cities relative to the item. The mandate was imposed upon us and he didn't see how we could change the schedule unless the mandate is changed. Ms. Greenberg stated she was certain that each of the cities will be responding to the EIR; . however, the TVTC will have to do comprehensive transportation planning and their comments need to occur as the group meets. Mayor Snyder questioned if the consultant will need to bring the comments back before the policy people. Ms. Greenberg indicated that considerable expense has been expended on the transportation plan on which all the agencies are participating and comprehensive planning needs to be addressed. Mayor Snyder stated the LAFCO date could be extended, but we don't know at this time and Dublin can't deal with speculation. In summary, Ms. Greenberg stated given the magnitude of this project, the TVTC asks that they be given additional time. Mr. Ambrose advised that we are trying to shoot for the March 1st date at the request of LAFCO. At the maximum, we could probably ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 360 Regular Meeting September 28, 1992 accommodate an extension to October 29th for them to submit their comments. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Moffatt absent) , the Council agreed to accommodate the request of the TVTC by extending the comment period on the DEIR for everyone to October 29, 1992 . PUBLIC HEARING-AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS RELATED TO TRAFFIC SIGNALS, STOP SIGNS & YIELD SIGNS AND ADDITION OF SECTION REGARDING STREET CLOSURES (590-10) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Public Works Director Thompson presented the Staff Report and advised that this action would delegate the approval and installation of a number of traffic control devices to City Staff if minimum City Council established warrant criteria are met, resulting in time savings for the Council, Staff and the general public. The affected Municipal Code Sections would be 6.04 . 040, 6.04. 060, 6. 04 . 070 and 6. 04. 080. An additional section would be added regarding street closures. Cm. Burton stated he wanted to reassert that in all cases, the appeal process is still through the City Council if there is a dispute or controversy. Mr. Thompson stated this is true. Cm. Burton questioned why traffic studies are required only in certain cases. Mr. Thompson explained that with some of the requests Staff receives, they can tell just by looking that it doesn't meet the warrants. In those cases, Staff can just say they don't meet warrants. This could be appealed to the City Council. The Council can then make the determination. Mr. Ambrose stated the time savings would be that it would not require a Staff Report. Staff could look at and deal mainly with non- controversial items. No comments were made by members of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Jeffery stated she felt this was an excellent example of taking the .bureaucracy out of government. . On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Moffatt absent) , the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED the Ordinance and adopted CM - VOL 11 - 361 Regular Meeting September 28, 1992 RESOLUTION NO. 119 - 92 APPROVING WARRANTS FOR INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS AND YIELD RIGHT-OF-WAY SIGNS ALAMEDA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN LAND USE ANALYSIS PROGRAM (410-20 & 1060-90) Planning Director Tong advised that the Alameda County Congestion Management Plan requires the City to adopt a Land Use Analysis Program. The City's ability to receive Proposition 111 Gas Tax Funds for FY1992-93 of about $121, 000 is conditioned upon. the City's participation in the ACCMP. Cm. Jeffery questioned if the purpose of the report is to alert us to the fact that the CMA will cause us to have to spend some money, but we have to do it anyway. Mr. Ambrose advised that this program was originally intended to put dollars in the hands of cities and it is being eaten up by bureaucracy. At some point, the City must evaluate the cost/benefit of participating in the program. In January, they will be tying the ISTEA funding as a carrot to this whole program. We are already required to do a Trip Reduction Ordinance and we are still evaluating our options. Available funds are rapidly diminishing. Cm. Jeffery advised that there are some cities in the North Bay who have opted not to accept these funds because of the high costs. The problem then becomes the money goes somewhere else. This is not right. Cm. Burton questioned if Staff will be keeping a set of books to evaluate all the different costs. Also, will we have an option of getting out if we want. Mr. Ambrose stated Staff can track this. We can get out at any time, however, there may be penalties. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Moffatt absent) , the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 120 - 92 ADOPTING THE CITY OF DUBLIN LAND USE ANALYSIS PROGRAM, A COMPONENT OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM and also directed Staff to send a letter to CMA expressing concerns regarding costs versus what we get out of this. ® ■ e ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ e ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 362 Regular Meeting September 28, 1992 ALAMEDA COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANNUAL REPORT AND PROPOSED 1992-93 WORK PLAN (470-50) The City is a participant in a Countywide Economic Development Program, and in accordance with the Joint Agreement, there are provisions for an annual report. This annual report would deal with: Basis for Program; Requirement for Review and Input on Programs; 1991- 92 Accomplishment; Education Committee-Education on Workforce Project; Business Development Committee; 1992-93 Work Plan and Objectives; and Program Budget. The Mayors' Conference will consider this report at their October meeting. Bruce Kern stated this program has been identified as one of the most exemplary in the State of California. He thanked the City Council along with the Planning Director and City Manager for their continued support. Cm. Burton pointed out that the less than $5, 000 would not buy us a great deal by ourselves. Mr. Kern stated economic development is a broad set of issues. Growth