Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.01 Approve 01-22-1990 Minutes (2) REGULAR MEETING - January 22, 1990 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, January 22 , 1990, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7 : 35 p.m. , by Mayor Paul Moffatt. - ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Moffatt. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. .Agendas Zev Kahn, 11708 Harlan Road, stated that he generally gets his City Council meeting agendas in the mail on the same day as the meeting and advised that this does not give him enough time to review and prepare for items of interest. He suggested that whatever cutoff schedule Staff currently uses be backed up 24 hours so this will not happen. COMMENTS FROM ALAMEDA COUNTY LIBRARY REPRESENTATIVES Mayor Moffatt introduced Ginnie Cooper, Rayme Meyer, Mary Gibbert and Alice Pitchford, representatives from the Library. Ms. Meyer advised that Mary Gibbert was unable to attend. They wanted to say thank you for the City's continued support by adding Monday night hours. This adds to the correct perception that the library is there for the citizens to utilize at all reasonable hours. Ms. Meyer mentioned that the Council would be receiving invitations to an open house being hosted by the Friends of the Dublin Library during National Library Week in late April. Ms. Pitchford stated it was always a privilege to say thank you, and especially for great deeds done. One of the Council's nicest and greatest is its continual and hopefully continuous support for funding of the Dublin Library. A library is the best source of continued education the public citizen has. Cm. Snyder questioned the prospects of the County having and putting money back into the library system again. He felt that if the County put more money back into it, then the City would have more money to use in the community for other things. CM - 1990 - 11 Regular Meeting January 22, 1990 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: ITEM NO. '8 Ms. Cooper advised that this was a difficult question because there are so many issued involved. Dublin is one of 5 cities that supports the library system. The support from the County is good, but not excellent. Open hours have become more expensive in that more people must be there to accommodate an approximate 45% increase in usage over the last few years. Their income is derived from special district, property taxes and the augmentation money and the portion which the Board of Supervisors chooses to send their way. Cm. Hegarty asked Ms. Cooper to expound on how much money the State of California is sending down to the County to take care of what the people have recognized as a need. Ms. Cooper stated they receive 2% of their operating budget from the State. They continually work with the State Legislature to try to get this amount increased. Ten percent should come from the State in recognition of the statewide benefit from good libraries. Support should also be received for programs like the Literacy Project which, at this time, receives no State money. * DUBLIN SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL - MID-YEAR REPORT Karen Seals prepared and submitted a mid-year report and income statement covering the first 6 months of Fiscal Year 1989-90. The report indicated that DSAC has been extremely successful in carrying out the mission of the organization. They worked very closely with the Dublin Unified School District, the City, and various community organizations to plan and organize the City's 2nd Annual Red Ribbon Week Celebration. They were also successful in raising additional funding of $1, 270, in addition to the City's grant of $5, 000. Plans are underway for more activities, including a Drug Information Night for Dublin citizens. Ms. Seals thanked the City for its support and advised that they had received 2 more contributions; one from Children's Theatre Workshop and one from the Hayward Fishery. Cm. Snyder felt that Ms. Seals should be recognized for her efforts . and the amount of time that she puts into this project, and commended for her efforts for the past 2 years. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 8, 1990; Denied a claim submitted on behalf of Marlon Glymph, a minor, and directed Staff to notify the Claimant; CM - 1990 - 12 Regular Meeting January 22, 1990 Reviewed and. accepted the',Audit °and Management,,Letter `for Fiscal".Year ending June 30, 1989, and Staff's internal control recommendations; Adopted _ RESOLUTION NO. 5.,- 90 AWARDING CONTRACT 89-13 DRAINAGE INLET GRATE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM TO P & F CONSTRUCTION ($55,890) authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement; and authorized Staff to negotiate with P & F Construction to ' increase the quantity of grates from 270 to 326 at the unit price bid;- and to process a change order in the amount of $11, 592 for the extra work; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 6 - 90 ADOPTING A MODEL FILMING PERMIT PROCESS Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 7 - 90 ACCEPTING FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 5883 and RESOLUTION NO. 8 - 90 ACCEPTING PARKLAND IN-LIEU FEE FOR TRACT 5883 Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 9 - 90 AWARDING PURCHASE ORDER FOR BUS BENCHES TO WABASH VALLEY MANUFACTURING, -INC. ($3,517.20) and authorized a budget transfer in the amount of $5,920 from the Contingent Reserve; Reviewed the progress to date on the Tri-Valley Community Television and authorized Staff to release the second funding installment upon receipt of an invoice; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $1,238, 194.63. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majority vote, the Council authorized Cm. Jeffery to attend the Annual Congressional City Conference in Washington, D.C. , on March 3-6, 1990. Cm. Snyder voted against this motion. Cm. Jeffery advised that the League of California Cities now has a policy for reimbursing some of the expenses related to this conference. CM - 1990 - 13 Regular Meeting January 22, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE INCREASING CITY COUNCIL SALARIES Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. City Manager Ambrose advised that this Ordinance, which was introduced at the January 8th Council meeting, provides for a 5% increase in Council salaries for calendar year 1990. Incumbent Councilmembers, however, would not be eligible to receive the increase until after the November, 1990 election. No comments were made by members of the public relative to this item. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. -Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 1 - 90 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6 AND PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE SALARY FOR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ($382.88) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CREATING THE OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. City Manager Ambrose advised that in conjunction with the City's review of its Ordinances and the development of a Municipal Code, the City Attorney has recommended that the City adopt an Ordinance formally establishing the office of Director of Finance in accordance with the Government Code. The Government Code requires that when financial duties are transferred from the City Clerk to a Director of Finance, an Ordinance must be adopted establishing the Director of Finance position. . No comments were made by members of the public relative to this item. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an Ordinance creating the office of Director of Finance. AHMANSON DEVELOPMENT TRACT 5074 - REPORT ON NORTHEAST SLOPE Public Works Director Thompson advised that at the January 8, 1990 Council meeting, Ms. Susan Alves expressed concerns regarding the Ahmanson development's downhill slope, which faces her rear yard. On CM - 1990 - 14 Regular Meeting January 22, 1990 January 17th, he met with Ms. Alves at the site to review her concerns, which were related to the location of the fences, trash on the slope, the ground not returned to its natural state after construction in the open area, who will maintain the rip-rap storm _ drain outfall at the bottom of the slope, slopes not totally hydroseeded, and future zoning concerns on the open space. Staff addressed each area of concern with Ms. Alves and in a 'Staff Report, and displayed slides of the area. Cm. Hegarty questioned what a reasonable time was for them to clean up the area in light of the fact that there is still construction going on. Also, with regard to the v-ditch which contained some debris, if there had been more rain, Cm. Hegarty questioned if it would have been a problem. Mr. Thompson stated that if there had been more rain, the water would have washed it out. The Developers have been pretty responsive. Ms. Alves, 11451 Padre Way, stated she appreciated meeting with Mr. Thompson. They have cleaned up quite a bid. She stated that it doesn't appear to be a major problem from Mr. Thompson's eyes, but from a homeowner's perspective, it is an eyesore. She wanted a definite time frame for the hydroseeding, etc. , and wanted the City to monitor this on a weekly or biweekly basis. The open space reflects on the City as a whole. She requested that the City get a performance bond to make sure the City is not left with a mess to have to clean up themselves. Cm. Hegarty stated he understood that it is a problem to those who live near the project, but it is not completed yet. He asked Staff what the City could do in the way of bonds. Acting City Attorney Silver asked Mr. Thompson if there were bonds required on this project. Mr. Thompson stated there are performance bonds and material bonds tied to the public improvements and we can call on these for cleaning of the storm drain problem if it isn't corrected. City Manager Ambrose advised that this doesn't come into play until we accept the improvements, which is when the sub-division is further along. Ms. Alves asked if she could assume that the hand hydroseeding, the dirt mounds, the tree limbs should take a week to complete. Mr. Thompson advised that the removal of the tree limbs, concrete and the hand seeding should take about a week. We do not want the grading of the dirt to take place until after the rainy season. When asked, Mr. Thompson responded that a date of May 15th would be reasonable for the grading of the dirt to have been done. CM - 1990 - 15 Regular Meeting January 22, 1990 1990 GOALS & OBJECTIVES 'STUDY SESSION City Manager Ambrose discussed the format used to review previous