Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-1994 Adopted CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING - October 10, 1994 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, October 10, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m., by Mayor Snyder. * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmembers Burton, Houston, Howard, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. None. , , , . PLEDGE OF ~LLEGIANCE Mayor Snyder led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Recruitment/Employment Practices (740-40) Frank Ruskey congratulated the members of the City Council and wished them well in the election. Even though he has had minor disagreements in the past, he felt this Council has done an excellent job. Many people out in the community gripe, but he doesn't have sympathy for them because people don't come to the meetings. Mr. Ruskey felt the City was missing out on an opportunity for job placement of Dublin residents. The first opportunities for all positions should be advanced to the residents of Dublin. The city should take a more active role in supporting some kind of a plan and he suggested that it even be brought to the City Council's attention that certain positions are open. Out of a population of 26,000 people, he knew there are more than enough qualified people to fill any of the positions in the City. Mr. Ruskey also advised that a lot of people are upset over Lucky's move to San Ramon and a lot of Dublin people won't shop there. Cm. Burton asked what was involved in having some kind of a procedure to give local people an advantage. Mr. Ambrose stated the City's policy has basically been to look at qualifications. The City Council sets the minimum qualifications as part of the adoption of job classifications. We typically have an independent oral board that reviews the most qualified applicants. The openings are well advertised and often times we don't get any Dublin applicants. Cm. Moffatt stated for State jobs, Veterans get a 5 point lead. He aSked if it would be possible for the City to give a certain number of points to Dublin residents. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 296 Regular Meeting October 10, 1994 Cm. Howard asked how many of the employees are Dublin residents. Mr. Ambrose stated we have a fairly high percentage of part-time employees that live in the City although a number do not due to the cost of living in the area. Cm. Burton felt it would be difficult t6 put this into the contracts with all those firms we contract with. It is, however, worthwhile to think about this and give consideration. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 3, 1994 (rescheduled from September 26, 1994); Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 94 APPROVING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NO. 006 TO LOCAL AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT 04-5432 FOR FEDERAL AID PROJECTS (600-50) Accepted improvements under Contract 94-06, (Valley Slurry Seal Co.) for Street Slurry Seal program (600-30); Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 94 REJECTING BID SUBMITTED BY SEMANS COMMUNICATIONS INC., AND AWARDING BID FOR CIVIC CENTER CABLING'PROJECT TO JOHNSON CONTROLS FOR $14,636.80 (600-30) Received an informational report on submittal of 1995 and 1996 Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc. (WMAC) Garbage Rate Application and referred the rate application to the Joint Refuse Rate Review Committee for review (810-30); Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 100 - 94 APPROVING A MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM IN COOPERATION WITH THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA (600-40) and authorized the City Manager to execute the agreement; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 101 - 94 ANNUAL REPORT OF DEVELOPER DEPOSITS MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING UNEXPENDED IMPACT FEES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 (300-20) *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 297 Regular Meeting October 10, 1994 Accepted improvements under Contract 94-05, Annual Overlay/Street Monuments and authorized final retention payment of $22,361.67 to East Bay Excavating Company, Inc.; authorized release of faithful performance bonds; and directed that Staff make appropriate budget adjustments (600-30); Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $254,273.91 (300-40). , · PUBLIC HEARING AREA OF BENEFIT ORDINANCE (600-10) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. City Attorney Silver presented the Staff Report and advised that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which was adopted in 1993, includes financing goals, including a goal that new development in the Specific Plan area should pay the full cost of infrastructure needed to serve the area. An Area of Benefit Ordinance is an implementing or enabling ordinance authorized by Government Code Section 66484 which is part of the State Subdivision Map Act. Ms. Silver explained that once an implementing ordinance is adopted, the authority is in place to establish an actual area of benefit and an area of benefit fee. Property owners may protest the formation of an area of benefit and if one-half of the property owners protest, the proceedings must be abandoned. An area of benefit fee can be used in conjunction with other financing devices. For example, the City can form an assessment district at the same time it establishes an area of benefit fee to enable property owners who do not wish to pay the fees in full at final map stage to finance the fees over time. Adoption of the ordinance is not subject to CEQA. Cm. Burton asked how this was different from an assessment district. Ms. Silver explained the difference is the fee that is established is payable in full