Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.01 DraftMinutes 2-23 & 3-8-93 (2) . . . .. ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING -FEBRUARY 23, 1993 An adjourned regular was held on Tuesday, Dublin Civic Center. Mayor Snyder. meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin February 23, 1993, in the Council .Charnbers of the The meeting was called to order at 7:44 p.m. by * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Houston, Howard, Moffatt, and Mayor Snyder. ABSENT: None. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (610-20) Mayor Snyder led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING - Continued from January 21, 1993 EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & SPECIFIC PLAN (420-30) Mayor Snyder announced that the meeting would be adjourned at 11:00 p.m. He requested that anyone wishing to speak, complete one of the blue slips and return it to the Recording Secretary. Everyone who wishes will be given an opportunity to speak, but he indicated that for someone to get up and reiterate what someone else has said is not productive. Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Brenda Gillarde, Planning Coordinator, indicated there were three tasks to be accomplished at this evening's meeting. First, Staff would provide response to the Council's requests from the January 21, 1993 meeting. Second, additional comments would be received from the public. Third, Council will give Staff direction on which alternative to pursue for the preferred land use concept of the Specific Plan. At the January 21, 1993 Council meeting, the City Council directed Staff to analyze the implications of Alternative #2 in regard to the Reduced Planning Area with several modifications and the Livermore Airport Protection Area (APA) modifications as they might affect the Proposed Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. The Reduced Planning Area alternative would permit development in Eastern Dublin within the current sphere-of-influence boundary. This configuration would allow some development beyond the proposed Specific Plan boundary but would not include Doolan Canyon. Staff consulted surrounding cities to determine if elevation was used as a criteria for defining the extent of development in hillside areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . CM - VOL 12 - 78 Adjourned Regular Meeting February 23, 1993 --------------------------------------~--------------~---~----~------- ITEM NO. 4.1 COPIES TO: . . . Pleasanton was the only city to use such a delineation. Staff roughly estimated the number of dwelling units that would be eliminated at various elevation limits under Alternative #2. The number of units eliminated varied from 4,039 to 6,749 at the 500 feet level. The various elevation limits would also eliminate 771,000 square feet of commercial area and 1,340 jobs. Several elementary schools and parks would also be eliminated. If lands above a certain elevation were precluded from development, some other designation would have to be assigned to those areas. Those areas could be designated as agricultural, open space, or a "Future Study Zone". Elimination or reduction of dwelling units could significantly imbalance the jobs to housing ratio for the City. The existing City currently has a near perfect ratio of 1.02:1.00. Reducing the units would result in jobs/housing ratios ranging from 1.06:1.00 to an imbalance of 1.41:1.00. Within the Airport Protection Area, the Proposed Plan designates approximately 52 acres for low density single family residential (0-6 units/acre) and 75 acres for medium density multiple family development (6-14 units/acres). 958 units would be eliminated. Alternatives to Residential Development within the Airport Protection Area include such options as 1) redesignate the residential areas as Future Study Zone; 2) redesignate the area as rural residental/ agricultural; 3) redesignate the residential areas to some other compatible use; or 4) maintain the proposed residential designations. Redesignation of residential areas as "Future Study Zone" option would indicate the City's interest in the area and the need for additional studies on environment constraints, future land uses, infrastructures, and other issues. The underlying County zoning of 1 unit per 100 acres would prevail. The City Attorney's Office determined that should the City decide to overrule the Airport Land Use Commission's decision regarding residential uses in the Livermore Airport Protection Area, the City would not be exposed to any special liability. During the public hearings, questions were raised concerning certain fiscal aspects of the project. Economic Research Associates (ERA) felt the property tax reduction by the State would not change the project's overall fiscal feasibility to the City; the estimated sales tax revenues used in the Fiscal Analysis were conservative and reasonable; over the long run, revenues would cover costs even though deficits would occur in the start-up years and would need to be financed; the project has the financial capacity to pay for its own infrastructure; costs for treating, transporting and/or reusing wastewater are included in the Specific Plan; if the residential development proceeds slower than projected, the fiscal situation will probably be somewhat better than the forecast; the average value of the single family units for-sale was assumed at under $250,00; the infrastructure estimates and the financing analysis are conservative and adequate; and overall, the project would . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM - VOL 12 - 79 February 23, 1993 Adjourned Regular Meeting ,. . . be fiscally feasible to the City even with substantial reductions in the number of dwelling units. Due to change in personnel within the Army, the City has not been able to meet with the Army to determine the status of the Camp Parks Master Plan or the availability of "surplus" Army lands. The surplus lands on Camp Parks are outside of the Eastern Dublin project area and the potential for the City to acquire this land is beyond the scope of the Proposed Plan and would need to be studied separately. Grading policies, curvilinear street system, relocation of the high school, availability of wastewater treatment capacity and water supply, financing of proposed Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, San Joaquin kit fox, and number of lanes on Tassajara Road needed to be discussed by Council, with the Council giving Staff direction regarding each issue. Ms. Gillarde indicated that if the City Council was interested in pursuing Alternative 2 with modifications and the APA modifications as the preferred land use concept, an initial study should be prepared to determine whether an addendum or supplemental EIR was required. Any changes associated with residential uses within the Airport Protection Area and in areas above a certain elevation should be referred back to the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation. If Alternative 2 with modifications and the APA modifications were selected as the preferred land use concept for Eastern Dublin, both the Specific Plan & General Plan Amendment would require extensive revisions to the text and graphics. City Staff would do the bulk of the work with WRT reviewing the work. WRT estimated an additional $6,969 would be required to complete the necessary review and graphics work. Currently, there was no funding source for the additional work required of WRT and ERA. A funding source would need to be identified and secured for the additional work. Steve Spickard, ERA Consultant, addressed fiscal and economic questions that had been raised thus far in the Eastern Dublin Public Hearing process. Impact of the 9% property tax reduction by the state: He indicated the 9% property tax reduction by the State would not change any of the fiscal conclusions regarding the Eastern Dublin SpeCific Plan and that the Plan would still generate a fiscal surplus over the 20 years projected. Sales Tax per capita in East Dublin beinq hiqher than Dublin's current sales tax per capita: Sales tax revenue from Eastern Dublin was estimated from projected sales volumes, not from per capita averages. High sales volumes were anticipated in Eastern Dublin due to the strategic retail locations close to interchanges along 1-580 and due to the type of retail planned to maximize the regional draw and sales volume per square foot of space developed. A "Mills Concept" combining "value" retailers with "outlet" retailers has been proposed by the County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM - VOL 12 - 80 February 23, 1993 Adjourned Regular Meeting . . Would City's current reserves be used to make UP any shortfall in revenues durinq the early years of development in Eastern Dublin: Over the long run, Eastern Dublin is projected to generate sufficient revenues to cover costs. Deficits would occur in the start-up years and would have to be financed. The use of reserves as a financing tool was not specifically investigated. Only 25% of the infrastructure costs borne by a Mello Roos or some other type of assessment district: Mr. Spickard indicated that on page 148 of the Specific Plan, reference was made to the fact that only 25% of the infrastructure costs would be borne by a Mello Roos or some other type of assessment district. The remaining $307 million could be funded through a system of impact fees. Given that commercial development made up more than half the assessed value in the SpecifiC Plan area and would also contribute its fair share to infrastructure costs, Mr. Spickard felt it was very realistic that Eastern Dublin had the financial capacity to pay for its own infrastructure. Cost for expansion