management is a very serious topic. They put a counter proposal on the table to Bay Vision 2020 to look at the flawed aspects of this proposal. They want to look at a balance between growth and environmental issues. Mayor Snyder advised that the biggest task before the group the last 2 years was the Cutter program. He asked Mr. Kern to briefly comment on this program. Mr. Kern gave an overview and advised that up until about 3 weeks ago, a business a week was being lost. They dealt with developing businesses both overseas and local. After 102 hours of public hearings, the Advisory Board supported Berkeley and there was a 30 year development agreement reached. The Council received the report. CERTIFICATION OF REFERENDUM PETITION AS BEING SUFFICIENT (630-30) On September 17, 1992 , the City Clerk notified the proponents of the referendum petition related to the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan that it was certified as being sufficient. The City Council now has 3 options: 1) Repeal Resolution No. 88-92 in its entirety. If this action is taken, the Council would be prohibited from reenacting the approval for a period of one year. 2) Place the issue on the November, 1994 General Municipal Election ballot. If this action is taken, the Resolution would not become effective unless and until approved by the voters. 3) Call a Special ■ ■ ■ ■ a n ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ E ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11. - 363 Regular Meeting September 28, 1992 Election, which must be held between 88 and 103 days. If this option is selected, Staff recommended an election date of Tuesday, January 5, 1993 . Again, the Resolution would not become effective unless and until approved by the voters. The referendum ballot language would read: "Shall City Council Resolution No. 88-92, adopting a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for Western Dublin which would establish a maximum number of dwelling units to be constructed in the area while setting aside a certain percentage of the property for open space uses, including a golf course, and making findings, adopting a statement of overriding considerations and adopting a mitigation monitoring program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, be adopted?" If a Special Election is called, the Council may determine whether or not to allow rebuttals to ballot arguments. Also, if the City Council desires to submit a ballot argument, it would be appropriate for the Council to designate a member or members to write the argument which must be submitted to the City Clerk by 4 :00 p.m. , on October 12, 1992 . Special Election costs were estimated to be approximately $15, 500, and an additional appropriation would need to be made to the Elections budget. Kathy Straus stated she did not feel that the costs for a special election would be financially prudent for the City. She requested that the City Council repeal their last vote and instead, form a task force to reevaluate the impacts of developing western Dublin. If the Council is honest about listening to the concerns of the public, this would be a more responsible action. Frank Ruskey stated he felt the most important thing is that the City Council is the elected representatives of the City of Dublin. He believed that it had been shown overwhelmingly that the City is not in favor of this development. He felt the Councilmembers knew in their hearts that the people of Dublin do not want this. It will be defeated, so why should the City spend $15,500 that it doesn't have. What's going on now is that people have gotten the Council upset. Thank God people are finally showing up at the Council meetings to get involved. All he is asking is for the City Council to listen to the people. Doug Abbott stated he seconded the remarks made by the previous 2 speakers. The most prudent action right now would be for the City Council to step back. Residents have indicated they are not happy about this. We don't need a special election. Cm. Jeffery pointed out that Mr. Abbott was one of the carriers of the petitions asking for a special election. Janet Lockhart stated she is a business person in Dublin, as well as a land owner and she would like the Council to go forward with the election. There are a lot of people who support this. Just because ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ M ■ CM s VOL it - 364 Regular Meeting September 28, 1992 they aren't present at this meeting doesn't mean there isn't support for an election. Cm. Burton stated he was not sure that everyone who signed the petition understood the full implications. They may have been given some information that was not correct. This has gone through 1 1/2 years of public hearings and involved hundreds of people and man hours. He stated he felt very comfortable with letting the people say what they want. The best way is to let the people vote. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Moffatt absent) , the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 121 - 92 CALLING FOR A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1993; REQUESTING THE ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO ALLOW REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO CONDUCT ELECTION; AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PROCEDURAL MATTERS (Allowing Rebuttal Arguments) and approved an additional appropriation of $15, 500 to the Elections Budget. CITY COUNCIL SPONSORED INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE PLACED ON BALLOT WITH REFERENDUM SPECIAL ELECTION (630-30) The City Council previously directed Staff to work out the logistics of placing a City Council sponsored initiative measure on the referendum ballot related to the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. This initiative would add policies to the Specific Plan related to views, water, wastewater, open space/wildlife habitat, traffic, financial responsibility, growth phasing, oak trees, public trails, public services and facilities, air quality and schools, which could only be changed by the voters. The language on the ballot would read: "Shall a resolution be adopted to 1) provide guarantees and restrictions within the Western Dublin Specific Plan area, relating to views, water, wastewater, open space, wildlife