years' Goals & Objectives and to establish new Goals & Objectives. Cm. Jeffery felt the City should conduct the sessions as in the past. The process is to a point where everyone understands it. By a consensus, the Council selected the date of Thursday, February 22, 1990, 6: 30 p.m. , in the Regional Meeting Room to hold a special study session meeting to review the 1989 Goals & Objectives and to establish the priority for the 1990 Goals & Objectives. LIVERMORE AIRPORT COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS Planner Gillarde advised that on May 22, 1989, the Council considered the Final Report of the Livermore Airport Citizens Advisory Committee and raised concerns over the report's recommendation for a 3, 000 foot zone extending from I-580 north into the East Dublin General Plan/Specific Plan Study Area. The Council directed Staff to send a letter to the Livermore City Council outlining their concerns. This zone would preclude residential development and certain restrictions could also be placed on commercial development. Ed Deemer, 11528 Betlen Drive, indicated he is a Dublin resident and a pilot. He was present as a representative of the Pilot's Committee to Protect the Livermore Airport. This is a committee that represents approximately 500 pilots that use the Livermore Airport. He flys for both recreational and business purposes, and pointed out that this problem will not go away; it is Dublin's problem as well as other cities. The airport is an asset which attracts not only developers, but industrial people to come into this valley. He did not feel that the Staff Report addressed the issues. There are lots of details that need to be worked out and it appears to be at the very beginning stages. Noise and safety are the main concerns. Houses should not be built in the strip to the north. He felt the City Council was doing their Planning Staff a disservice by sidestepping this issue at this time. There should be more talking going on. Cm. Jeffery asked if the pilots had looked at buying the land. Mr. Deemer advised that they had not; they are little guys that do not have the resources to do this. They are basically a volunteer organization. They deal through City Councils and Planning Commissions. They feel the primary tool for guaranteeing how everyone is served, is by how the land is used. It is largely a planning issue. The right things should be put in the area such as businesses that have low numbers of people per acre. Residences don't belong there. CM - 1990 - 16 - Regular Meeting January 22, 1990 Cm. Snyder stated that if he owned property there,- he would view this as taking away his property rights. Livermore's former mayor hammered him more than once that Dublin might allow single family or multi- family residences in this area, yet Livermore allowed a residential hotel to develop in exactly the same area. He felt this was absolute hypocrisy. Glenda Beesey, Kolb Place stated that the Livermore Airport was there and was one of the main attractions when they moved to Dublin in 1976. Now, all of a sudden, we're growing, and this is good, but somehow, we're loosing our perspective of what is making us grow. We are fighting to get new industry into Dublin. There is no airport in San Ramon or Pleasanton to serve Hacienda and Bishop Ranch. All of the private pilots and business people who are flying into this area are relying upon the Livermore Airport. We must stop and be realistic. Are Dublin, Pleasanton or Livermore willing to go out somewhere and buy more land on which to put another airport? Everyone should realize that this is one of the main attractions which is drawing business. Executives who want to come and go must have a place to land their executive planes. Cm. Snyder questioned further who will compensate the property owners for putting restrictions on their property. Flyers must recognize this, as well as everyone else. Cm. Vonheeder stated she has flown in and out of Livermore as a navigator for many years. She recognized that development does take place close to airports and then become problems. The problem really is that the Council can't "down zone" someone's personal property by saying nothing can be built there. Dublin is not opposed to the airport and recognizes that it has brought a lot of business to the area. However, if municipalities do not have a way to fund the purchase of land, consideration must be given to what has been done to the property owners. It is very difficult for the City Council to balance all of this. Ms. Beesey felt that if they are allowed to build, there should be something in the deed that states that they are totally 100% liable if there happens to be an airplane crash. Cm. Hegarty clarified that Dublin did not build the airport. It is in the wrong place. Twenty five years ago, he along with everyone else, was told that hotels and all sorts of development would be coming here. The airport should have been doing something at that time. Cm. Hegarty stated that while he realizes that airports are a necessity, he gets upset when everyone blames Dublin for what it's going to be doing to the east. The airport is an economic problem. If they had to, they could move the airport. Cm. Snyder stated he felt it should be pointed out that Livermore has not acted on this yet. CM - 1990 - 17 Regular Meeting