at the time the map is pulled. With an assessment district, it is due and payable 30 days after assessment. It is a lien against the property in 15 or 20 years to the bond holders. The amount is the same. Cm. Burton asked who makes the decision as to how much it will be and if there is a general way this is established. Ms. Silver stated the City Council establishes the area of benefit and the fee following a public hearing. If 50% Protest, the proceedings are terminated.' Cm. Moffatt asked if this would conflict with any regional fee for transportation down the line. There is some thought of developing a regional fee which the surrounding cities would participate and collect money and expend money for certain areas of transportation on *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 298 Regular Meeting October 10, 1994 roads of significant use. He asked if this fee would be all inclusive and no other fees could be collected or if regional fees could be collected. Mr. Ambrose pointed out that based on what the Tri-Valley Transportation Council is doing and the fact that they are not an agency, anything they do needs to be implemented by the City Council. A regional impact fee could be included as long as you establish a nexus between the fee and the improvements. An area of benefit ordinance could include a regional fee. Cm. Moffatt asked if once this fee is developed it is set and no more fees can be added. Ms. Silver stated it is important to remember that the Specific Plan goals and policies provide that new development pay for infra- structure. An area of benefit is just one way. Cm. Houston commented that you would need a 50% vote to abandon an area of benefit. He asked what the rules were for an assessment district. Ms. Silver responded that the same thing Would apply; it would require a 50% vote. Cm. Houston asked what would happen if some property owners don't have the ability to pay and we have to put in a bridge or road to get it through. How would this get financed? Ms. Silver stated one could be required to put in necessary infrastructure and others could be required to repay over a period of time when they come in for development approvals. Mr. Ambrose pointed out that we need to get this in place so that property owners can determine if the project is financially feasible. Cm. Burton referenced a way that people could pay when they come on line. Ms. Silver stated this is called oversizing. The City could require developers, when they come on line, to repay the first developer. This provision is in the Dublin Municipal Code already. Mr. Ambrose advised that this will include the County property. Ail this does is give a mechanism to determine how much improvements are required, who benefits and who pays these costs. Ms. Silver stated this is required by the Specific Plan and this is one step. The Specific Plan indicates different methods of financing should be available to the developers so they can pick and choose how to pay. Cm. Burton asked if the developers decide. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 15 - 299 Regular Meeting October 10, 1994 Ms. Silver stated they have to come up with a financing plan on how the infrastructure will be constructed and paid for. The developer cannot form an area of benefit or an assessment district, but rather they come to the City and we want to have these means available. Carolyn Morgan stated under this item on the agenda description, it " .. new development in the Specific Plan area should pay the says, . full cost of infrastructure needed to serve the area." This should be changed to SHALL. Ms. Morgan inquired if her understanding with regard to a 50% protest was correct that it was 1 acre/1 vote. Ms. Silver stated the State Law and the draft ordinance read 50% of · "If there is a written protest the owners. Section H (2) states, filed with the City Clerk by the owners of more than one-half (½) of the area of the property to be benefited by the improvement, and sufficient protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the area represented to less than one-half (½) of that to be benefited, then the proposed proceedings shall be abandoned and ... " Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. on motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED the Area of Benefit Ordinance. pUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF VIACOM'S BASIC CABLE RATES FOR PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1, 1993 THROUGH JULY 14, 1994 (1060-20) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Management Assistant Barker presented the Staff Report and advised that the City's Cable Operator, Viacom Cable, submitted FCC rate application Form 393. As a local certified franchising authority, the City Council can regulate the basic service tier. Mr. Barker explained the preponderance of use standard which was discussed in the Staff Report. Mr. Barker discussed the permitted rates and advised that if the City Council elected to reduce rates on the basic tier, there would be no impact on rate payers for the period covering September 1, 1993 to' July 14, 1994. If~the Council ordered a rate reduction, there may be a positive impact on the future rates of basic customers. The impact will be more clear once the next round of rate reviews are complete. Mr. Barker advised that in March of 1994, the FCC made revisions to its rate regulations· Cable operators were required to adjust their rates which took effect July 14, 1994. This will require the City to approve another rate application in December of 1994. Additionally, Viacom is required to submit new rate application forms that will be evaluated and brought back to the City Council at a future meeting. The Cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore and San Ramon will again share in the cost of the evaluation. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@ CM - VOL 13 - 300 Regular Meeting October 10, 1994 In summary, Mr. Barker stated Staff recommended that the City Council order Viacom to comply with the FCC regulations by using the preponderance of use method of counting regulated channels, and order a rate reduction for the basic tier. Viacom should apply refunds in accordance with FCC regulatiOns and show compliance within 60 days. Staff should also be directed to file a request for clarification from the FCC of the preponderance of use method for counting channels. Cm. Moffatt stated he noted that every time the cable company lowers their rates, his bill goes up. If these rates are lOwered, he asked if the satellite package will go up. Mr. Barker advised that the time period they are reviewing has already come and gone. Future rates are what are being considered. Mr. Rankin advised that FCC regulates the satellite tier of service, and 95% of Dublin's subscribers have this level of service in addition to the basic level. Cm. Burton commented that it appeared Staff was struggling over a small pittance. Sue Levatin, Director of Public Affairs for Viacom stated Mr. Barker's presentation was quite complete. They believe their calculations are in compliance with the law. Cm. Burton asked if she was aware of anything coming down the pike from FCC. Ms. Levatin stated it is impossible to tell what is coming down the pike from FCC. Every day their company changes. FCC is very busy with its regulations. Mr. Barker pointed out that rates were decreased slightly in July. Frank Ruskey felt the City should pick the battles it wants to win. The amounts being discussed are so small you don't gain anything. He was sure Staff, the Council and the City Attorney have a lot more important things to do. Why spend the money we are spending for all this study and surveys when there is no net gain? Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Burton, Seconded by Cm. Houston, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 102 - 94 DISAPPROVING OF CERTAIN RATES FOR THE BASIC SERVICE TIER AND ORDERING A RATE REDUCTION FOR THE PAST RATES COLLECTED *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 301 Regular Meeting October 10, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING - EASTERN DUBLIN ANNEXATION/ DETACHMENT AND PREZONE ~1 PA 94-030 (620-20) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Staff advised that the City proposes to annex approximately 1,500 acres to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District, detach 1,029 acres from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District, and prezone the approximate 1,500 acre site, all located within the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area. A fiscal study for the annexation has been finalized and the major project proponent (the Lin Family) will be required to enter into an annexation agreement with the City to ensure that the annexation will be revenue neutral. Senior Planner Cirelli made a detailed presentation of the information which was distributed and contained in the Staff Report. Approxi- mately 95% of the property owners concur with this action. LAFCO is being requested to set the date of annexation as October 1, 1995. Cm. Burton referenced the map attached to Exhibit B. There is an area with 2 asterisks in the middle of commercial and residential area and he asked what this was for. Ms. Cirelli stated this area is within the airport protection area and it was formerly designated as medium density residential. We may need to change this to future study area at some point in the future. Cm. Burton asked why a whole area to the east in the Specific Plan was left off. Ms. Cirelli responded that the Specific Plan policies recommend phased growth and the reason for not annexing the whole area was because it was felt that the infrastructure studies need to be completed in a phased manner and having the whole area is just too much at this time. The property owners may not have been ready to go forth with the annexation request. The request for annexation was received from 2 property owners. Cm. Burton asked if all the contingencies were covered in accordance with the EIR. Ms. Cirelli stated they feel the EIR report is sufficient at'this time. We may need to do supplemental report work in the future. The Council discussed sewer services and pipe size and capacity issues. Bert Michaelczyk with DSRSD advised that the pipeline would be sized to accommodate future development of the entire area. They commissioned a study after the Specific Plan was adopted. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@ CM - VOL 13 - 302 Regular Meeting October 10, 1994 Cm. Houston referenced Exhibit F and the fact that everyone agrees that this is supposed-to be revenue neutral. He asked how these costs are going to be monitored as the number seems to be arbitrary. Mr. Ambrose referenced page 6 of the agreement. Section B calls for an annual fiscal analysis by April 1st each year. Mr. Ambrose stated the County fire control provides very limited service to the area. We intend to bring them up to a more urban area level of service. Cm. Houston stated he didn't feel the cows out there need a greater level of service. Mr. Ambrose responded that there are 25 residents out there who might disagree. Subsequent projects will be defined in more detail. With regard to the distances involved, we need to make sure we don't leave the rest of the City unprotected if police service is needed in that area. Cm. Moffatt stated he had been unable to locate the 10 acres which were outside of the Specific Plan area. Ms. Cirelli explained where these 10 acres were. Cm. Moffatt asked if DSRSD had passed the joint resolution yet. Mr. Ambrose advised that they will be considering it later this week. Cm. Moffatt asked with regard