habitat, traffic, financial responsibility, growth phasing, oak trees, public trails, public facilities, air quality and schools, which can only be changed by a vote of the people, 2) amend the General Plan for Western Dublin, and 3) adopt the Western Dublin Specific Plan?" Cm. Burton commended Staff on the report which he felt was well described. Mr. Ambrose advised that the City had received a fax from DSRSD relaying their concern that the initiative may place restrictions on the policy which exceed the City's authority and which the City may not have the authority to do. What the City is saying, however, is ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 365 Regular Meeting September 28, 1992 that basically, development cannot occur unless the guarantees are there. Georgean Vonheeder, DSRSD Director, felt that their concerns were best put in a letter to the City Manager. Their main concern is whether the City Council can guarantee something that isn't within their scope of responsibility. The District has the responsibility of providing water and wastewater services and the City's policy states that under no conditions will current residents be charged additional fees for providing services to the western Dublin area. The District's legal staff is also reviewing this. Just as the City has policies in place, they also have a policy which says they recognize their responsibility to provide services to their constituents in an adequate and equitable manner. Mayor Snyder pointed out that there is no single agency which has jurisdiction in this area. LAFCO has the ultimate responsibility. The Council is making a guarantee to the people of the current community that they will not have to pay for something in the extended area. Ms. Vonheeder stated DSRSD typically follows as a second step whenever the City annexes. They do utility planning which follows the City's land use planning. They just wanted the City to be aware of their concerns and this may not be the City's ultimate responsibility. Antoinette Milano stated she agreed with the Dublin Citizen's Committee that this project will have an impact on the City; all positive. When she was asked to sign a petition, she was given a green fact sheet and she felt the truth wasn't totally there. A lot of propaganda was discussed. What's going on to the east has nothing to do with the western proposal. The picture they give is one of bus loads of people invading our area. Actually, the increase will be spread over a number of years which will be slow, controlled growth. The whole area is private property now, but the proposal will donate 2, 100 acres as open space which all can enjoy. The Sierra Club opposes this project, but it is her understanding that they don't support ANY development. The Sierra Club should stay in the Sierras. She has respect for the initiative process and felt this development will be an asset to the entire community. Margaret Tracy, speaking as an individual Zone 7 Board member, stated in the list of criteria, it is important that the water supply be . identified as sustainable and permanent. They had quite a discussion at their last board meeting regarding what is permanent. The water supply must be permanent or forever. She stated she was curious to know where DSRSD will get all the water they feel they can supply. She also had questions about schools. The State is cutting back on educational allocations and she was concerned about who would build . additional schools. Bob Beebe, DSRSD General Manager stated the District is meeting with owners of water rights and considering the purchase of water rights in perpetuity. The costs would be borne by the western development area. ■ ■ : : m : m : 0 E 0 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ® ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 366 Regua Metin September 28, 1992 Dr. Harvey Scudder stated his concerns relate basically to public health. We cannot go out and secure more air. There are many times when he cannot even see Livermore from where he lives because of the air pollution. We should consider whether or not there is another source of air just in case we need it. The problem is quite severe and air is something we cannot negotiate for. Bruce Gozlyn questioned if the City Council anticipates putting both the referendum and the initiative on the ballot. Mayor Snyder stated this is the action before the Council for consideration. Mr. Gozlyn stated most of the voters are usually very confused about these things and he felt the average voter will not understand what they are voting for. Only one thing should be put on the ballot for which they can vote yes or no. Emmett King, a resident of Rothchild Place, stated he was not only confused but also disgusted. The City Council does not have the residents' benefit in mind, but they are only thinking about the builder. This is just a smoke screen. When building was going on while he lived in Briarhill, he had to clean his swimming pool every week. He stated he was completely disgusted with City government. David Buely stated he recognized that opinions and feelings are strong on both sides of the issue. The right to have a referendum is unquestionable. This is an established voting process given to the power of the people. It is also okay for the City Council to put an initiative before the people. People should recognize that this is part of the process. The specifics of the referendum are clear; it authorizes or doesn't authorize. With regard to the facts of land use, this is a very complex issue. However, life is complex. As citizens, everyone must sit down and understand the issues. His concern on the initiative is with litigation. The fact that there might be some jurisdictional questions could cause litigation. Many people may have a legal basis for stalling for cause of action. They may not win, but it could go before the courts. This would not be the case with the referendum only. The water problem may cause litigation for the City. The limit to growth could be established by technical and reasonable means. What is reasonable? Quality of life issues must be discussed. He looks forward to a spirited debate. The public needs to do their homework and try to see both sides of this issue. He respects Dr. Scudder's knowledge; on the other hand, the