January 22, 1990 On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to send a letter to the City of Livermore specifying the Council's opposition and concerns and directed Staff to monitor the situation and report back to the Council if additional action is necessary. BART FINAL- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) FOR THE DUBLIN/PLEASANTON EXTENSION PROJECT Planning Director Tong advised that BART has completed the FEIR for the Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Project and the Board of Directors is scheduled to hold its final public hearing on the project on Tuesday, February 6, 1990, at 9: 00 a.m. , in the BART Board Room in Oakland. Staff suggested that the City Council send a letter to BART to be considered as part of the EIR record specifying the Council's position and concerns. The letter would indicate the 9 points spelled out in the Staff Report. BART Director Erlene DeMarcus advised that she had lived in the area for 18 years. The problem is that BART has a policy of 2 extensions per district, which she cannot break, because it impacts other districts. She is 1 of 9 Directors. They have $2 million for traffic mitigation in West Dublin, or $1. 1 million if it was a 3 station project. Some of what Staff said came as a surprise to her, as it did to Marianne Payne. To recirculate the document would mean a delay in the project, and she would not be responsible. People have paid 20 years for BART. Only 2 stations will be allowed. She felt it was up to the Council to decide whether it would be East or West Dublin. She needed a consensus. The Pleasanton Council has already made a choice. She did not understand why people are now saying they are rushing this. She did not feel that the problems are new to anyone. There must be a decision by February 8th. She would like to see a ground- breaking next year. She would like to see 3 stations and possibly with non-traditional funding sources this could be done. Ms. DeMarcus stated that her Staff worked through their Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays to get this document going and felt that if Dublin had problems they should have advised Marianne Payne at one of the many meetings, or called her sooner than 2 weeks prior to approving the project. Cm. Jeffery stated that Dublin did not have a lot of time to review the document. BART may have had it done a month early, but Dublin did not have it. The idea of taking the additional property of Unisource was not discussed before and therefore, there was no way Dublin could have reacted to Ms. Payne and tell her exactly what this would do to the economy of Dublin. In discussing the 2 stations, there is a difference in the Dublin line, in that we were the first to be forced by the voters to put in their own money and foot part of the bill. Every other BART station has been built by everybody. To have it CM - 1990 - 18 Regular Meeting January 22, 1990 crammed down our throats in the wrong location, without mitigation does not sit too well. Ms. DeMarcus advised that there is $2 million for mitigation. Cm. Jeffery stated that a lot of assumptions were made in the report of things there were going to be put in that are unfunded. This did not seem to have been taken into consideration. Most BART stations do best when they have retail around them. Ms. DeMarcus stated they have a- letter from Alice Waterman, the Manager of Stoneridge Mall, who states they do not want BART there. Cm. Jeffery advised that Ms. Waterman has stated that she does not want buses there, or any of "those kind of people" to come to her mall. This is not the policy of the City of Pleasanton. Ms. DeMarcus advised that the Draft EIR came out on September 30th and she did not feel that anything changed that came out in the Final EIR, and stated she is going before her Board on February 8th with the final project. Every day of delay, it costs money. It would devastate her Staff if she postponed the project because of all their hard work over the holidays. Cm. Jeffery stated the City of Dublin needed time to look at what some alternatives might be and suggested that all the City is asking is to bring BART out and do it correctly. Ms. DeMarcus indicated she did not care where the station is; this is up to the local elected officials to decide. She would like 3 stations also, but her hands are tied. Mayor Moffatt questioned if it were 2 stations per city. Ms. DeMarcus advised that it is 2 stations per extension and Castro Valley is part of the Dublin extension. Cm. Jeffery questioned when the San Mateo buy in money comes in, how much of this will be designated for us, and if this could possibly be used to retrofit a West Dublin station. If we bypass West Dublin now, it will most likely never occur. Ms. DeMarcus stated she did not have the figures available. Mayor Moffatt asked if the eastern location is chosen, would the mitigations in the EIR be the only ones considered. He asked if they would be considering mitigating factors surrounding the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard interchange. Ms. DeMarcus stated she thought they would be addressed. Cm. Jeffery stated they were not addressed in the EIR and there is no road to the location of where they propose to build a station and there is also no money for the road. CM - 1990 - 19 Regular Meeting