Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.1 Draft CC 9-6-11 MinSTAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK File #610-10 DATE: September 20, 2011 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager SUBJECT: Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 6, 2011 Prepared by Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of September 6, 2011. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Submitted By City Clerk DESCRIPTION: Reviewed By Assistant City Manager The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of September 6, 2011. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of September 6, 2011 Page 1 of 1 ITEM NO. 4.1 DRAFT of DU~~ MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN -1-~ ~s2 ~~1~~ - ember 6 2011 REGULAR MEETING Sept , 'r.\ _~w CLOSED SESSION A closed session was held at 6:30 p.m., regarding: 12 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9) Concerned Dublin Citizens, et. al v. City of Dublin, et al. (Alameda County Superior Court, RG11581959) II. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9) Name of case: City of Dublin v. AA Label, Inc., Alameda County Superior Court, RG11561163 A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, September 6, 2011, in the City Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:14:20 PM, by Mayor Sbranti. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hart, Hildenbrand, Swalwell, and Mayor Sbranti ABSENT: Councilmember Biddle PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the City Council, Staff and those present. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTION Mayor Sbranti stated there was no reportable action during Closed Session. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1 VOLUME 30 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 ~' ~ DRAFT 13 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 7:14:45 PM 3.1 (700-10) Introduction of New Employees: Kathy Southern, (PSE) Environmental Technician -Environmental Services; Hazel Wetherford, Administrative Analyst II - Economic Development; Seth Adams, Assistant Planner -Community Development Assistant to the City Manager Roger Bradley introduced Kathy Southern, the new temporary Environmental Technician. City Manager Pattillo introduced Hazel Wetherford, Administrative Analyst II in Economic Development. Community Development Director Jeri Ram introduced Seth Adams, Assistant Planner in the Planning Division. The City Council welcomed the new employees to the City Staff. Public Comments 7:20:04 PM 3.2 No comments were made by any member of the public at this time. CONSENT CALENDAR 7:20:13 PM Items 4.1 through 4.8 Cm. Swalwell pulled Item 4.2 for further discussion. On motion of Vm. Hart, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote (Cm. Biddle absent), the City Council took the following actions: Approved (4.1) Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 16, 2011. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2 VOLUME 30 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 ~ DRAFT Adopted (4.3 700-20) and RESOLUTION NO. 151 -11 AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 152 -11 AMENDING THE SALARY PLAN FOR FULL-TIME PERSONNEL Adopted (4.4 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 153 -11 14 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH GLADWELL GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES, INC. TO EVALUATE CITY DOCUMENTS AND OFFICIAL RECORDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECORDS RETENTION AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Adopted (4.5 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 154 -11 AGREEMENT WITH TRI-VALLEY JANITORIAL SERVICE AND SUPPLY FOR JANITORIAL SERVICES OF CITY FACILITIES and approve the Budget Change in the amount of $23,490. Adopted (4.6 600-60) and RESOLUTION NO. 155 - 11 APPROVING THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 8051, NEIGHBORHOOD "C-3" POSITANO/FALCON VILLAGE RESOLUTION NO. 156-11 ACCEPTING PARKLAND DEDICATION CREDITS AND FEES FOR PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR TRACT 8051 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3 VOLUME 30 REGULAR MEETING ~ SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 DRAFT Adopted (4.7 600-35) RESOLUTION NO. 157 -11 AWARDING CONTRACT NO. 11-10, 2011 ANNUAL SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM, TO AMERICAN ASPHALT REPAIR AND RESURFACING CO., INC. and approved the Budget Change. Approved (4.8 300-40) Check Issuance Reports and Electronic Funds Transfers. 15 Cm. Swalwell pulled Item 4.2, 2011-2012 Contract for Services with the Alameda County Library, and stated he supported the item and it was important to put the hours back into the library. He was concerned about the long-term success of the library. He was on the Library Commission. He was concerned about the City continuing to fund the library and the County library system not attempting to find new revenue sources. He had brought this up at the County Library Commission meetings. It was met with some resistance. Cm. Biddle had suggested putting a coffee shop in the library to bring revenue to the library. There were also advertising opportunities that the library could use to make partnerships with the business community, as well as an aggressive donor outreach plan. The City could also review how to rent the