to schools, as long as each individual school district is agreeable, if it is up to them to work out which district will be involved. Does this also apply to our Park & Recreation Master Plan and LARPD? Mr. Ambrose explained that the Specific Plan whiCh the Council adopted provided for the City to provide services for that area. We are proposing detachment from LARPD since we will be providing services. With regard to the school district issue, we are providing a mechanism for whichever school district services that area to collect appropriate school fees in the future. Cm. Moffatt asked if Marks-Roos and Mello-Roos Districts were the same thing. Ms. Silver explained that Marks-Roos is a separate statute whereby cities can pool together different bond issues to reduce costs of issuance. Mello-Roos is a special tax on properties for infrastructure and certain services. They are both financing mechanisms. Carolyn Morgan stated she went to City Hall about noon today and asked for copies of the Staff Reports. It is not possible to read all the reports in such a short time. She requested that they be given a couple of weeks to read and digest the information and that the Council consider it in the future. She asked why the 10 acres were included outside of the Specific Plan. The Airport Land Use *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@ CM - VOL 13 - 303 Regular Meeting October 10, 1994 Commission requested that special insulation be put on houses close to the airport and that owners be given specific notice that there is an airport in the vicinity. She again requested that they be given more time to read the documents. Harvey Scudder questioned what progress had been made to increase the corridor between Dublin as it is now and east Dublin as it will become. He asked if we had negotiated with the Department of Defense, Camp Parks, etc. A statement as to the status would be of benefit. Cm. Burton asked if he was talking about the service road along the freeway. Dr. Scudder stated he was talking about more than this. He thought there was to have been a property exchange or some kind of an outright sale of property that would make the confluence of the two districts a whole lot better. He hoped that east Dublin might have a little more land so that more than an avenue would connect the two areas. Cm. Burton advised that this is a concern of everyone. The service road and BART were issues that played into this. Dr. Scudder asked if there was any thought to increasing the size in the future. Mayor Snyder stated absolutely, that was just the precursor to allow everything else to begin to happen. The funding just wasn't in place to do the entire thing at one time. Mr. Ambrose stated with regard to the land area that's developed around the road, the City and County have met with Camp Parks about the southern portion of the base. The County is working on a proposal to acquire 41 acres south of Dublin Boulevard so that we would have a continuous corridor. The Army's perimeter would remain north of Dublin Boulevard. They have indicated and made clear to us that they have plans for a new medical facility not too far from the northern side of the road. It took 6 years to get a 3 year land swap arranged~ including an act of Congress. The Army is interested and the County seems to have the wherewithal through the Surplus Property Authority to make some things happen there. The goal is to increase the size of the corridor so that there is contiguous land developed for private purposes south of Dublin Boulevard. Mayor Snyder corrected his earlier statement related to timing. Two actions were proposed for this meeting. The first would be to adopt the 6 resolutions and the second is the continuance of the ordinance for adoption at the next meeting. Bobbie Foscalina requested that at the next meeting a large scale map be available for the public to view. She also requested that the 10 acres be excluded. There is no need to have it inside the City limits as it has no density on it. It is agricultural. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@.@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@ CM - VOL 13 - 304 Regular Meeting October 10, 1994 John DiManto, representing the Dublin Land Company, stated he wanted t° go on record as being opposed to annexation of their lands to the City and to DSRSD due to a lack of detailed development agreements, timeframes, target dates and real commitments on the part of the District. The time has come where we need binding recordable agreements that run with the land. If the District can't serve that area within 2 years, he and a lot of other people are running out of daylight. Their letter of August 9th very clearly states the whole burden is on us and after they have their sphere line, they get lazy. The most important part of annexing east Dublin is utilities. The County's property is being fast tracked. He spoke with LAFCO and their versions of when this can happen are about 5 years different than the District. The next city Council may feel Dublin does not need to grow beyond Tassajara Road. Without a binding agreement, he is not in favor of being annexed. He stated there was nothing personal and stated this Council is the greatest Council he has been before in his 50 years of doing business. Mr. DiManto stated he also would like to see a boundary map displayed at the next meeting. He would like Staff to look into having the County service the area for a period of time and just pay them. Alternative plans should be available which are financeable. A newspaper article was given to the Council which discussed how many millions Pleasanton has in their reserve as a result of very prudent planning. It goes back to the days when they sold Hacienda Park to Prudential. It made the town rich. It is Dublin's turn to make money now and get into