of the Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority sewaqe export costs: The costs of treating, transporting and/or reusing wastewater was estimated at $130 million. The existing DSRSD fee system was expected to cover 94% of wastewater costs. The remaining 6% would be a minor part of the Mello Roos assessment and be part of the .8% tax burden in the Plan. Could 1,000 units be absorbed each year: The projected absorption in Eastern Dublin analysis starts with 300 units in 1996. The rate of absorption is then projected to increase over time to a maximum sales rate of 1,000 units per year early in the next century. The experience of a single recession year in 1992 should not be indicative of the longer term trend. If residential development proceeds slower than 1,000 units per year, the City's fiscal situation will prObably be somewhat better than forecast. Revenues are generated disproportionately by commercial development while municipal service costs are generated disproportionately by residential development. Market for $300,000 to $600,000 homes: With the exception of four rural home lots which could be sold for more, there were no homes assumed to sell for over $300,000 in Eastern Dublin. The average value of the single family units is under $250,000. Fiscal impact on City of reduced residential development: At projected absorption rates, the limitation on units will not even be felt until the year 2008. Mayor Snyder asked what dollars were being used, 1992-93 or earlier. Mr. Spickard responded 1990 dollars were being used and a constant dollar was used. Cm. Houston asked about the "Mill's Concept". Mr. Spickard explained the "Mill's Concept" was referred to in the County's documents and was the combination of several value retailers with outlet retailers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM - VOL 12 - 81 February 23, 1993 Adjourned Regular Meeting . . Cm. Houston wanted to know what the impact fees were in other areas in relation to the estimated $12,300/unit for infrastructure costs in Eastern Dublin. Mr. Spickard indicated $30,000/unit in Vacaville with Fairfield and Vallejo close behind in setting aggressive impact fees. Cm. Houston asked if $30,000 was the exception or the rule. Mr. Spickard responded most were in the range of $20,000 - $25,000, but $12,000 was considered low. Higher impact fees and lower Mello Roos created less of an on-going burden. Cm. Burton asked if the schools were included in the fees. Mr. Spickard indicated that the costs of schools had been factored in. Cm. Houston stated that due to the fact Eastern Dublin was along the freeway, there would be more commercial development. Mr. Spickard agreed that by maintaining commercial development, it would keep revenue producing. Residential development did not always pay for itself. Bruce Goslin, 8067 Brittany Drive, Dublin, of the Dublin'S Citizens Committee indicated that the Dublin's Citizens Committee, Doolan Road residents, members of the Greenbelt Alliance, Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee, the Sierra Club and others met with two council members. They wanted to work with the City in a cooperative way to modify Alternative #2. The Citizens' Modified "Alternative 2" for East Dublin was formally submitted to the Council and becomes a part of the record. The Citizens' Modified "Alternative 2" for East Dublin accomplished the following key objectives: 1) to protect hillsides by moving development off of steep, unstable, visible hills in the north; 2) to provide adequate room for long term growth of Dublin; 3) to develop and improve Camp Parks; 4) to ensure development provides a net surplus to the City and does not increase costs to current residents; 5) to reduce traffic by encouraging development near BART; and 6) to establish a buffer around Dublin to preserve community identity. The development concepts of their plan included 1) contiguous development from west to east and south to north; 2) focusing development around BART; 3) phased increments to respond to market change; 4) establishing an urban growth boundary (UGB); 5) being transit and pedestrian oriented; 6) creating a plan to enhance existing Dublin; and respecting natural habitat, ridgelands, and riparian areas. Modifications to Alternative #2 consisted of 1) acquiring the maximum amount of Camp Parks with the Sierra Club helping politically at the congressional level; 2) working in ripples with the most dense areas being nearest BART and radiating out from rural residential to open . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM - VOL 12 - 82 February 23, 1993 Adjourned Regular Meeting . . space; 3) establishing direct BART connectors; 4) creating BART Parking Ramp for 5,000 cars along with shopping and services area; 5) eliminating Tassajara village and Foothill Residential; 6) exchanging the community park with open space; 7) including a system of straight "bike streets;" and 8) protecting land at UGB - Homeowner Mitigation Fees. Mr. Goslin indicated that in regards to financial and natural resource considerations 1) development must bear all costs of infrastructure; 2) financial surplus must survive slower absorption; 3) schools should be totally financed by the development; 4) certify EIR for Modified Alternative #2 only; 5) preserve wildlife corridors between habitats; 6) create open space of 10 acres per 1,000 residents; 7) have EBRPD managed areas of approximately 200 acres with links to other areas; and 8) assess each household $15 per year maintenance fees. Mr. Goslin concluded that the benefits of this plan were 1) it was supported by coalition of citizen groups; 2) it increased greater use of Camp Parks; 3) it presented a financially sound phasing approach; 4) it migrated from dense to rural residential to open space development; 5) it limited vehicular lane traffic; 6) it is transit & pedestrian oriented; 7) it created UGB, economical maintenance, protects open space & ridgelines; and 8) it connected Dublin together. Cm. Houston asked about the amount of units in this modified Alternative #2 Plan. Cathy straus indicated that their plan transferred housing density that was lost up in Tassajara area into areas south of Tassajara Village that are open space in visually sensitive areas. There was not an elimination in the number of housing units indicated in the Specific Plan, but a transfer of the density of housing units from the northern to the southern area. Also, in their Plan, the community park was transferred from medium to low density housing in the eastern corner to an area where it would phase better into the open space and put the medium to low density housing where the community park had been. Cm. Burton stated that the SpeCific plan was different from Alternative #2. Ms. Straus responded that the citizens' Modified Alternative #2 was not asking for any change in the sphere of influence and they were trying to work within the City's Specific Plan to limit the amount of money it would cost to reexamine the proposal. Also, to make it possible not to have to do an new EIR. Cm. Burton indicated that Alternative #2 includes the sphere of influence, whereas the Citizens' Modified Alternative #2 included only the Specific Plan area. em. Moffatt asked Mr. Goslin about the $15/year maintenance charge for open space for every residential person in Dublin or was the charge for specific residential people. Would the open space be a closed area where the people who pay the maintenance charge have exclusive use of the area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM - VOL 12 - 83 Adjourned Regular Meeting February 23, 1993 . . Mr. Goslin explained that the maintenance fee was only for the residents in the new Eastern Dublin area. It was a maintenance fee for this area, but it would not be restrictive on who could use it. It is more of a concept suggesting that there is a cost associated with open space and the residents are appropriate to bear that burden since they are the individuals who benefit from it. He felt the concept was the issue rather than the number. Cm. Moffatt expressed concern that other folks in the County and throughout the state would have use of the open space, but would not be required to pay for maintenance of it. Cm. Burton felt the maintenance fee was not fair if it was a regional park and that it should be a usage fee. Doug Abbott, 8206 Rhoda Avenue, Dublin, indicated that it had been an exciting past year. Six months ago many of the individuals involved had not known an EIR from the IRS, but they had taken the time to educate themselves about the process. They were now a valuable resource to help in developing the plan for Eastern Dublin. It was a diverse group which had met together. They were all trying to avoid another referendum, and wanted to minimize the negative growth impacts on current Dublin. He indicated that the Citizens' Modified Alternative #2 for East Dublin had no wiggle room. Any changes to the plan could jeopardize the coalition that put the Modified Plan together. He urged the Council to take the proposal seriously and take it at face value and direct the Planning Staff to flush it out with the appropriate detail. Cm. Burton asked if Mr. Abbott was representing the Sierra Club. Mr. ~bbott indicated he was a member of the Executive Board of the Sierra Club Cm. Burton asked who would represent the coalition, is there an executive board, or is there anyone who could enter into negotiations. Mr. Abbott felt the Dublin's Citizen Group is the prime organization behind the modified plan and it is appropriate because it is made up of Dublin citizens. Cm. Burton stated the Council shared their concern and did not want another referendum or devisive battle. Marjorie LaBar, 11707 Juarez