library out and generate revenue. He did not want to see hours taken away next year. He would like to see a more sustainable plan for the library. Could the City Council get an update from the City Manager on Cm. Riddle's idea? City Manager Pattillo stated, with the adoption of the budget, the City Council had approved an initiative of exploring the addition of a cafe. That was part of a larger discussion as it related to looking at the library expansion. The City Council might see that in the Spring of 2012. Parks and Community Services Director Diane Lowart stated Staff would be bringing a consultant services agreement before the City Council either at the second meeting in September of the first meeting in October. It would be with the consultant that did the initial library programming study who would be working with City and Library Staff to explore potential expansion opportunities for the library. City Manager Pattillo stated that it would be brought back to the City Council in the Spring of 2012 if there were viable options to be considered as part of the next two-year budget. Also, the library hours being presented had been consistent. When the City Council had made the hard decisions about rolling back library hours, it went back to a baseline that the City could actually sustain. Not knowing what the future held meant the City would continue to review the hours and make appropriate recommendations. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4 VOLUME 30 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 ~' DRAFT 16 Mayor Sbranti asked how many hours were there at one point, how many hours were reduced and how many hours were they looking at now. Ms. Lowart stated last year, the City reduced the hours by 14 hours a week. The City funded 17 hours a week last year, and would fund 17 hours a week this year. Vm. Hart stated his concern was sustainability of libraries themselves. Children born in 2010 would not know what a book looked like as information was media-based, or Internet-based. The ideas mentioned were great ideas to make the library sustainable. The problem was they did not have the staff to research or solicit the new revenue. It could be a potential problem in the future. Ms. Lowart stated next month the City Council would receive a presentation by the Dublin Library Branch Manager regarding their successes this past year. Despite the fact that books were going by the wayside, the library was seeing record attendance for other services they offered. Cm. Hildenbrand stated the library was heavily used. There were many different services that were provided there. Part of it was to attract patrons and to utilize the space. Libraries would not allow themselves to go away. They would figure a way to adapt. By doing this, the City was providing a service to the community that was absolutely essential right now. Cm. Swalwell stated it was important that the City highlight these hours because many communities were cutting these types of services. He wanted to ensure the City could sustain the hours in the future. Mayor Sbranti stated the City should monitor its own services to look at its own best practices. The City needed to monitor and look at what ultimately provided the best service for the residents. Perhaps it was continuing to stay with Alameda County or, if it was not, then the City needed to consider what would provide the best services to the City. Vm. Hart stated adding 17 hours back into the program was a positive item. City Manager Pattillo stated the cafe discussion evolved into an initiative that looked at a broader base, including looking at the overall needs of the library and the needs of the changing environment. The idea was incremental as far as the cafe. But the way the City was looking at it was from a wider lens. Also, the hours contained in the budget for FY 2011-2012 went back to a service level the City was able to sustain about three years ago. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5 VOLUME 30 REGULAR MEETING s SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 `~ ~ DRAFT 17 On motion of Cm. Swalwell, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Biddle absent), the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 150 - 11 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF ALAMEDA FOR ADDITIONAL LIBRARY SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -None PUBLIC HEARINGS -None UNFINISHED BUSINESS Amendment to Improvement Developer Agreement for Schaefer Ranch Park Improvements 7:29:43 PM 7.1 (600-60) City Manager Pattillo presented the Staff Report and advised that the City and Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC ("the Developer") are parties to the Improvement Developer Agreement for Schaefer Ranch Park Improvements ("the Agreement"). The Agreement required the Developer to complete the park improvements in the Schaefer Ranch Development prior to the issuance of the 201st building permit. Developer had requested additional time to complete the improvements, and the proposed amendment to the Agreement would require the developer to complete the construction of the Schaefer Ranch Park no later than June 30, 2013. Vm. Hart asked if the City was assuring that the $500,000 would be used for this specific park or would it go into Park Maintenance General Fund. City Manager Pattillo stated it would not go into a general fund. If the City decided to go the route of endowments, it would be brought back to the City Council for consideration. The City used to be able to live off the proceeds from interest earnings. The City could not do that anymore. The developer was agreeable to whatever the City did as long as it stayed within supporting the parks. Vm. Hart asked why the City did not do the endowment for the future park versus the Heritage Park and Museums. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6 VOLUME 30 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 ~ DRAFT 18 City Manager Pattillo stated it was something the developer actually committed to as part of their development. They considered the Heritage Park and Museums a gateway to their development. Their commitment, even in the original development agreement, had to do with advancing the Heritage Park and Museums. The City Council had the authority down the road to look at how the City developed the endowment discussion. It could be City-wide versus park- specific. It was a recommendation by the developer. He was more than willing to work with the City. Cm. Swalwell stated this was fine. Giving the City Council flexibility to look at where they were at a point in time, for example, ten years from now, the City would have that flexibility of funds. Mayor Sbranti stated he liked the date certain for the completion of the park. On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Vm. Hart and by unanimous vote (Cm. Biddle absent), the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 158 -11 APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO IMPROVEMENT DEVELOPER AGREEMENT FOR SCHAEFER RANCH PARK IMPROVEMENTS Authorization for the City Manager to Execute a Consulting Services Contract with Circlepoint for the Provision of Environmental Services for the Sphere of Influence Amendment Study for Doolan Canyon 7:35:14 PM 7.2 (600-30) Consulting Planner Mike Porto presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would consider authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Consulting Services Agreement with Circlepoint, an environmental consulting firm, for the preparation of the necessary environmental documentation in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to support and Amendment study to the City of Dublin's Sphere of Influence to include Doolan Canyon. The agreement would be for an amount not to exceed $800,000. Vm. Hart asked for clarification that Pacific Union would authorize the initiation of the contract fairly soon. Mr. Porto stated yes. Bruce Myers, representative for the applicant Pacific Union, stated tonight's action was the next step in a process that started over twenty years ago when the City of Dublin first thought about expanding into the area that was known today as east Dublin. The Doolan area was the last piece of that original vision for east Dublin. Their proposal for an active senior community was the right fit for this property, the City of Dublin and the rest of Alameda County. Over the last DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7 VOLUME 30 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 ~' ~ DRAFT 19 nine months, Staff had been working very carefully regarding the details of what the study would involve. The next step would be the preparation of a full EIR, including a fiscal impact analysis, public scoping sessions, gathering public comments and evaluating alternative uses for the property. Vm. Hart stated the costs would be borne by the applicant. It was an evaluation of the process and the proposal. The City was evaluating the impact and moving forward. Cm. Hildenbrand stated it was the next step. Cm. Swalwell stated he agreed with Vm. Hart. It had to be done for the City to know what the environmental impact would be. It was no cost to the City. It was important for the public to know it was not a commitment one way or the other as to whether this project would be approved. It was the first step of a long journey. Mayor Sbranti stated the City had agreed to work with the City of Livermore and look for a mutually agreeable solution. That offer was still on the table. The City wanted something that was a win for Dublin, Livermore, the property owners and Alameda County. This EIR would move them in that direction. Vm. Hart stated he agreed, but this was still a part of Dublin for all intents and purposes. On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Vm. Hart and by unanimous vote (Cm. Biddle absent), the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 159 - 11 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND CIRCLEPOINT FOR THE PROVISION OF ENVIRONEMENTAL SERVICES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL PLAN INITIATION STUDY TO CONSIDER INCULDING DOOLAN CANYON WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN SPHERE OF INFLUENCE NEW BUSINESS Report on Dublin's Creek Cleanup Day 2011 Activities 7:41:16 PM 8.1 (530-20) Assistant to the City Manager Roger Bradley presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would receive a report on the planned activities for the Creek Cleanup Day, scheduled for Saturday, September 17, 2011. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 8 VOLUME 30 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 `~ ~ DRAFT The City Council received the report. Reconsideration of Ex Parte Contacts Polic 7:44:54 PM 8.2 (610-20) zo City Attorney John Bakker presented the Staff Report and advised that Ex parte contacts are communications of information relevant to a quasi-judicial governmental decision to a decisionmaker outside of the formal quasi-judicial proceeding. On December 20, 2005, the City Council adopted a policy prohibiting City Council members and Planning Commissioners, among others, from the intentionally making or receiving ex parte contacts related to quasi- judicial proceedings such as site development review approvals, conditional use permits, and variances. The policy does not apply to quasi-legislative decisions such as general plan amendments and zoning ordinance amendments. At that time, staff presented the City Council with two proposed options for an ex parte contacts policy, one prohibiting contacts and the other permitting contacts but requiring their disclosure on the record. The City Council adopted the policy prohibiting contacts. At the April 5, 2011 City Council meeting, Councilmember Swalwell requested that the policy be placed on a future Council agenda that would allow the policy to be reviewed. In the event that the City Council desires to change the policy, Staff had prepared a resolution that would permit contacts subject to their disclosure on the record of the proceeding. Vm. Hart asked if Option 2 prohibited it completely but only in terms ofquasi-judicial process. Mr. Bakker stated that was correct. Vm. Hart asked if it had anything to do with City Councilmembers meeting with concerned citizens or developers. It was when the City Council met in aquasi-judicial process that they would be prohibited. Mr. Bakker stated the policy applied when there was a pending quasi-judicial proceeding. There was list ofquasi-judicial proceedings that were provided in the 2005 Staff Report attached to this Staff Report. Quasi-judicial items were like Site Development Reviews (SDR) or Conditional Use Permits (CUP). Quasi-judicial items are matters where there was a specific situation applying existing rules to the situation. It did not apply to general plan amendments or zoning ordinance amendments where they were more legislative. That was the major distinction. Vm. Hart asked about the definition of pending. Mr. Bakker stated pending meant that there was an existing application on file that was being processed. Vm. Hart asked how a City Councilmembers would know that. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9 VOLUME 30 REGULAR MEETING ~ _ ~• SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 DRAFT 21 Mr. Bakker stated he did not know if there was an existing process in place to alert the City Council when there was a pending application. He stated that might be something Staff should take a look at. If an appeal were filed. how would the City Council be alerted. There could be situations where someone might attempt to make contact with the City Council while a matter was pending, but before a Staff Report had been produced. Vm. Hart asked if Staff would know at that time if it was going to be aquasi-judicial hearing. Mr. Bakker stated they typically would. When the City received an application, the application would indicate what the applicant had applied for, whether it be a General Plan amendment or an SDR. They would not always know asan application might initially be styled as a quasi- judicial hearing and then it would morph into something bigger than that. Cm. Swalwell asked Mr. Bakker to give a few examples ofquasi-judicial matters the City Council had recently ruled on. Mr. Bakker stated there had been a few appeals recently, such as the Sahara Market appeal. There was one coming, the SDR for All American Label. That one was unique as it had other aspects going on in terms of a litigation matter. Star Lanes was one. It was an SDR and a CUP for parking. Vm. Hart stated the City Council had heard quasi-judicial matters quite a few times. Cm. Swalwell asked if there would be SDR issues with Dublin Crossings. Mr. Bakker stated Dublin Crossings would have SDR issues at some point, but it would probably be at the same point they were dealing with the General Plan issues, so it would be a mixed quasi-judicial matter. So therefore, the policy did not apply in that circumstance. The Montessori appeal was coming and that is aquasi-judicial matter. Mayor Sbranti clarified that the Planning Commission would be hearing the Montessori School item again. Vm. Hart stated he was trying to clarify that they received calls and emails asking to meet, but they did not know if it was aquasi-judicial matter. He stated that the City Council also wanted to be accessible to the community. What would be a reasonable way to determine in advance, so they would not fall into the realm of violating the City's current policy? Mr. Bakker stated the City could provide the City Council a list of pending quasi-judicial matters. The City did receive applications so they knew what was pending. Vm. Hart asked what City Council obligations would be under Option 1. Would they have to disclose for every single case that came through? DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 10 VOLUME 30 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 `~ ~ e DRAFT 22 Mr. Bakker stated, if they had had a contact, they would have to disclose before the public hearing portion of the matter so the public would have a chance to rebut anything the