City Council must look at what happens to our children if we have no more homes. There are 2 sides to the issue and the people will decide in this election. If the voters decide no, what happens then? This should be brought up in the debate. Only the City Council can represent the people of Dublin. Even if the vote turns out to be a no, we must still vigorously pursue the western area in planning. Frank Ruskey asked if the developer is putting up a performance bond and what happens if they go bankrupt. ■ s ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ® ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 367 Regular Meeting September 28, 1992 Mayor Snyder stated there is no performance bond but he thought the developer pays all the fees on an ongoing basis. Ms. Silver clarified that the City Council action in July was merely related to planning documents. There are no specific development proposals before the City Council and bonds are therefore premature at this point. Kathy Straus questioned the authority by which the Council directed Staff to draft the measure. She did not think that Staff was directed to do this. The proposed initiative does not address their primary concerns; the 37 million cubic feet of dirt that will have to be moved; and the 126 acres of oak woodland that will be destroyed. They have other concerns rather than just out-of-pocket costs. The impacts on schools has still not been addressed. There are. no guarantees that an elementary school would be built and since we have no busing, how will all the kids get to school. What about water rationing? With regard to the open space, the area .consists almost entirely of totally rugged terrain. She felt the initiative simply attempts to deceive the voters. John Anderson had questions related to the various scenarios if one measure or the other passes or fails. Doug Abbott stated he wished to set the record straight regarding misinformation at the last Council meeting. It was reported that some Councilmembers were accused of _taking something under the table. It has never been his intent to question the integrity of anyone on the City Council. His concern is that the City Council is treating the developers wishes and placing them over the concerns of the residents. What is important is what is contained in the guarantees. Who decides which trees are to be cut down? There is no guarantee that air quality won't get worse. Why not say there will be no building permits issued until air quality improves. This would be a real guarantee. The Council is only guaranteeing to abide by the letter of the law and he questioned, what's the point? Eloise Hammond stated she had questions related to the water guarantee and asked if, 5 years down road, this area will get more water than existing Dublin. Also, will they be charged double? Mayor Snyder stated the issue is that this area will not have a negative impact on the current community. The City Council is saying that the current residents of Dublin will not pay extra to support services in western Dublin. Ms. Hammond stated her other concern is that she will be stuck in traffic as a result of this new development and there won't be a way to alleviate this. When the City Attorney was explaining all this, she felt like she was filling out her tax papers it was so complicated. Cm. Burton stated he was very happy that everyone has gotten involved in this. This came down through a very long process. The reason for ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 a 368 Regular Meetanq � September 28, 1992 the guarantees is to assure people that the City Council is doing everything it can to address the concerns. Cm. Jeffery stated she could support Resolution A (allowing rebuttal arguments) because with guarantees, the community is given a chance to see if they want this or not. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Moffatt absent) , the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 122 - 92 CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION ON JANUARY 5, 1993 TO PLACE TWO MEASURES BEFORE THE VOTERS OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN REGARDING THE WESTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN; REQUESTING THE ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO ALLOW THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION; AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PROCEDURAL MATTERS; AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 121 - 92 IN ITS ENTIRETY (Allowing Rebuttal Arguments) By a consensus, the Council determined that Mayor Snyder and Vice Mayor Jeffery would write the ballot arguments. OTHER BUSINESS ABAG General Assembly Meeting (140-10) City Manager Ambrose advised that at the October 29th, ABAG General Assembly meeting consideration will be given to the platform on growth management which has been long discussed. The Alameda County City Managers have met to discuss the differences between the 2 proposals and they will be sending communications_ to all the member agencies indicating some suggested improvements to the language. The meeting will be 8 : 30 a.m. to 2 : 30 p.m. October 12th Council Meeting Rescheduled to October 22nd (610-10) Mr. Ambrose advised that at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting of October 12th, 2 members of the Council will be out of town. Mayor Snyder will be traveling in Russia and Vice Mayor Jeffery will be representing the City at the League Conference in Los Angeles. He asked if the Council would prefer to cancel this meeting and set a special meeting date prior to the October 26th meeting to consider the budget issues. The Council determined that the October 12th meeting would be cancelled and then called a special meeting for October 22nd to start at 7: 30 p.m. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CM - VOL 11 - 369 Regular Meeting September 28, 1992 State Legislation SB 992 (660-40) Cm. Jeffery gave a brief report on SB 992 related to the aerospace industry's reaction to sales tax on federal contracts which has to be returned. A formula will be worked out on this and Dublin may be hit somewhat on this. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10: 00 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CM - VOL 11 - 370 Regular Meeting September 28, 1992