Lane, Dublin, indicated the area outside the Specific Plan, but within the Sphere of Influence should become General Plan Amendment area, separate and apart and requiring an entire new process. The alternative of providing the City with consideration flexibility was the phasing of the current development over a twenty year period until such time as most the Specific Plan area is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM - VOL 12 - 84 February 23, 1993 Adjourned Regular Meeting essentially 80% full. She felt the EIR as it stands was an inadequate document and was not legally actionable. The Citizens' Modified Alternative #2 for East Dublin mitigated much that was in the EIR. She indicated that site specific documents would be needed because there were things missing in the EIR. She stated that City officials were working with the wrong people in dealing with Camp Parks and that they should be working with the local congressman who is now chairman of the Armed Services Committee. A lot of blood, sweat, and tears had gone into the creation of this modified plan. She wanted it understood that this group was not "no growth tree huggers". The City could be proud of this Plan. It would add a good solid tax base. . . Cm. Moffatt asked where the urban boundary line was in the Modified Plan. Ms. LaBar indicated on the map where she felt the urban boundary line was. She further stated that the City needed to plan and phase the development so that the development paid for itself and the City grows in an orderly manner. Cm. Moffatt asked if the urban boundary line was a twenty year line. Ms. LaBar agreed that the coalition was asking that it be maintained for twenty years and the City try to enter into an agreement with the County to insure that for twenty years. David Nesmith, 5237 College Avenue, Oakland, Conservation Director for the San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club, complemented the Council on the long, exhaustive planning process which has produced a lot of good information. He felt that the Council as the government of Dublin was in a unique position. Dublin is the place in Alameda County that ought to be most intensively developed of any place in Alameda County which was not currently developed. For the Sierra Club, this is a controversial position, but that the Sierra Club does have many "tree huggers." He stated as growth is necessary and inevitable and must be accommodated in some way, he felt Dublin was the most appropriate large land area to be developed. As a member of the Sierra Club, he strongly supported this modified Alternative #2 Plan. The Plan left lots of space for growth. Dublin residents had been willing to sacrifice visual sensitive area to preserve the Tassajara Village. He was outraged that the military proposed to hold maneuvers in an area where the publiC has invested half a billion dollars to provide heavy high speed rail to serve an urban use. The Sierra Club will work as hard as they can at all levels of government to see that the Camp Parks area closest to the transit corridor is surplused and made available for planning purposes. He felt the modified plan was an improvement of the Plan both physically and environmentally and the only harm the modification causes is to a couple of landowners. He urged the Council to make a policy decision for the citizens of the region because he felt this was a regional resource. Cm Moffatt asked for clarification of several lines on the Modified Alternative #2 plan Map. He further questioned the use of passive open space or agricultural space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM - VOL 12 - 85 February 23, 1993 Adjourned Regular Meeting .~ . . Mr. Nesmith responded that the cross hatching on the Modified Alternative #2 Plan was open space and untouched area and should remain in private hands. It would not all be passive open space, but there would be a limited kind of recreational area and most of the outlying area would be open space. Cm. Moffatt asked about the fee people would be paying to protect this area and whether it would be a fee for just those folks for their specific use or would other people be utilizing this area and would there be a cost for utilizing it. Mr. Nesmith would see the bulk of the open space remaining in private hands. He would hope a development mitigation fee would be levied on new development within the Eastern Dublin area, which would be used to purchase conservation easements or fee simple. The maintenance fee would be used for maintenance of parks within the Eastern Dublin area. He would urge the Council to consider an open space mitigation fee which would be in addition to the $12,000. Cm. Moffatt felt everyone enjoyed the parks so everyone should pay their fair share. Mayor Snyder asked if the green line designated as the urban growth boundary line, would be considered the ultimate City limit boundary for at least twenty years. Mr. Nesmith indicated the green line represented an urban growth boundary, but it did not necessarily indicate the City limits. Cm. Burton questioned what was the Council supposed to do with and how were they to classify the land that is not in the urban growth area. Mr. Nesmith responded that it had not been discussed within the Sierra Club or the Dublin's Citizens Group, it would need to be explored in greater detail with certain areas identified for future growth in 20 years. There may be need for more growth in twenty years. If Sierra Club loses Dougherty Valley to development, it would not make sense to have two miles of permanent open space between the Dublin City limits and "San Fernando Valley North." The more steep areas would be more appropriate for permanent open space. A further discussion would need to occur at a later point. Cm. Burton clarified that they were not asking that the entire green boundary be locked into permanent open space. Mr. Nesmith responded that they were not asking for the entire area to be permanent open space but that they would like it designated as a study area. Ted Fairfield, POBox 1148, Pleasanton, felt the Eastern Dublin Plan was a major step in the City's history. He indicated that it would take 30 to 40 years to build out the area. This was the last best shot to put a footprint in the area. He stated that once the Plan was adopted it would be relatively easy to fine tune and amend the Plan internally, but very difficult to expand externally. He encouraged the Council to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM - VOL 12 - 86 Adjourned Regular Meeting February 23, 1993 . . think big, for he felt there was obvious risk in thinking small. The General Plan and Specific plan cover many acres but also many different ownerships. There are about 50 different landowners involved, 6 years of time, and two dozen public hearings. This was the City'S plan, not the developer's plan. No landowner, no developer obtains any vesting under this Plan. Many goals and objectives are fulfilled in the draft EIR. There is an almost perfect jobs/housing balance. If the total number of single family houses shrinks, it could become a serious issue. Mr. Fairfield submitted a "Property Owners' Analysis of Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan and Selected Alternates" created by MacKay & Somps. After considerable study, it was determined that if the Council used an elevation limit, that the most appropriate contour line is about elevation 660 - 700. If there must be a shrinking of the development line, it should be pulled back to the Sphere of Influence line. The formal boundary of the City's planning area should not be reduced, because no one knows what will happen twenty years in the future. To reduce the planning area would take away the flexibility that the City can have just by saying it wants it now. Perhaps part of the area could be designated "urban reserve" as defined in the County's East County Plan. He was chagrinned that the Council has been presented with what appears to be a non-negotiable set of demands. He was willing to talk to anybody, any time, any where. He felt it would be appropriate for the Council to give some direction in terms of the more substantial landowners meeting with the coalition whether chaired by persons in the City Staff or by the Mayor or by a committee of the Council. He indicated there were areas where the landowners agree with the coalition and there are other areas where they disagree. Whatever document the Council settles on is one that is functional, it should not be a pie in the sky plan which was unworkable or not able to achieve the goals that had been set out to be achieved by the City. He concluded that the landowners need to be included in the round table discussion, for without the landowners' support in the end, it will not happen. Cm. Burton felt a new word had been introduced with "urban reserve." He was concerned with what we called it may be a problem. "Future Study Zone" and "Urban" could be a different concept to different people. Mr. Fairfield responded that what it was called was less of a problem than how it is defined. "Urban Reserve" is defined in the County's East County Plan. Cm. Burton asked if the sphere of influence line was the boundary line Mr. Fairfield was using. Mr. Fairfield responded yes, it was. Rod Andrade, of MacKay & Somps, gave some highlights of the "property Owners' Analysis of Eastern Dublin General plan Amendment/Specific Plan and Selected Alternates," created by MacKay & Somps with the help of Bob Harris. The report focuses on two issues, 1) the potential for shrinkage of the plan area to the Sphere of Influence line and 2) the addition of an elevation limit to the area which might be developed. The analysis assumes 1) that the "rural residential" designation