January 22, 1990 City Manager Ambrose stated that BART Staff has been very cooperative. Part of the problem is that we have only had the FEIR for about a week and this was not enough time to even get through the document, let alone get back to Ms. Payne with concerns. We still have the same policy and environmental problems that we've had from the very beginning. San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard is a significant environmental problem for the City of Dublin, if only one station in West Dublin is built. This will have a significant economic impact on US. The only way to mitigate this is to build an East Dublin station, or move the West Dublin station to East Dublin. There was not enough detail (i.e. mitigation measures) around the East Dublin station, and there has not been enough time to sit down with BART Staff and discuss some of these major issues. Unisource is a significant revenue generator for Dublin and we would hate to loose this to a parking lot. . Mayor Moffatt questioned if there was a way to get involved with the concepts without specifics at this time so that they can move ahead. Cm. Jeffery felt time was needed to work out these problems. Cm. Snyder stated that if we go to an East Dublin station, how do we mitigate the lack of access to the properties they intend to use. Until we determine how do we access the facility and the cause and effect relative to this, it is difficult to comment. There is an economic detriment to Dublin in 2 different ways with a West Dublin station. He did not understand this rush. Ms. DeMarcus explained that she needs the project approved in concept. Cm. Snyder stated that if it is going to happen, it must happen right. Cm. Hegarty stated he understood that Ms. DeMarcus inherited a lot of problems. A lot of people worked over the holidays, but the fact remains that we need to do this right. The City needs to be able to provide input as there is a very big problem at Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road, and this needs to be addressed. He suggested that Ms. DeMarcus go back to her Board and advise them that Dublin only had the report for 1 week and this was not enough time. Cm. Jeffery advised that since we are basically talking about doing BART in 5 phases, why not bring the 238 phase on February 8th, but hold off on the Dublin portion until some answers can be obtained. Mayor Moffatt suggested approving the project in concept and advising BART that we need to discuss mitigation factors. Ms. DeMarcus advised that they cannot build a project without mitigating and that was why they included $2 million for West Dublin and $1.5 million for East Dublin. Cm. Jeffery felt that Measure B was passed without enough detailed information. Dublin is worried that not enough things have been considered with either station. CM - 1990 - 20 Regular Meeting January 22, 1990 Cm. Vonheeder stated she thought that EIR's had to be accepted in full, in order to allow BART to proceed with going after funding, etc. Ms. Silver advised that when an EIR is certified, the second step is approval of the project. Typically, an EIR is certified and a project is approved at the same time. It can, however, be a two step process. The existing EIR could be certified and the project approved at a later date. If the approved project is somewhat different than discussed in the EIR, if the EIR adequately covers the impacts of the project, the EIR can be used with an addendum. Ms. DeMarcus advised that their attorneys have gone over the EIR very carefully. Cm. Snyder indicated that the EIR specifically addresses the West Dublin station in detail, but not the East Dublin station, except as an alternative. He questioned how the: Council could say it wants to go to the east, if it is not addressed in the EIR. Ms. Silver advised that the City Council is allowed to comment on the EIR and whether they object to the project as proposed; the project being the Castro Valley and West Dublin stations. The alternatives discussed in the EIR are not the project. Mr. Ambrose advised that every acre of land is critical to Dublin's economic vitality. Pleasanton has plenty of land in Hacienda. What happens to downtown Dublin when you create gridlock at certain intersections? There would be less impact on downtown by having an East Dublin station and Dublin thought certain infrastructure would be included. The situation can be worked out and suggested that the Council could oppose the project as proposed in order to get more time to look at the long term impacts on the City. Marianne Payne felt they had worked very well with Staff in resolving all of these issues. She thought they summed everything up in a letter dated December 20th. She stated she hoped that a better understanding could be developed. They would not have moved forward if they had realized there were uncertainties. Mr. Ambrose pointed out that the letter did not address the East Dublin station. Dublin has said all along that it could not support a 2 station concept if it is in West Dublin. There was conceptual agreement as to what some appropriate mitigation measures would be for improvements in West Dublin under certain circumstances, but not a West Dublin station alone. This is where the misunderstanding arises. David Spear, Project Director at Stoneridge Corporate Plaza