business and not be intimidated by the County or anyone else. This City Council needs some definite answers and shorter timeframes, or else let the landowners off the hook and they can build their own private treatment plant and dedicate it to some agency and irrigate the canyons of open space and turn the dry hills into beautiful green spots. They shouldn't be shackled by interference of the County and Homart and other agencies beyond this valley. Cm. Burton asked how Homart will change his situation when his property is right across the street. Mr. DiManto stated he would like to see the agreement the City has with Alameda County and the agreement the County has with Homart. They are very powerful and he stated we will be seeing many amendments to their agreement with the County. When they see some loopholes, they're going to use them. They are under an option/purchase and the city is going to need to monitor this very carefully. The nightmare will be that the County and Homart will stop short of Tassajara and say they don't need to join your assessment districts. Cm. Burton stated the City will have control of what the County does with Homart as it is within the City limits. Mr. DiManto questioned what business and/or political leverage the City has. They need to know the deal Homart is making with the County. The County will have a hard time separating themselves as the Board of Supervisors and as landowners in business. They are joint *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 305 Regular Meeting October 10, 1994 venturing their land and they are in direct competition with all the other landowners. They could potentially dictate the allocation of gallonage for each category of property. Tom Ford stated he is a candidate for the DSRSD Board. DSRSD has a $20 million expansion program for reverse osmosis and it is quite expensive per acre foot. People in this area should be well aware that water delivered to them is derived from collected sewer water that's been treated. Under the fairness doctrine of the area carrying its own weight and not having costs go to the present people in the area, he was concerned that operating costs will not be covered. He understood there was a law that says you cannot charge different rates within the same district. People are rather unhappy with their water bills as he has discovered from walking the precincts. New people will need a second mortgage just to support their water bills. We need to tell people what their water bill will be out there. Bob Beebe, DSRSD General Manager, stated certainly they are looking at water recycling and it will be a little more expensive, but it will be competitive and reasonable. They are separating the cost of serving the new area from current ratepayers. They will comply with all laws and health standards requirements. It is not nearly as simple as someone indicated earlier of just building a treatment plant and making the canyons and hills turn green. They are working at coming up with good answers for any new areas. You can absolutely have different cost of service rates. Martin Inderbitzen representing the Jennifer Lin family stated this has gone on for about 8 years of planning. An historical account was given of the reasons for including the 10 acres in the plan which related to a judgment from a divorce. Lawyers don't always draft deeds with topography in mind. This was an adjustment that took place over a number of years. Mr. Inderbitzen pointed out that there wasn't much new material in the packet from what went to the Planning Commission; just the resolutions and the draft agreement with the Lin family. They submitted a plan to the City in 1987 and in the last 7 years, they have learned a lot abOut the property. Timing of the adoption of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and legal challenges were discussed and he pointed out that 17 months after adoption of the GPA, this is the next step. He hoped the City had learned a lot about them in the last 7 years. There needs to be a good strong working relationship. Mr. Inderbitzen pointed out that there are no new policy issues that have not been previously considered by the City Council which led them to this point. The area represents a tremendous opportunity for the City of Dublin. They know they must be sensitive to existing residents. They are in complete support with the recommendations in the Staff Report. Cm. Burton discussed metes and bounds and asked if someone actually went out and resurveyed to make sure the lines on the map are accurate. ,@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 306 Regular Meeting Ootober 10, 1994 Mr. Inderbitzen advised that they did a boundary survey on all of the Lin properties. On other properties, they used the existing record of evidence. Cm. Burton asked how he would respond to Mr. DiManto's concerns about services going beyond Tassajara. Mr. Inderbitzen stated it was hard to answer this because it continues to be a mystery to him regarding the position that Mr. DiManto has taken. His property is coming into the City. As they look at the issue, this phase of annexation provides sufficient critical mass in property and land uses and diversity of uses to provide the necessary bOnding to pay for the infrastructure to bring sewer, water, roads and other improvements across the County's property into this eastern annexation area. They have made no deals and propose no deals with the City or DSRSD to edge out any property owner. They have stated all along that they feel this is the right configuration to make a logical annexation. Once annexation occurs, all property owners ought to be on an even playing field to negotiate whatever they can negotiate with the County or the City or the Services District or anybody else to bring services to their property and hopefully develop. Cm. Burton asked