as it appears on the Plan is really an open space designation; and 2) the density calculations are based on mid range density. In considering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM - VOL 12 - 87 February 23, 1993 Adjourned Regular Meeting . . "rural residential" as open space, the open space element of the plan comprises over 50% of the land area of the Plan. Within the 50% that remains for development, the number of residential units that are included in your Plan might well be about 30% less than is suggested in the EIR by using the low density ranges rather than the mid density ranges. He felt the low density range might better reflect market demand and the design standards expressed in the Specific Plan. Low density range does not necessarily mean low density project. If there is an elevation restriction on development, he indicated that the 660 ft. was the appropriate contour limit because 1) it corresponds closely with a natural break in slope in the planning area; 2) it doesn't restrict development to such an extent that infrastructure can't be funded; 3) it preserves important vistas; 4) it threatens no high value natural habitats; 5) it retains enough dwelling units that the jobs/housing balance of the plan will be only marginally compromised; and 6) it preserves substantial amounts of Single Family Housing. He also recommended that the community park site be moved next to new open space created by the elevation restriction. If the Plan was shrunk to the Sphere of Influence, severe damage would be done to a well conceived plan. Such a retreat destroys the job/housing ratio for the City and for the region in general. The land use mix within the Plan would also be destroyed in that it would eliminate 25% of the housing anticipated in the current Plan and the ratio of housing to commercial would be altered. It would erode the financial ability to pay its own way. A larger infrastructure burden would be placed on the remaining elements of the project because infrastructure costs are not evenly reduced in portion to the density. He felt there would be no true environmental benefits and provides no view shed benefits. But if the Plan must shrink to the current Sphere of Influence line, the area to the east area of this line should be designated "urban reserve" and the potential for development there be revisited. Cm. Burton asked how much of a difference to the developer there would be if the plan is limited to the Sphere of Influence. There was not a lot of housing in the space between the SpecifiC Plan and the Sphere of Influence. Mr. Andrade indicated there would be a significant difference. Mr. Fairfield felt if one says "future study area," there is no guidance, but with the term "urban reserve," he felt there was an implication that at least there should be one eye kept open on how to serve that area one day. Cm. Moffatt questioned on the third chart whether the land between the Specific plan and Sphere of Influence should be put into limbo that would be revisited in twenty or thirty years. Mr. Fairfield agreed that he felt this land between the SpecifiC Plan and the Sphere of Influence should be put in limbo, while the other group wanted the area east of the Specific Plan boundary to be put in that limbo land. To his developer, it makes no difference because he does not own that land. He was trying to present a broader picture than just the property he represents. The land could be lost to the City of Dublin if the City pulls back to the Specific Plan line. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM - VOL 12 - 88 February 23, 1993 Adjourned Regular Meeting ..----. . . John Anderson, 11174 Brittany Lane, Dublin, stated that a lot had been said in regard to the jobs/housing balance. What is the purpose of the jobs/housing balance. Is it so that jobs will be provided for the citizens within the immediate locality? Is that the intent of the jObs/housing balance? Mayor Snyder responded that the intent was to eliminate the need to commute as much as was possible. The housing/jobs balance of the General Plan must be accepted by the State and there must be an acceptable ratio the State will accept when the City submits the Housing Element Plan to the State. Mr. Anderson asked who currently really works and lives in Dublin or the surrounding area. He had read an article that indicated the amount of commuting had increased 450%. The reason why was because the jobs were in the Bay area and the less expensive housing was in San Joaquin Valley. He felt if commuting was going to take place regardless of what type of community the City creates here, the City has to be cognizant of what is added to the already strained traffic and pollution content. Pollution is irreversible and cannot be mitigated out of the air. There has to be accountability and certain standards should be met. He felt the "standard" was the minimum acceptable level. He felt the City can demand and get something better than the minimum level. We don't have to follow, we can also lead. The fact that wood burning fireplaces were the second greatest pollutants should be considered. Most of the houses that exist in this valley have woodburning fireplaces. All the categories need to be covered, not just the financial side, but the quality of life side, too. The City is accountable for the immediate and the future impact not only on ourselves but also on our neighbors. This Plan is inside Dublin's control. But the City also needed to coordinate on a regional basis. The plan needs to be functional and forward looking for the entire valley. Cm. Burton asked if Mr. Anderson was part of the coalition. Mr. Anderson responded that he was not part of the coalition, but was a concerned Dublin resident. If there was going to be negotiations and it was City sponsored, he would find it to be totally unacceptable if it is simply limited to a coalition and the developers and the rest of the citizens do not have any input. He advised the need for a study group. Don Redgwick, 1632 Loganberry Way, Pleasanton, representing Redgwick Construction Company and 160 acres submitted as "Dublin Ranch North" questioned some of the economics. Take 18,000 houses times $250,000 equals about four one-half billion dollars. Take 12,000 houses times $250,000 equals about three billion dollars. The square footage on the Plan for the Industrial/Commercial/Office amounts to ten million six hundred thousand square feet. $40/$50 square foot for warehouse, $100/square foot for office, with retail in between. Eight hundred to nine hundred million dollars. He didn't feel the industrial/commercial/ office was going to carry the ball economically. The upscale housing will be in the hills. He felt it was a mistake to only have housing on flat lands or low lands. It takes money to build schools and pay for police. He also questioned some of the wisdom of the environmentalists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM - VOL 12 - 89 February 23, 1993 Adjourned Regular Meeting . . that suggested the downscaling of the Plan was good environmental practice. He felt it was counter productive. He indicated a need for affordable housing in Dublin. There has to be a balance. If people work here, they have got to be able to live here. He felt this was the last best place in the San Francisco Bay area region. Why reduce the plan that is in the last best place area in favor of developing in San Joaquin County? Jim Stedman, 29 Eckley place, Walnut Creek and Civil Engineer for po-Lin Property, indicated he supported the City's Alternative #2 Plan. He would like to have certain aspects of the Plan addressed. He felt in the town center area the street patterns, which are grid patterns, reduced the flexibility of the design for the housing that can go in those areas. They have asked that the Plan be made more flexible with curvilinear streets so a different style housing might be developed. The transit spine extending east-west through the town center should be changed to four lanes east of Tassajara. Make the community design elements more flexible. Small pocket neighborhood parks are not as useful as large open space built into well designed projects and should be deleted. Campus office use should be converted to general commercial. He felt the Staff should come back with revisions to the City'S Alternative #2 Plan. There was a good EIR so it should be amended, with no need to recirculate. Cm. Burton felt the market should determine what the specifics would be. He felt there should be more flexibility in the Plan with some wording changes. He asked Staff if that would change the Specific Plan. Mr. Tong responded that Staff would need to examine particular elements. Some are indicated as guidelines for illustration purposes while others are indicated as proposed policies. Joe Callaghan, 5674 Stoneridge Drive, #209, Pleasanton, did not want to comment on the Alternative #2 Plan, but wanted to reenforce David Nesmith's comments concerning EDAB. He felt there was definitely a different climate in Washington, D. C., regarding the size and shape of the defense establishment. He felt there was an opportunity for the Alameda County Economic Development Association Board to work with the Bay Area's congressional delegation. If Camp Parks could be broken loose, there would be better circulation and better infrastructure for the whole area and allows some flexibility in development around BART Station. Carolyn Morgan, 5184 Doolan Road, Livermore, indicated she had wanted to leave "wiggle room" in the Citizens' Modified Alternative #2 plan, with a cut off at Fallon Road, but she had not wanted to play games with the City Council. If the SpecifiC Plan is done and the specifics are locked in, even the market can't