indicated they have been very disappointed by Pleasanton's decision. Many of their tenants have expressed strong desires to have BART at the West Dublin/Pleasanton site. This has been going on since 1976 and costs have escalated substantially. In the Draft EIR, the alternatives for an East Dublin station as opposed to a West Dublin station were approximately $66 million more and yet, BART is only proposing about CM - 1990 - 21 Regular Meeting January 22, 1990 $2 million in mitigation measures. Mr. Spear stated :he''.be1ieved.;the decision should take into consideration the whole community. . ` :If :an . East Dublin station is built, he did not feel that a West Dublin station would ever be built. Cm. Snyder posed a rhetorical question of where we would -be if Dublin approved a West Dublin station and Pleasanton approved an East station. On motion of Cm. Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed that a letter be sent to BART. with the comments discussed and request that a final decision not be made related to station location until Dublin has more information. OTHER BUSINESS Tri-Valley Joint Council Meeting Mr. Ambrose reminded the Council that the next meeting of the Tri- Valley Joint City Councils would be on Thursday, January 25th, at 6: 30 p.m. , at the Livermore Holiday Inn. Mello-Roos Act Cm. Vonheeder stated she had tapes available of the Mello-Roos Financial Seminar which was presented at the League Conference in San Francisco. Councilmembers or Staff were welcome to listen to the tapes should they so desire. Business Registration Ordinance Task Force Cm. Vonheeder reported that the next meeting of the Business Registration Task Force would be on February 15th. Volunteer Award Mayor Moffatt advised that he had received a letter related to the J. C. Penney Golden Rule Award from the Valley Volunteers. He advised that he has the forms if anyone wishes to nominate someone for this award. Alameda County Human Relations Committee Mayor Moffatt advised that the Alameda County Mayors Conference has an opening on the Alameda County Human Relations Committee. CM - 1990 - 22 Regular Meeting January 22, 1990 i } tY CLOSED SESSION , T At 9: 55 p.m. , the Council recessed to a closed executive session to discuss personnel related matters in accordance with Government Code Section 54957. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council; the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk * CM - 1990 - 23 Regular Meeting January 22, 1990 SPECIAL MEETING - February 5, 1990 A special meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, February 5, 1990, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 12:40 p.m. , by Mayor Paul Moffatt. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, -Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Moffatt. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * BART DUBLIN/PLEASANTON EXTENSION PROJECT City Manager Ambrose advised that on Friday, February 2, 1990, he and Councilmember Jeffery met with Council representatives from the other Valley Cities, Supervisor Campbell, local representatives from the State Legislature, Directors from the Bay Area Rapid Transit, and Councilmember Dutra from the City of Fremont. Mr. Ambrose explained that the purpose of the meeting was to clarify the position of the Valley Cities with respect to the BART Extension to the Valley, as well as the position of Fremont with respect to the Warm Springs Extension. Compromise project language was offered for consideration, which would read: "The Bay Area Rapid Transit District would adopt a Dublin/Pleasanton Project which would consist of three stations. BART would fund two stations for this extension, one in Castro Valley and one in East Dublin. The third station (West Dublin) would not be funded by BART funds until the Warm Springs/Irvington Extension was completed. " It was further understood that if private funds became available for the completion of the third BART station (West Dublin) , that station could be constructed prior to the completion of the Warm Springs/ Irvington Station. Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff recommended that the City Council adopt a position with respect to station location and that this position be communicated to the BART Board at its public hearing on Tuesday, February 6, 1990. Staff further recommended that the Council designate a representative of the Council to present the City's position. Chris Kinzel reviewed some of the impact differences between the East and West station locations. CM - VOL 9 - 24 Special Meeting February 5, 1990 A copy of the draft resolution by the Board' of Supervisors .was passed out and Mr. Ambrose stated that it does not agree with what -was discussed at the meeting on Friday. This resolution puts the City of Dublin in the position of proving that the East Dublin station is less costly than the West Dublin station. The BART Board of Directors will conduct a public hearing tomorrow morning and in all likelihood, they will close the public hearing and we will have no further opportunity to submit comments. The Final EIR does not address the necessary impacts for an East Dublin station. BART should have some responsibility for mitigation measures and these should be identified in the FEIR. Cm. Hegarty expressed concern that when the funding was