The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 4.01 Draft Minutes 4-8-96 (2) 't-- .,...... Study Session City Council and Planning Commission April 8, 1996 **** * **"'** ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Houston, Councilmembers Bames, Burton, Moffatt, and Commissioners Jennings, Geist, Johnson, Lockhart and Zika; Rich Ambrose, City Manager; Kathleen Faubian, City Attorney; Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director; Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner; Tashaauston, Associate Planner; and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary.. Absent: Councilmember Howard and Commissioner Zika **** * ***** PLEDGE OF 1\LLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Mayor Houston led the Council, Commission, Staff; and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. .: **** * ***"'. ADDJTIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None **** * ***** ORAL COMMUNICA'J'IONS None ****. ."'*.. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None .... * ***** PUBLIC HEARING' None **** * ***** . ~--~~~~~.._----------------~-..._._._~~..__________~w..__________~______~~----w-.~-..~____._~____.~-____~----.--______. Joint Study Semon [4-8 SSMI] 167 AprilS, 1996 ITEM NO. ~.L" NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 Schaefer Ranch Study Session Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director gave an outline of the project. He indicated the Schaefer Ranch project would require an annexation to the City, a General Plan amendment and detailed approval of zoning. He stated staff felt the study session would help the Applicant submit a better application packet. He stated what would be asked from the City Council and Planning Commission. He indicated no action would be taken at tonight's study session. He introduced the Applicant, who made a brief presentation. Jim Parsons, from P A Design Resources, indicated he was representing Schaefer Ranch, the Applicant. He gave a history of the project. Mr. Parsons explained how the Schaefer Ranch project came about and how they had arrived to this point. He indicated that there were 3 items on the agenda that would be discussed tonight. 1) Provisions of Public Services, including fire service and schools; 2) Access to other Western Dublin properties :from the Schaefer Ranch project; and 3) Park land requirements and ownership and maintenance of open space lands. Tasha Huston, Associate Planner, gave a presentation using the overhead projector to show graphics of the project. She outlined the three major issues, and asked the City Council and Planning Commission for direction in addressing these issues. Mayor Houston stated we would discuss the items in order. He asked the status of the discussions with the school districts on the first issue. He stated there was no clarification to which district was going to service the area. Eddie Peabody stated as of the last discussion at the Planning Commission meeting, the Castro Valley school district preferred to have the property stay within their district and it was scheduled to be discussed on April 17 at their board meeting. Mayor Houston stated until the school districts agree on this issue, there was not a lot that could happen with this at this time. . Mr. Parsons suggest both school districts meet at one time, and have the issue settled by the two school boards, without having a court action or having the state board involved. Mayor Houston stated he would like to see the kids go to Dublin schools. Eddie Peabody stated given the location and existing roads to the project site, it would be difficult for the kids to go to Castro Valley schools. Cm. Moffatt asked Mr. Ambrose whose decision was it on which school district would service the children. Mr. Ambrose stated the City Council would have a political role, not a jurisdictional role. He stated a condition would have to be placed on the project to provide additional school mitigation over and above the state maximum required. Cm. Moffatt stated if the Dublin school district could not service the area, would they have to work with Castro Valley school district. Cm. Burton stated that we should continue with talks with the understanding that something will be resolved in the future. Mayor Houston asked if anyone in the audience would like to address the school district issue. -_..N8.________W~_______W~__________~________~_~~__________.~___________~_.__________~~___________~_~________________.___ Joint Study Session [4-8 SSMI] 168 April 8, 1996 .. . 0' .- . .. :.' :":' .. . . " . Chief Diekman indicated that this project was not large enough to support a new fire station. Although the area still needs service, DRF A had worked with the developer in resolving some issues. One issue was the response to wildland incidents. The developer suggested placing barriers around the project. He felt this mitigated the concern. Also, the developer was willing to upgrade one of the fire trucks to handle the issue. Also, each structure would have a fire sprinkler system. They also agreed to place a central station alarm system, in addition to smoke alarms, etc. Medical response was also an issue, and DRF A was in the process of joining with other agencies in improving the response time. If there was a good public ~mergency education program, this would help the residents in that area understand the response time Issues. Cm. Moffatt asked ifthe open space land was to become part of the East Bay Regional Parks system, would EBRPD have the facilities to handle the area and fight wildfire. Chief Diekman, stated EBRPD had some fire protection. They will have helicopter services available that can be drawn on, and this has been used in the past. Those services are controversial now, but it can be worked out. ,"._:'.. Cm. Burton asked about the wiring for the fire sprinklers, would they be hard wired? .:c Chief Diekman stated it was a central station monitoring. There was an off site monitor located at a central service station. There is a private alarm company who monitor 24 hours per day vs. the fire station which could not offer 24 hours of monitoring. Additional future projects would share in the cost for additional facilities that may be brought into that area. Cm. Barnes stated she wanted to hear more on the medical response times. Chief Diekman stated this was an issue, and he proposed a good community education program, to teach people to call for help sooner, and let people know when they move in that area that they have to take some personal responsibility. The response time would be 6-8 minutes, compared to Dublin's 3-4 minutes, and the County's 10 minute response times. This would be comparable to living in the outskirts of Alameda County. . ' C Cm. Lockhart asked about the City's liability on the extended response times. Kit Faubion, from the City Attorney's, office stated when the Council considers providing mitigations that are a reasonable response to a particular issue, then the City would not be liable. She stated that when someone lives in the country, personal responsibility is necessary, as long as the mitigation issues are handled reasonably. Zev Kahn, Dublin resident, had some concerns on payment for the alarm monitoring. Would it be through homeowner's dues? Chief Diekman stated it would not be the City's responsibility, but probably left up the homeowner. .':,.. . , ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joint Study S.:ssion (4-8 SSM!] 169 April 8. 