change them. She felt what should have been done, was do the General Plan Amendment and then as individual plans come in, do the Specific plan on them. As to the $15 fee, it was not only for parks but also for the fringe area. By moving the park next to Fallon, that protected two properties that are still under the Williamson Act that gave them a buffer. But there were still areas by the density that needed to be buffered, weed abatement, higher fire patrol, higher police patrol, and the $15 fee would help take care of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM - VOL 12 - 90 February 23, 1993 Adjourned Regular Meeting . . those expenses. She explained that the smaller plan was chosen and they did not follow the contour line because straight lines are easier to manage and easier to fence. It is almost impossible to fence a contour line. How would the area be maintained. If the Council chose the smaller plan, the infrastructure would not cost as much. Infrastructure would not go up steep hills. She disagreed with the 700 foot elevation because it was located in landslide areas. If the City allows the development in the first place, if landslide problems arise down the road, the City will be held liable. Cm. Burton asked Ms. Morgan in regard to terminology, would "study zone" be acceptable to her. Ms. Morgan responded that she would prefer to be unincorporated Alameda County. If a City had to be chosen, some would choose Livermore because of the type of development that would be allowed. In the Dublin plan, there would be 3,200 to 4,000 homes in Doolan Canyon. She felt "urban reserve" should be used for the area inside the SpecifiC plan and "Future Planning Area" for the area inside the Sphere of Influence," and outside the Sphere of Influence should be "unincorporated Alameda County." Cm. Houston felt neither group had the domain on good ideas, but he disputed the "take it or leave it" idea because he felt there were a lot of good ideas presented and those ideas should be looked into. MS. Morgan responded that the coalition was not telling the Council what to take or leave as far as what goes within the line. But she stated that other issues such as water and sewer needed to be addressed. She felt that the numbers were not as important as how the valley was affected, how the valley would look when it is done, and how the environmental issues would be addressed. She was proud to be a valley resident. Andrea MacKenzie, East Bay Regional Park District, indicated there was an update to the EBRPD Master Plan. She felt the Citizens' Modified Alternative #2 Plan provided aspects that allowed for continuous open trails. The $15 was an arbitrary amount. It would be impacted by the proximity to development, size and buffer zones. Emergency access was a concern. If the open space was fragmented, there would be higher maintenance costs. Cathy Straus, 7826 Alto Way, Dublin, felt questions had not been answered, but were justified. She wanted to know if costs for sewer capacity were included in the $12,300/home. Where would the rest of the money come from. Mr. Spickard responded that on page 148 of the SpecifiC Plan, an example of 25% of the costs for streets and mass grading would be borne by a Mello Roos district, whereas the Mello Roos financing would be used for 42% of total infrastructure costs. The remaining amount needed could be funded through a system of impact fees. If half the remaining costs were loaded on residential development, the total impact fees would be about $12,300 per unit. Given that commercial development makes up more than half the assessed value in the Specific Plan area and would . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM - VOL 12 - 91 February 23, 1993 Adjourned Regular Meeting . . contribute its fair share to infrastructure costs, Eastern Dublin has the financial capacity to pay for its own infrastructure. This is a strategic location with the hub of 1-580/1-680 and BART. Ms. straus stated she was sorry the Council perceived the Citizens' Modified Alternative #2 Plan as an ultimatum. They were trying to present a Plan where there would be no objections, where development stayed within the Specific plan so that a whole new plan would not be required. There was a lot of compromise within the group to create this Plan. "Urban reserve" was alright with her as long as the term did not infer higher value of the land. Cm. Burton asked if Ms. Straus had any Objections to using the Sphere of Influence as the boundary. Ms. Straus responded that for the General Plan Amendment, it was alright to use the Sphere of Influence, provided the green line in the Specific Plan remains agricultural. Ms. Morgan clarified that when the City went to LAFCO, the whole Sphere of Influence did not have to be annexed, but the City had to annex land within the Sphere of Influence. Mayor Snyder indicated he presumed that the public hearing would be continued after this evening. Because Staff had asked for specific direction on a number of items, Cm. Burton indicated the following areas of agreement 1) Alternative #2 would be used as a working point; 2) the sphere of influence would be used as the City boundary for twenty years; 3) ask Staff to study the Tassajara exchange that was suggested by the coalition; 4) having more flexible streets and housing; 5) the transit spine would be four lanes, 6) the freeway exposure be a combination of general/commercial/office at this time; 6) there would be no elevation limits, but will be obvious restrictions on slopes and slide areas; 7) the community park would be moved to connect with open space; 8) that open space be studied versus neighborhood parks; 9) the Defense Department would be approached in regard to Camp Parks and try to get as much of the southern land as possible; and 10) have Staff arrange for a meeting of both parties to settle the differences. This was made into a motion asking Staff to study and bring back in the future. No second was made. Mayor Snyder responded that the City would not go beyond the Sphere of Influence without modifying it. Mr. Ambrose clarified that the special study zone or "urban reserve" would begin at the Sphere of Influence line and cover the remaining study area. Ms. Silver indicated the Sphere of Influence line would be the boundary of the General Plan Amendment with the Specific Plan boundary would be the boundary of the .Specific Plan. Designate the area to the east of the Sphere of Influence line as a "future planning area." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM - VOL 12 - 92 February 23, 1993 Adjourned Regular Meeting . . Cm. Moffatt recommended a citizen-developer meeting to see if the groups could come to some agreement. He was trying to avoid another study. Mayor Snyder agreed that the transit spine should be amended to be four lanes to eliminate traffic congestion in that area. Cm. Moffatt felt the transit area should be developed as a pedestrian oriented area so there would not be need for cars. Cm. Houston indicated he agreed with every point made by Mr. Stedman on the small public parks and change from campus office to general commercial. He wanted to reconvene as soon as possible where more intelligent deliberations could take place. Mayor Snyder indicated one week was not adequate time for Staff to develop any information. Cm. Houston explained that he was not giving Staff any direction tonight, but he felt the Council needed time to digest all this information that had been presented. Mayor Snyder felt Staff needed to do some review for the Council and bring back what the impacts of some of the items mean to the City and to try to compress this information into a shorter period of time is detrimental to the process. Cm. Houston stated he himself was trying to elongate the process. Cm. Burton explained Council was trying to narrow down the process and not trying to settle the issues. Staff would bring back information about what some of the new ideas do to the financing and the housing and job balance. The people at the meeting could get together and try to compromise on issues. Cm. Moffatt suggested that the City Council could help facilitate the meeting. Cm. Burton recommended Staff set up a meeting with both parties with a representative from the Council. Cm. Burton asked for a second to his motion. Cm. Howard asked how much extra it would cost the City and how it would affect the Budget. Staff time would need to be paid. Mayor Snyder stated he did not disagree in principal with what Cm. Burton had said. Cm. Burton wanted to narrow down the decision making process. Cm. Moffatt indicated if Staff was at the meeting, questions could be answered. City Attorney Libby Silver indicated the General plan Amendment and SpecifiC Plan were a legislative act and by law the City must get input in a public forum and not just from certain groups. The meeting would . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM - VOL 12 - 93 February 23, 1993 Adjourned Regular Meeting . . have to be noticed with the opportunity for everyone to participate. There could be a facilitator. Cm. Moffatt was in favor of a subcommittee with it being more informal, but he also liked the idea of a facilitator. On motion by Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to hold a meeting with a facilitator to work out the problems on the Alternative #2 Plan. Janet Lockhart requested that the business community be made aware of the meeting. Ms. straus indicated a willingness to meet with developers to see where agreements and disagreements lay, but she did not want the City to have to spend more money. em. Moffatt stated as a private body the Citizens Group and developers could meet and he encouraged them to do so. Mr. Fairfield felt the groups should meet to get to know each other, but he had a concern in that he represented only one of several developers and he could not speak for the other landowners. He agreed to the idea of having a facilitator and he offered to pay for the facilitator. John DiManto was glad the Council was not going to go back and reinvent the wheel, but he was frustrated by all the waffling that had been going on for five years. Why waste more money? This was big business and he felt it was time to make decisions. He encouraged the Council to get the show on the road. March 30, 1993 was chosen as a special meeting date which would be proceeded over by a facilitator. The Council concurred that the continuation of the publiC hearing on Eastern Dublin will be on April 30, 1993. * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:52 p.m. to a special meeting on March 30, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. in the Regional Meeting Room at the Dublin Civic Center. * * * * Minutes prepared by Sandie Hart, Secretary. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM - VOL 12 - 94 February 23, 1993 Adjourned Regular Meeting . . REGULAR MEETING - March 8. 1993 A regular meeting of the city Council of the city of Dublin was held on Monday, March 8, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m., by Mayor Protempore Burton. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Houston, Howard, Moffatt and Mayor Protempore Burton. ABSENT: Mayor Snyder. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (610-20) Mayor Protempore Burton led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * Cable TV Franchise Service (1050-30) Mary Jane Hyde, 7426 Mancini Court, advised that she is a teacher in Dublin schools. She was present primarily to state how unhappy she is with Viacom. She received a communication from The Learning Channel last week, and they say they are working with cable companies to add The Learning Channel to the package. When she contacted Viacom, they informed her that they will have this channel, but she repeatedly asked when, and they were very evasive. Since the City is responsible for the franchise, she felt the City Council should hear her concerns. While she did not know about the rest of Dublin residents, she was willing to give up television for several months in order to find a better cable company. All the other cable companies offer up to 50 channels and Viacom offers the least of anyone. She hoped the city Council has some way to address this. Mayor Protempore Burton stated he understood that The Learning Channel is being discussed and whether or not they will allow advertising on it. According to an insert in his cable bill, starting next month, you can get less channels for less money. Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that on April 1st, they are doing some changes on the lineup, but The Learning Channel is not one that is being added. A copy of the communication she received was given to the city Clerk and Mayor Protempore Burton stated Staff would check into this and respond to Ms. Hyde. * * * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eM - VOL 12 - 95 Regular Meeting March 8, 1993 . . Tree Replacement Alonq 1-680 (800-30) George Butler, Bloomington Court resident, stated he has lived here for 25 years. About 2 years ago, 1-680 was widened on the east side and all the trees were removed and so far, no one has replaced them. Public Works Director Thompson stated he was not aware of any replanting currently planned, but they probably eventually will be replaced. They are concentrating now on the soundwall. Mr. Butler questioned if ivy could be planted to deaden some of the sound. There is an example of this near the Stoneridge Drive exit that looks quite nice. Mr. Thompson agreed that the problem with the east wall is that sound tends to ricochet off the wall. He stated he would look into this. * * * * East Dublin GPA & SP Meetinq (420-30) Mayor Protempore Burton stated there was a request to place an emergency item onto the agenda. The item deals with hiring a facilitator for the East Dublin group meeting to be held on March 30th. On motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote (Mayor Snyder absent), the Council agreed to add Item No. 8.6 to the agenda to discuss and establish whether a facilitator will be needed at the March 30th meeting. * * * * eONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by ern. Houston, and by unanimous vote (Mayor Snyder absent), the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 22, 1993; Authorized Staff to advertise Contract 93-05, street Subdrains, for bids (600-30); Approved an agreement with La Perle Architects, Inc., for Dublin Swim Center Bathhouse Renovation (600-30); Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 30 - 93 ADOPTING STEVE KING STEWART'S "DUBLIN TOWN" AS THE OFFIeIAL SONG FOR THE eITY OF DUBLIN (120-50) Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $1,541,219.37 (300-40). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eM - VOL 12 - 96 Regular Meeting March 8, 1993 . . em. Moffatt requested that the item related to the Sidewalk Repair Program be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. He expressed concern about this program in as much as we are talking about going to bid for $50,000. He suggested that this item be held until after the Goals & Objectives meeting. His understanding was that if the City continues doing repair work, the city is liable. Mr. Ambrose stated at the last budget meeting, the city council identified 3 projects to be held up until we get the March sales tax report. This was one of the items and the reason this item was included was just to get authorization to go to bid. Once bids come in, the city council can still throw all the bids out. They don't have to accept any of the bids. Mayor Protempore Burton asked if we go to bid, is there an implied responsibility. Mr. Ambrose indicated that this is the repair program that was approved in June of 1992. Mr. Thompson advised that this program last year was split into 2 parts. He discussed the grinding portion of the program. He estimated about $37,000 for the first phase. Staff doesn't want to run this work into the next fiscal year. Mr. Ambrose advised that if it gets pushed into next year, then it probably would be eliminated. Cm. Moffatt stated his main concern was the city assuming liability. city Attorney Silver stated in terms of liability, it is better for the city to have a proactive program of identifying sidewalks where repairs are necessary than not doing anything. The Municipal Code indicates that the property owner has responsibility as well as the city. Mr. Ambrose stated Staff was trying to minimize the City'S exposure for a trip and fall. Cm. Moffatt made a motion to table this until more information is available in 30 to 60 days. The motion died due to lack of a second. On motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by majority vote, the Council authorized staff to advertise Contract 93-03, Annual Sidewalk Safety Repair Program, for bids (600-30). Cm. Moffatt voted against this motion. * * * * PUBLIe HEARING DUBLIN SWIM eENTER FEE SeHEDULE (250-10) Mayor Protempore Burton opened the public hearing. Recreation Director Lowart presented the Staff Report and advised that a revised fee schedule for the Swim Center was prepared which reflect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eM - VOL 12 - 97 Regular Meeting March 8, 1993 . . changes in the marketplace and also in the cost of providing the service. staff proposed to change the fee schedule as follows: o - 5 Years 6 - 17 Years Adults seniors Family Pass - $85.00 Single Admission $ .75 $ 1.50 $ 2.00 $ 1.50 (Dublin Residents swim Pass (15 $ 7.50 $15.00 $20.00 $15.00 Swims) Only) Cm. Moffatt asked if this had been before the Park & Recreation Commission. Ms. Lowart responded that due to the timing, it did not go before the Commission. Cm. Moffatt questioned the definition of a senior. Ms. Lowart advised that a senior would be considered to be someone 55 years or over. Mayor Protempore Burton asked for an explanation of the policy on family passes being for Dublin residents only. He questioned why we should make it a law if there were only 2 or 3 families involved who don't live in Dublin. Ms. Lowart advised that the Commission will be reviewing the resident requirement. Cm. Moffatt agreed that the Park & Recreation Commission should discuss this as a policy issue. No members of the public gave testimony relative to this item. Mayor Protempore Burton closed the pUblic hearing. Cm. Moffatt discussed the family pass rate for Dublin residents only and thought the Park & Recreation Commission should make a determination on this. On motion of Crn. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Houston, and by unanimous vote (Mayor Snyder absent), the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 31 - 93 AMENDING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE DUBLIN SWIM eENTER The Council agreed to defer the issue of non-resident family passes to the recommendation of the Park & Recreation Commission. * * * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eM - VOL 12 - 98 Regular Meeting March 8, 1993 . . DUBLIN FINE ARTS FOUNDATION REQUEST "ART AND THE ENVIRONMENT" (600-30 , 900-50) Recreation Director Lowart advised that the DFA is requesting to place a temporary sculpture in the city right-of-way on the west side of San Ramon Road and also a second exhibition which is still under consider- ation, and finally, to place an exhibition in the civic Center Lobby area. Ms. Lowart advised that the proposal for installation on the hillside of San Ramon Road near Vomac Road is from Ray Beldner. The sculpture, entitled, "Nature Remains", would have letters to be constructed out of metal, mesh and recyclable materials donated by Livermore-Dublin Disposal. The sculpture will be approximately 60' long and each letter will be 4' high by 3' wide by l' deep. The idea came from the Walt Whitman poem. After you have exhausted what there is in business, politics, conviviality, and so on - have found that none of these finally satisfy, or permanently wear - what remains? Nature remains. The temporary works are planned for installation during the week of April 5th in order to coincide with Dublin Pride Week, and would remain until the end of June. Another component of the "Art and the Environment" celebration is a civic Center lobby exhibit highlighting the works created by 4th and 5th graders from the Art Education in the Schools program. This temporary exhibition will begin the week of May 10th and continue through the end of June. Ms. Lowart stated it was her understanding that DFA has just selected the artist for the second exhibition and that Lynne Baer would discuss this. Lynne Baer, Executive Director of the Dublin Fine Arts Foundation thanked the City Council for its continued support. She then showed slides of the concepts being proposed. Mayor Protempore Burton expressed concern with open containers in the 'Nature Remains' exhibit which might attract mosquitoes. Cm. Moffatt asked how long it would be up. Ms. Baer stated it will go up on April 5th and will be taken down by June 30th. They received grants and it is fully funded. They are paying the artist to install the piece. Mayor Protempore Burton asked if there will be pUblicity. Ms. Baer advised that they will have a reception to pUblicize the events. The second display which they hope to place on the grassy area in front of the Library is by a Japanese American artist. The display will point out that the environment is both man-made and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eM - VOL 12 - 99 Regular Meeting March 8, 1993 . . natural. Her pieces reconstruct nature. The school project portion is being underwritten by Lucky stores. Cm. Houston questioned on the 'Nature Remains' exhibit why words were selected instead of something visual. His first thought was of the big HOLLYWOOD sign. Ms. Baer stated this is the idea; they didn't feel the response would be as strong to an image. Mayor Protempore Burton asked if the Walt Whitman poem will be tied in somehow. Ms. Baer said that it would. Cm. Moffatt stated DFA always stimulates and projects thoughts and he strongly supports this exhibition. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the request, subject to conditions that: 1) all installations, including location, shall be approved by the Public Works Department; and 2) Staff shall prepare a signed waiver to be completed by the Artists. Linda Jeffery, President of the DFA thanked the city council and advised that DFA will be starting another round of selling tiles. She pointed out that this is a good way to recognize new babies. * * * * REPORT FROM BUSINESS TASK FORCE ON FORMATION OF A BUSINESS AssoeIATION (470-50) Assistant city Manager Rankin presented the staff Report and stated that included in the adopted 1987 Downtown Specific Plan was a recommendation that the city take steps to implement a Business Association, as provided for under State Law. The city council has established a Business Task Force to consider issues suggested in the Specific Plan. The Task Force has completed an in-depth review and has formulated a recommended approach on this issue. Mr. Rankin advised that throughout the process, the Special Programs Subcommittee found that businesses were interested in the concepts; however, there was not a strong sense of commitment to establish an Association. This is partly due to the nature of small businesses and the difficulty in spending time away from their business. To be successful, there needs to be a core group of businesses which enthusiastically support the effort. Mr. Rankin stated the consensus of those participating in the Task Force meetings was for the city to encourage the Chamber of Commerce to undertake a leadership role in addressing the needs and concerns of the Dublin Retail Community. Staff recommended that this effort be structured to identify specific issues and topics to be addressed. It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eM - VOL 12 - 100 Regular Meeting March 8, 1993 . . is not foreseen that the city would have a direct role beyond having a staff Member available to respond to any issues which corne up where the city has an obligation. Janet Lockhart advised that the Chamber Board will meet on Wednesday. Discussion so far has been that this is a great project for the Chamber of Commerce to take on. They will be seeking to learn if there is an interest in the business community. She sees this as a positive step, and feels there is a real openness to this. Mayor Protempore Burton stated he was glad to see the Chamber of Commerce coming into this process. Ms. Lockhart stated what is needed now is to communicate real well. Mayor Protempore Burton complimented staff for always being there and putting a lot of effort into this. It apparently just wasn't the right program or the right timing. It looks like we are resolving at least one of the issues though in getting the City Council and the Chamber of Commerce together. Cm. Houston passed out to the Council a newspaper article about the City of Tracy. The secret of their success was they really used an Economic Development Committee to get their city going. This might be something to discuss with Tracy's representatives. Mayor Protempore Burton advised that one of the consultants who spoke to the group was from Tracy. Cm. Houston stated he thought you have to include the whole city in something like this, not just 1 or 2 streets. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote (Mayor Snyder absent), the council authorized the Mayor to send a letter to the Chamber of Commerce leadership to encourage their efforts to address issues facing the retail business community. * * * * BUSINESS TASK FORCE REVIEW OF MODIFICATION TO POLIey GOVERNING OUTDOOR SALES (450-20) Assistant city Manager Rankin presented the Staff Report and advised that in April of 1992, the City Council received a request to reconsider current restrictions which prohibit outdoor sales. The City Council suggested that the issue be considered by the Business Task Force. The Task Force has provided input as to issues which should be covered by a revision. In addition, staff has presented a means by which outdoor sales could be approved under the current Ordinance, while a modification is being developed and considered. Mr. Rankin discussed the current restrictions and the City Council pOlicy on outdoor sales, which was established in 1984. The Business Task Force review and findings were also discussed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CM - VOL 12 - 101 Regular Meeting March 8, 1993 . . Mr. Rankin stated Staff recommended that the city council pursue a process which would allow outdoor sales to be approved without the requirement for an ACUP. A process utilizing a zoning Clearance could be developed, which would be consistent with the current approval of other temporary uses. The process to accommodate this change was discussed. An interim process which would allow for the conduct of special sales this summer was identified and discussed. The process would involve the City council adopting a resolution which revises the current policy regarding the interpretation of outdoor sales. In the meantime, Staff would work on the amendments to simplify the approval by having the permit issuance handled as a Zoning Clearance. Mr. Rankin advised that if the Council is interested in pursuing a modification, it will be necessary to identify the priority of this project in relation to other assignments. Cm. Moffatt asked if there would be any input from local businesses in developing some new concepts. will this be Staff developed or with cooperation of some of the community? Mr. Rankin stated they have the input from the Business Task Force and the Chamber of Commerce has discussed this with a separate group of businesses. Staff would present something before the Planning Commission at a public hearing. The intent is to move it along and there would be hearings before both the Planning Commission and the city Council. Cm. Moffatt asked if there was any way to speed up the process for a Zoning Clearance from 30 days. Planning Director Tong clarified that the Zoning Clearance is basically an over-the-counter process, but there is a 5-day appeal period. Both the Zoning Clearance and an ACUP have a set $25 fee. Mayor Protempore Burton felt that people will be aSking what the criteria is for promotions. Will every little store or place have to have a permit? We should look at joint promotions. The Planning staff and Task Force should review this. Cm. Houston asked if a store wants to have a promotion once a quarter, do they have to corne in each time or can they come in once at the beginning of the year and state they will be having sales every quarter? He would like to see it as a one-time fee for the year. Mr. Rankin stated the difficulty is whether or not they would know what days they will have the sales and the specifics. Cm. Houston questioned the reason the city needs to know this. Maybe we don't need to be on top of every single thing with the business community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eM - VOL 12 - 102 Regular Meeting March 8, 1993 . . Mr. Rankin advised that potential traffic control is one consideration. Mr. Ambrose questioned how we would make certain that people are not