set up and the 1/2 cent sales tax was voted in, it was for an extension to Castro Valley and Dublin. There was no talk of a third station. In the City's 1983 General Plan discussions, there was input on this topic and a portion of land was designated in West Dublin for a BART station. The people voted for the 1/2 cent sales tax for a station to go- in West Dublin. All sorts of things have changed since that time, and Cm. Hegarty questioned why everything seems to have gone wrong. The traffic impacts with a West Dublin station are going to be tremendous, and he wanted to make sure that the station is in the right place. Cm. Vonheeder stated that she did not feel a specific location was pinpointed for the voters. If the station is a terminus station, it creates all sorts of traffic problems. She did not feel that Dublin would be misrepresenting anything if it went with an East Dublin station. The West Dublin station would be a collector station rather than a terminus station. A BART station should be positive for the businesses nearby. Cm. Hegarty queried the Council regarding a better place to put the station in Dublin. Cm. Jeffery stated she felt that Dublin got caught in a political screw as there were individuals who came in at the last minute to fight Measure B unless they got what they wanted. Some dollars were taken out of the Dublin/Pleasanton extension to be placed elsewhere. The original cost estimates by BART weren't event .close. Costs of cars were to have been included originally, and were not to have been a part of this project. This is no longer true. Also, the original location was shown somewhere before I-680. Newspapers have reported that the different City Councils are not in agreement. Cm. Jeffery felt it was important for everyone to understand where Dublin is coming from. Dublin always felt that West Dublin would be mitigated. BART has recognized that it cannot be mitigated without a second station to the east. West Dublin would not be beneficial to us and being a terminus station, it would need 40% more parking. If East Dublin were built first and the pad layed for the West Dublin station, when the dollars become available, the commitment would be there and there is a method of retrofitting. Actually, BART is going to have trouble funding even one station. Mitigation aspects were extensively discussed, and BART understands that their report is insufficient. Mr. Kinzel reviewed the East Dublin station versus West Dublin station report. CM - VOL 9 - 25 Special Meeting February 5, 1990 Cm. Hegarty felt that because BART will eventually go on to the east, the terminus station situation will lessen. Cm. Jeffery pointed out that in the EIR, they did not consider. any traffic from the Danville area. Mr. Kinzel advised that Crow Canyon Road was the divider point. People north of there would most likely use the Walnut Creek station. Cm. Jeffery stated that in discussions with Danville Councilmembers, it was felt that even though there is only a .3 mile difference, they felt that people would come to Dublin because of a lighter traffic situation. Cm. Jeffery felt that San Francisco/Oakland will not necessarily be the heaviest employment centers in the future. Cm. Vonheeder felt that the parking would be much more desirable than in Walnut Creek. Mr. Kinzel advised that parking seems to be the biggest problem in talking with cities that have existing BART station(s) . Cm. Hegarty discussed several BART stations in San Francisco where there is virtually no parking whatsoever. He questioned if the City should even consider this type of a station. What would be the problem with using this concept for a West Dublin station. Mr. Kinzel pointed out that these areas are major employment centers and are very transit oriented and feed into a bus or connector system. Cm. Snyder felt it may be too late in the ballgame to go forward with the concept of limited parking, although he felt this idea has merit. A "shopper station" may be what is needed. If the engineering for this type of a station were done, we could look for funds to complete it if this design were decided upon. Cm. Jeffery advised that there was lengthy discussion related to the construction of a pad. Cm. Snyder stated he still did not understand the urgency of making this decision. Cm. Jeffery indicated there is some sort of a cutoff for Caltrans and BART regarding making a design decision regarding some routing of 238. She asked that our station location be separated out, but was advised that it could not be done this way. BART Board will be making a recommendation tomorrow morning one way or the other. She felt Dublin should reiterate the problem with the mitigation measures and advise that we want the pad in West Dublin to be put in. Cm. Hegarty indicated he had never seen a station where it was retrofitted. Also, he questioned what other city has had to put in their own dollars. Future financing options were discussed, with SCA 1 being one possibility. CM VOL 9 - 26 Special Meeting February 5, 1990 John Hughes, a homeowner in Dublin, stated he felt that when you create a no-parking system, you create a jungle and you must put in parking meters which become unsatisfactory. He complimented the City Council on their wisdom and advised that the Council had addressed every single point that he has made at