City Council had learned during the course of the contact. Vm. Hart asked if this could happen in the aisle of Safeway? Could it be anybody or just the applicant in the matter? Mr. Bakker stated it did not matter where it was, as long as it was a contact relative to the proceeding. It could be anybody, but again, it would have to be relevant. Mayor Sbranti asked what the policy was before 2005. Mr. Bakker stated there was no policy before 2005. The reason Staff recommended there be a policy was because the City had encountered an issue. Someone alleged that there had been a violation that someone's due process rights had been violated because there had been an ex pane contact and it had not been disclosed on the record. It was at the Planning Commission. The matter was appealed and ultimately, Staff told the City Council that would not be an issue anymore because they were acting on this on the first instance anyway. It would resolve any due process issues that may have existed. At a subsequent meeting, Staff noted it was important to have a policy of some type to bring the due process ex parte contacts issue up. Mayor Sbranti stated there were also no State guidelines either, then or now, on this topic. Mr. Bakker stated there had been a couple of occasions where City Councilmembers had made disclosures that they had contact, but there was no policy. Cm. Swalwell stated the reason he asked that this come back to the City Council was because the rule had no teeth. There was no remedy for a violation. It stated they committed a violation and that was it. It was vague. It was ambiguous. The word he did not like was"intentionally" receive information. It was being violated all the time, whether it was intentional or unintentional. The reason it was being violated was because they were elected officials and their job was to listen and learn. They were out there listening to folks. Applicants and the business community told them what they thought about projects. That was why there was no State law regarding this. Other agency bodies were allowed to receive information and go out and inspect and learn on their own. The idea was you reported it and the community knew the information they were receiving and what information they were using to base their opinions. It encouraged them to do their job. How could the City Council when they could not receive information? If they were to follow this rule, now they would require Staff to routinely and regularly update them on what matters were quasi-judicial. What matters were pending? It would take a significant amount of Staff time. The prospect of the City Attorney or the legal Staff sending regular memos on what the City Council could and could not receive information was not money well spent. This was open government. This rule now said if you received information, you disclosed it. As it was now, they were all, whether intentionally or unintentionally, receiving information. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 11 VOLUME 30 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 ~ DRAFT 23 Cm. Hildenbrand stated, having been on the City Council in 2005 and having gone through the incident where information was not disclosed, the City Council looked at it as a way to protect themselves against something that could potentially lead to future problems. What they were looking at was not at the application stage, but if it became a judicial issue as it moved through the process and there could be issues if it became an appeal. The City Council agreed, at that point, they would not be having conversations so they could make a decision on the issue as presented to the City Council at that time. Unfortunately, there would be situations where they would not remember all disclosures. It was more of a formality and procedure for the City Council. Perception could go both ways. They could choose not to have the conversations until they were asked to make a decision. There could be the perception they were swayed. She preferred to keep the policy this way; maybe modify it. Vm. Hart stated he would not be supportive of changing the policy. The current process seemed to work. They all had contacts in the community. He could not remember everyone he saw. He did not see a problem. He asked Cm. Swalwell what he proposed. Cm. Swalwell stated if someone took a meeting with a developer, then they needed to disclose it. The public should know. What happened now was there was no disclosure. They were discouraged from speaking to anyone. Although the intent at the time was for appeals only, it was written for anything quasi-judicial. It did not say only for a matter under appeal. His proposal was if they had aquasi-judicial matter, and they received relevant information, before a meeting, they needed to disclose it. Cm. Hildenbrand stated they had disclosed contacts before. What was relevant to one City Councilmember might not be relevant to another. It came down to the integrity of the person about what they wanted to disclose and what they deemed relevant. The 2005 policy was not put in place because of an issue, because they were already disclosing. The policy was put in place to make decisions in public when they were hearing information from the people for the first time when it became an issue. Cm. Swalwell stated the choice Cm. Hildenbrand presented was either they close the door to the public and did not receive their information or opinions on anything quasi-judicial or, they make an independent choice as to what was relevant. Cm. Hildenbrand stated she took offense to him saying she was about closing government. That was not what she was saying at all. She was not going to receive information if something had been appealed. She said that and was not changing that. At that point, it was best to refer the information to the appropriate people, whether it be the City Manager or the City Attorney. Cm. Swalwell stated what he has saying was it was quasi-judicial, not appealed. That was how it read right now. Cm. Hildenbrand stated the quasi-judicial proceedings that she experienced on the City Council had been in terms of an appeal. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 12 VOLUME 30 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 ~ } DRAFT 24 Mayor Sbranti stated it was not always cut and dry in terms of whether or not a matter was quasi-judicial. That was one of the challenges of this policy. Any individual City Councilmember could follow their own policy. Everyone operated in different ways. Some got their own information or only got information from Staff. If City Councilmembers had different styles, and some wanted to engage more and not just wait to hear Staff's report, it was up to them. But he did believe things needed to be disclosed. He asked for clarification between the two options. Mr. Bakker stated Option 1 would permit the contacts but required their disclosure on the record. Option 2 would be what the City Council had in place right now which was prohibiting the contacts. A little bit of a middle ground had been suggested where they had the prohibition apply only after there was an appeal. The City Attorney would have to take a look at it and bring the item back. Mayor Sbranti stated people sometimes did come up and started speaking and did not understand when a City Councilmember said they could not talk about it because it was aquasi- judicial matter. He would rather just talk to them and then disclose the contact. Cm. Swalwell stated he would welcome Cm. Hildenbrand's compromise. Anything under appeal would have a record and then information would be received at a public hearing. That would be better than what it was now. Cm. Hildenbrand stated regarding a list of quasi-judicial matters from Staff was going to be needed either way. Mr. Bakker stated the City had a practice of indicating in the Staff Report if an item were a quasi-judicial matter. The practice was particularly evident at the Planning Commission meetings. It was very rare that the City Council had quasi-judicial matters. It was almost always on appeal that ended up before the City Council as aquasi-judicial matter. Cm. Hildenbrand stated the City did not know when an item came in if it would end up quasi- judicial. So the Staff was still going to have to let the City Council know. Mayor Sbranti stated the proposal that was made defined exactly when disclosures were needed. If an item were under appeal, then the City Councilmember had a responsibility to disclose conversations they had relative to this item before the item was heard. That clearly defined the situation. He did not want to violate the City's policy. Vm. Hart stated it was not an issue, but he would support the majority of the City Council on the modification. Cm. Swalwell stated he felt he was closing the door on the public if he told them a blanket no. The compromise went to what he thought the problem was. The ambiguity of not knowing would be gone. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 13 VOLUME 30 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 `~ DRAFT 25 Mr. Bakker summarized he would prepare, for the City Council's consideration, an option wherein contacts would be permitted while aquasi-judicial matter was pending; contacts would be prohibited for City Council only after an appeal was filed on aquasi-judicial matter. From that point on contacts would be prohibited in the sense that they were currently prohibited. The policy would be brought back. There would have to be some drafting done as it would not apply in the same way to the Planning Commission as it did to the City Council, although they did hear matters on appeal as well. The City Attorney would revise the policy and bring it back. OTHER BUSINESS Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from Council and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AB 1234) 8:19:15 PM Cm. Swalwell stated he attended the Johnny Garlic's soft opening. He attended the Fire Advisory meeting, and the Kolb School ribbon cutting. Cm. Hildenbrand stated she attended the Johnny Garlic's soft opening. She attended the Kolb School ribbon cutting and Livermore Amador Valley Transit meetings. Vm. Hart stated he wanted to highlight the addition of library hours. The City was moving forward in a proactive manner. Mayor Sbranti stated he attended the Emerald Vista groundbreaking. He had also met with Mr. Caruso who purchased a 14-acre site in Dublin. ADJOURNMENT 10.1 There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:28:02 PM in memory of Staff Sgt. Sean Diamond and our fallen troops, and in honor of all the victims of September 11, 2001. Minutes prepared by Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 14 VOLUME 30 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 ~