violating our Ordinance. There has to be some way of checking it or why do we have the Ordinance. Guidelines must be adopted. He questioned whether an interim process would work without guidelines. Cm. Houston stated San Ramon has some very liberal guidelines for outdoor sales, particularly during the summer months. Janet Lockhart stated this issue got more attention from the business community than anything in a long time. They worked on this over a period of a few months. The consensus was that everyone was excited about getting this rOlling for this summer. The Chamber of Commerce wanted to find an idea for getting businesses working together and getting everybody excited about doing this. The Chamber is interested in helping to promote this but they are limited in how much they can actually do in setting up the events. They see this as a real opportunity for the business community to corne together and work with the city. Cm. Houston asked if the Chamber had had time to review the draft resolution. Ms. Lockhart stated she would be happy to bring this up for discussion at the Board meeting on Wednesday. Mayor Protempore Burton indicated that the CUP is an interim measure which would allow them to have their outside sales this year. It will also give the City council ideas on what types of things need to be added. On motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote (Mayor Snyder absent), the Council directed the Planning staff to prepare a Zoning Ordinance modification based upon the input to date for consideration by the Planning Commission. The Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 32 - 93 AMENDING THE CITY eOUNCIL POLIey ON OUTDOOR SALES AND AUTHORIZING APPROVAL SUBJEeT TO SEeTION 8-60.60.1 OF THE ZONING ORDINANeE With regard to the priority of this project in relation to other assignments, given the current reduced staffing in the Planning Department, the Council concurred that this should be given priority over all the other Zoning Ordinance Amendment studies except for the auto dealership signage study which was initiated in 1992. * . * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eM - VOL 12 - 103 Regular Meeting March 8, 1993 . . AeCEPTANeE OF GIFT TO eITY (150-70) Recreation Director Lowart advised that the parents of those children enrolled in the city's Preschool Program recently conducted a raffle to generate funds for the Program and collected $295, which they would like to donate to the city. On motion of ern. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote (Mayor Snyder absent), the Council accepted the gift and directed staff to prepare a formal acknowledgment to the donors. . * * * OPTION TO ACCEPT OR REJEeT THE DELEGATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT'S TRIP REDUeTION ORDINANeE (590-80) Public Works Director Thompson gave the Staff Report and advised that the city of Dublin adopted a mandated Trip Reduction Ordinance which requires employers who employ 100 or more employees to have an in- house program to encourage employees to use mass transit. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District now has a similar, but more restrictive TRO and is asking if the cities would like to implement the BAAQMD's ordinance in lieu of the District implementing their own ordinance. Cm. Moffatt asked if this decision is made now, can we go back in the future and change our minds. Mr. Thompson stated if we decide to take it over, we do have the option to get out at some time in the future. He felt that things will change in the next year and a half and the rules might be more liberal in allowing us to go back and forth from one to the other. Cm. Moffatt asked if we can utilize our existing Ordinance until 1994. Mr. Thompson advised that the District wants to know by the end of April on how we want to go. Mr. Ambrose stated this is an opportunity to give the mandate back. Mayor Protempore Burton stated he was concerned that the Air Quality group has tremendous power they haven't used yet. They will be a gargantuous agency. He stated he was inclined to want to keep control for as long as we can. Mr. Thompson stated the problem is they put it all on us to administer their program. If we are found to be in violation, they can corne after us. Cm. Moffatt felt we should say to the Air Quality Board that we will give it up in 1994 and in this way, we can have our own rules until then; otherwise we have to adhere to their high standards and enforce it. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eM - VOL 12 - 104 Regular Meeting March 8, 1993 . . On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by em. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to not accept BAAQMD's TRO delegation of authority and to continue implementing Dublin's TRO until July 1994, and authorized the Mayor to notify BAAQMD by letter of the Council's action. * * * * ITEM ADDED TO AGENDA DIseUSSION REGARDING FACILITATOR AT EAST DUBLIN MEETING (420-30) Planning Director Tong advised that Staff had contacted 3 or 4 professional facilitators regarding the possibility of covering the March 30th meeting regarding the East Dublin GPA & SP. Several indicated their availability and stated they would meet with Staff, review background models and then hold a debriefing meeting with Staff for $1,800 to $2,000. Staff would need to let the facilitator know right away, and requested direction from the Council. Mayor Protempore Burton stated the memo which was distributed, "Environmental Groups' List of Major Points of Disagreement with Proposed Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment for Eastern Dublin" did not sound as if they were willing to compromise in any way. Cm. Moffatt felt there should be some kind of a conflict resolution type of meeting. We could say these are the big points and these are the little points and then the city Council could make a decision on how they feel is the best way to go. This will bring everything out on the table and the public will have a chance to have input. We have gone through this for 4 or 5 years and there are still some problems and this would be an attempt to resolve these problems. Cm. Howard pointed out that Ted Fairfield had volunteered to pay for the facilitator. Mayor Protempore Burton stated he felt the letter was very negative, but the City should at least try to reach some compromise. Ms. Silver stated the document being referenced was not part of the pUblic record. A copy should be given to the city Clerk. Staff advised that the letter carne in addressed to the City Clerk and copies were made for the City Council and Staff. Mayor Protempore Burton stated the objective was to get this over with. Whoever is involved should realize that the city council can't start over. Janet Lockhart stated she felt a facilitated meeting was a good idea. Local businesses could give input. Becky Hopkins stated she also felt this was a very good idea and effort on the part of the city to show the community that we do want to work this out. Hiring a facilitator to do this would be a very positive show of this. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eM - VOL 12 - 105 Regular Meeting March 8, 1993 . . steve Lockhart stated he would like for the city to accept Ted Fairfield's $2,000 donation to help pay for this expense. Mayor Protempore Burton stated he had been advised by the city Attorney that it is not a good idea to accept this money. On motion of Cm. Houston, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote (Mayor Snyder absent), the Council directed staff to proceed with a facilitator for the March 30th meeting. Mr. Ambrose felt that the Council can identify those issues that require further study so that on April 20th, the Council could deter- mine if further review would be required by the Planning Commission. Mayor Protempore Burton stated his understanding was that the Council should not be in attendance on March 30th. Ms. Silver stated the Council should be there as it will be a public hearing. Mr. Ambrose stated the Council could give direction on alternatives to pursue. Mayor Protempore Burton stated it should be understood that the Council will not be making the final decision that night. Mr. Ambrose indicated that if there are substantial changes, the Planning Commission will have to reconsider the issue. Discussion then centered around whether or not the Council will be able to make a final decision on April 20th. Ms. Silver advised that if the Council gives Staff preliminary direction on March 30th to look at certain issues and to corne back on April 20th, then the Council may be able to take a straw vote or possibly even a final vote. It depends on the direction given on March 30th. Some of the ideas discussed might require a supplement to the EIR. The Council agreed to hold the meeting in the Regional Meeting Room and to begin at 7:00 p.m. * * * * OTHER BUSINESS Business Reqistration for Firearm Dealers (390-40/585-80) Cm. Moffatt stated he recently saw an article in the newspaper about private gun dealers, which indicated that Dublin has 24 private firearm dealers in the City. He questioned if they are licensed as businesses in Dublin and also if the Police Department was aware of where they are located. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eM - VOL 12 - 106 Regular Meeting March 8, 1993 . . . . Chief Rose stated he was aware that Dublin has quite a few. We have people who have their dealership through their residence. Cm. Moffatt stated he was concerned and wanted to make sure they are all registered. * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m. * * * * Mayor ATTEST: city Clerk * * * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eM - VOL 12 - 107 Regular Meeting March 8, 1993