him to comment on the Homart situation and the fact that there is a lot of horsepower. Mr. Inderbitzen stated they rely on the ability to have a good faith relationship with this City Council and the DSRSD Board. They are the ones that negotiate capacity for these issues. They have been talking with the County all along and the Council has invited the other property owners to talk about how the issues can be resolved. The County has indicated they need us as much as we need them. They don't have the ability just on their property to bring infrastructure across. He suggested that all should ~come to the party and solve these problems. Mr. Ambrose pointed out that the County recognizes that other infrastructure will be required. You need a larger critical mass to make this effective for everybody. Cm. Burton stated he had not heard that there was water and wastewater capacity on the other side of Tassajara and discussed the possibility of the County taking the capacity and there won't be any leftover, even though you build a pipeline. Mayor Snyder indicated that Pages 5 and 6 address this and Carol talked about it earlier. Mr. Inderbitzen stated his understanding was the District has been talking with the County about allocating some portions of the remaining capacity. Mr. Beebe stated just as they are entering into agreements with the Jennifer Lin family, they have negotiated an agreement with the County *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ eM - VOL 13 - 307 Regular Meeting October 10, 1994 by which they will ration their property. They don't have enough capacity to serve east of Tassajara, so in the good faith spirit of negotiations, they can't do this. They recognize that if they made an effort to take all the capacity, that would put us in a moratorium position. They believe through this arrangement, they will be able to ration to the County and others until additional capacity is found. Mary Warren, representing the Pao Lin family, assured their full cooperation and support with the Staff recommendation. They too would like to review the economic proposal and will do this within the next 2 weeks. An issue they wished to lay on the table for future discussion is the issue of prioritization for both water and sewer connections. She repeated this was for future consideration. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Moffatt reminded everyone that we have been chewing on this for 7 or 8 years. Cm. Burton felt Staff should be alerted to the potential regarding allocations to protect east Dublin properties. Mr. Ambrose stated utility allocation issues will come up between the District and the property owners. Once they have entitlements, they will be able to use the allocations. Cm. Houston asked if this would be covered in the master development agreement item later on the agenda. It seemed to him we are chasing everybody's tail. Sooner or later it all has to come out. Mayor Snyder said it will be as soon as they make application fOr development. There's a clear understanding that the City doesn't provide these services. Ms. Silver stated the Specific Plan requires developers to get a "will serve" letter from DSRSD for both water and for sewer. Cm. Houston felt we were just putting if off onto DSRSD and they put it onto the City. It is not really within the scope of the District to care about jobs/housing balance and if the project will pencil out. At what point does this occur? We have to have income producing properties next to the freeway get their fair share. Ms. Cirelli stated the Specific Plan policies require that property owners, when they are ready to submit project proposals, must complete a fiscal study of their project. At that time, we will be able to tell what the costs will be to service the area and what their financing strategies will be to develop their project. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Houston, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 308 Regular Meeting October 10, 1994 RESOLUTION NO. 103 - 94 FINDING PROJECT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADDENDUM DATED AUGUST 22, 1994 and and and and and RESOLUTION NO. 104 - 94 APPROVING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PREZONING RESOLUTION NO. 105 - 94 APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION AND DETACHMENT TO LAFCO RESOLUTION NO. 106 - 94 APPROVING THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE RESOLUTION NO. 107 - 94 APPROVING THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLINAND THE DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 108 - 94 APPROVING THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH THE LIN FAMILY On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED the Ordinance re PD Prezoning and continued the item to the October 24, 1994 City Council meeting. * * * PROPOSAL BY ALAMEDA COUNTY TO REVIEW BUSINESS LICENSE TAX PAID BY LANDFILL OPERATORS (810-30) Assistant City Manager Rankin presented the Staff Report and advised that Alameda County is proposing to amend its method for calculating the Business License Tax for the Waste Disposal Facility Operator category. The proposed amendment would charge operators 95¢ per ton of solid waste accepted at the facility. County Staff estimate that this will generate annual revenues of $1.9 mill~on. City Staff estimate that Dublin rate payers would incur approximately $25,800 in additional taxes annually. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@ CM - VOL 13 - 309 Regular Meeting October 10, 1994 Mr. Rankin recommended that the City Council review the County proposal in light of the budgetary problems encountered by counties throughout the State. Mr. Rankin stated if the CoUncil wishes to take a position on the matter, Staff will prepare the appropriate document for the Mayor's signature. Cm. Houston commented that this is filtering down from the State level to the County level and now down to us. Cm. Moffatt questioned the alternatives. Mr. Rankin stated it is undetermined as they have to do the same as we have to do; cut programs or increase revenues. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Houston, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to prepare a letter for the Mayor's signature opposing this increase and stating they are against this proposal. MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR EASTERN DUBLIN (600-60) City Attorney Silver presented the Staff Report and advised that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan calls for the City to develop a Master Development Agreement to serve as the format for all development agreements within the Specific Plan area. The Master Development Agreement would be used as the basis for beginning negotiation discussions with developers. Each individual development agreement would contain additional conditions which would be the subject of negotiations with each developer. Approval of the Master Development Agreement as the format for negotiating development agreements is consistent with and will implement the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Such approval is not sUbject to CEQA. Cm. Burton asked how common this type of thing was. He commented that it seemed pretty heavy duty to the developer. Ms. Silver stated the agreement runs with the land. If a property owner mortgages property, the purpose of the agreement is to make it clear that the bank does not have any obligations to construct or complete any of the improvements. It also makes it clear that the bank cannot do anything to the property that is contrary to this development agreement. Cm. Burton stated he sees a problem with banks accepting this. This whole package doesn't seem free market oriented. Ms. Silver pointed out that Page 14 is for the protection of the lender. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 310 Regular Meeting October 10, 1994 Cm. Burton commented that everything in the agreement stands in front of any other liens. He did not understand why this was necessary and felt it is too cumbersome. Cm. Houston asked if it is like an easement that runs with the land. Ms. Silver clarified that this agreement does not place a lien on the property. Section 14.2 assures lenders that they don't have the obligation. Cm. Houston asked how this document was derived. Ms. Silver stated she read many development agreements from other agencies in addition to books on development agreements and law cases, etc. The provisions are as contained in other development agreements. Cm. Houston asked if this had been run by property owners in east Dublin. Ms. Silver advised that Marty Inderbitzen had a copy and also the attorneys for Homart, as they are the only ones with applications pending. Cm. Burton stated he would like to see this delayed until the next meeting because there is stuff in the agreement that he felt bad about. He has been in the development business and it is very restrictive and he felt there will be a backlash. He would rather hold off and talk with some of the property owners. Mayor Snyder clarified that the developer asks for this; the City does not impose it. Ms. Silver stated the Specific Plan requires that a development agreement be entered into. Cm. Moffatt stated this is a format for negotiation. It is not the actual agreement itself. Cm. Houston agreed that a copy should go to all the landowners. Cm. Burton made a motion which was seconded by Cm. Houston to defer this issue to a later time to be determined by Staff after they have contacted and provided a copy of the ordinance to all the affected property owners in the Specific Plan area. This motion was defeated due to NO votes cast by Cm.'s Howard and Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. Mr. Ambrose again pointed out that the Specific Plan requires this. Homart will be immediately impacted. *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 311 Regular Meeting October 10, 1994 On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by majority vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 109 - 94 APPROVING MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FORMAT Cm.'s Burton and Houston voted against this motion. , · · OTHER BUSINESS Lucky's Supermarket in San Ramon (420-50) Cm. Houston advised that someone had called him who lives near the Lucky's Store complaining about excessive trucks, noise, etc. He asked if we had people go to the meetings when this was planned by San Ramon. He now understands that additional homes are to be built above this area. Mr. Tong responded yes, the City monitored it and provided input. Cm. Houston felt City Staff should continue to monitor the status of homes going in up there. * * * Recruitment Status (740-40) Cm. Houston asked for a status on the Economic Development Manager recruitment. Mr. Ambrose advised that the city had a good response and he anticipated interviews and selection this month. CLOSED SESSION At 10:20 p.m., the Council recessed to a closed session to conference with Legal COunsel regarding 1) existing litigation (640-30), City of Dublin vs. Dublin Meadows Partners, Golden Eagle Insurance Company and JL Construction Company - Alameda County Superior Court Case No. V- 003778-9; and 2) anticipated litigation - initiation of litigation - one potential case. * * * REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTION City Attorney Silver advised that no action was taken. * * * · .@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@ CM - VOL 13 - 312 Regular Meeting October 10, 1994 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. , * , , *@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@,@.@.@,@,@ CM - VOL 13 - 313 Regular Meeting October 10, 1994