the BART hearings in the last 2 years. Carolyn Morgan, Livermore, questioned who will purchase the land in East Dublin for a BART station. She understood that there is no money for a road to the East Dublin station. She questioned if Livermore would have to wait for both stations to be built before BART gets to Livermore. Cm. Jeffery advised that thee is 35 acres done in a land swap trade which we think will be the County's contribution to the project. Earlene DeMarcus is committed to the concept of having 2 stations in Livermore. Dave Burton, 11396 Dillon Way, commended the City Council for covering a lot of the subjects related to planning for BART. He had heard a comment that they could not go through I-680 and asked if this has been addressed in the extension. Mr. Burton also stated that the type of buildings we will attract near a BART station (high rise) must be considered. It will be a different character of business than we are presently used to. The City should plan the East Dublin station so that it looks at the area as a concentration of office buildings. The commute patterns will be reversed. Cm. Jeffery stated she understands that with regard to the height of the bridge, this is being heightened. I-580 is not as wide on the other side of the bridge. Bill Foster, Dublin resident, complimented the City Council for doing their homework related to a terminus station versus a regular station. East Dublin will be a regular station someday. He felt he had heard many negative comments and asked if anyone had actually considered what, if any, advantage there was to having BART come to Dublin. He had heard no one say, "We want BART out here because . . . " Cm. Jeffery advised that 5 million people per year are moving to California. The idea of putting in BART is to give people an option so that we can at least keep traffic moving. As traffic become more and more unbearable, people will use BART. Cm. Snyder felt that at least 40% of the patrons, will arrive from the east. The Council discussed the wording of the drafted policy statement resolution: "The Bay Area Rapid Transit District should adopt a Dublin/Pleasanton Project which would consist of three stations. Bay Area Rapid Transit District should fund two stations for this extension, one in Castro Valley and one in East Dublin. The third station (West Dublin) , would not be funded by BART funds until the Warm Springs/Irvington Extension is completed. It is further understood that if private funds become available for the completion of the third BART Station (West Dublin) ; that station could be constructed prior to the completion of the Warm Springs/Irvington Station." CM - VOL 9 - 27 special Meeting February 5, 1990 Cm. Jeffery suggested adding, "As a measure of good faith, BART will construct a pad for the West Dublin station and consider it in the engineering. " Cm. Hegarty felt the policy statement should be worded stronger. He felt the words "private funds" should be deleted and that a condition should be put in that the pad will be put in West Dublin as a commitment for this station. Cm. Snyder felt this would preclude any effort done to get state or federal funds. Cm. Jeffery stated that there are only a certain amount of dollars available for transportation. DeLaine Eastin feels that it should be stated in this way so that we do not go into competition with the Warm Springs/Irvington station. Cm. Snyder indicated that the EIR is not sufficient to build a West Dublin station. If it is not done right, he questioned how the Council could support it. Mr. Ambrose advised that if BART proceeds with the project in the next 30 days, the Council will have to decide if it wishes to challenge the EIR. BART does not want to recirculate the EIR. The Council agreed to language drafted by Mr. Ambrose to be put into the Resolution: "The Bay Area Rapid Transit District should adopt a Dublin/ Pleasanton Project which would consist of three stations. The Bay Area Rapid Transit District should initially construct one station in Castro Valley and one station in East Dublin. The third station (West Dublin) , should not be funded by traditional BART funds until the Warm Springs/Irvington Extension is completed. Should non-traditional BART funds become available prior to the completion of the Warm Springs/ Irvington station, the third station (West Dublin) , could be constructed prior to the completion of the Warm Springs/Irvington station. Included in the initial two station project, BART should include the design for the West Dublin station. In addition, BART should construct a pad for the West Dublin station. BART should identify mitigation measures necessary to resolve the environmental impacts associated with the construction of the East Dublin station . " On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 90 ESTABLISHING A POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING THE BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DUBLIN/PLEASANTON EXTENSION PROJECT CM - VOL 9 - 28 Special Meeting February 5, 1990 The Council determined that Cm. Jeffery and Mayor Moffatt would represent the City of Dublin at the BART public hearing on February 6, 1990. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 2 : 16 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CM - VOL 9 - 29 - special Meeting February 5, 1990