1996 Mr. Kahn stated that if left to the homeowner, families would cut the alarm monitoring service out. What would happen with the sale of property, what if the new owners did not keep the service? He had concerns on the response times. He asked if the notification of hazards in a community have changed in the last .' _ several years. : Ms. Huston stated the EIR states that this development would have notification to the new home buyers. Ms. Faubion stated that was what the CC&R's were for; they provide notice to the owner along with the deed. Mr. Kahn stated that if the CC&R's were presented at the time of sale, that was too late. He stated helicopters were for transportation only, the emergency care would be provided by paramedics arriving by vehicle. Mayor Houston stated by real estate law, the CC&R's are presented 15 days before the final sale. There were several ways to inform the homeowners of various items that pertain to the development. He stated the lender usually wants to see the CC&R's before funding. Ms. Faubion stated CC&R's are priv~te arrangements between property owners. The difference would be a condition of approval and EIR mitigation backing it up. Usually if there is a price tag attached to a condition, and they are listed in the financial area of the CC&R's, people would be more apt to read it. Cm. Barnes asked who pays for the alarm, if it is in the CC&R' s that alarm monitoring is required. The response to Cm. Barnes question was it may come out of the homeowners association dues. Cm. Jennings asked what Mr. Parsons would be paying for with the DRFA's $600 per unit fee. Chief Diekman stated that DRFA currently has a fire developer fee. This cost goes towards the development paying their fair share of a future fire station. Mr. Parsons stated fire safety has been a major concern from day one. They have worked closely with DRF A in making this project the safest in the City. The fire alarm would be a standard feature in the home, and paid for by the homeowners association. Medical response time is calculated from the station to the farthest point in the subdivision. One point that came up, was the need to straighten the road out so that the emergency vehicles could drive more safely up to the site. Mark Houle, Director of Alameda County Operations for American Medical Response West (AMR), stated they were the County transport provider to all 911 medical emergencies along with the fire department. He felt that the greater portion of the development would be within the allocated response time of 10 minutes. The fire department is training their staff to that of a first paramedics level. Any development on the outskirts of the central population will get a slower response than those in the center of the City. They have talked with the developer on possibly moving their ambulance company. It was a difficult process to relocate a station. .' Cm. Lockhart asked how many responses did they have a year in Dublin. Mr. Houle stated that there was some studies done, and he could forward the information, also showing anticipated response times to the area. He stated a majority of their responses were with the fire department. C~efDiekman stated he was pleased with their relationship with AMR. Although, they were only activated when they were needed. The ambulance company is outside the control of the City, and there was no control over employees or location changes. . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joint Study Session [4-8 SSM!] 170 April 8, 1996 Cm. Moffatt asked ifDRF A would be training paramedics, and would they have the paramedic along on their truck. . ChiefDielanan stated, yes, they will have first response medical training. Cm. Moffatt asked if the alarm system would be part of an assessment district. Chief Diekman stated that would probably be handled through the homeowner association, and the insurance companies would have a say in how this development was handled. Mayor Houston stated that due to the fires in the Oakland hills, houses are being built differently, and more efficiently because of what they have learned from that disaster. He stated that, backed up by the City, there should be something that the homeowner signs stating they are aware of what they are getting themselves in to. Cm. Barnes stated that when she moved into Dublin, her insurance went down because this is such a good area. Cm. Moffatt asked if there would be hydrants in the project. Chief Diekman stated yes. Rob Y ohai an owner of Schaefer Ranch, agreed with Doctor Kahn. He stated that there would be provisions that these fire mitigations were not an option, but a requirement of the developer. He stated they would work with DRF A in public awareness, by having basic life support and advanced life support on each fire truck that responded. He stated this would be a very safe project. He felt a disclosure of every item would not be a problem. .':: ::'::" Mayor Houston stated it could be designed so that people would understand what they were getting into when they buy in this development. They could work with the City Attorney in developing a document that addressed the issues. Cm. Moffatt asked if the fire hydrants would be using recycled water. Rob Y ohai said it would not be recycled water, although it would be cheaper if they did. Mayor Houston moved on to item number 2, Access to other Western Dublin Properties. He asked staffif the roads were to be made real roads out to reach property lines, would that effect the ElR. Mr. Peabody stated in his opinion no, because there has not been any development approved on adjacent properties. He stated there are no general plan designations. He stated that stubbing a road out to the property line does not necessarily mean they would be connected. We would look at that, ifit were the direction of the City Council and Planning Commission. Mayor Houston stated existing easements would have to be retained. What can we expect, are there going to be any changes? Ms. Huston stated that what was now existing were easements to the Fields and the Machado properties, which must be retained by law and they could not be landlocked. The project was proposing to provide the paved roads to serve the units in the project. She stated that beyond the units there would be some type of gravel surface for EVA. . Mayor Houston stated stubbing the roads out would cause problems. He felt this project should stand .alone. He felt that if they were to be serviced, it would come from the Castro Valley area. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joint Study Session [4-8 SSM!] 171 April 8. 1996 Cm. Burton agreed this project should stand alone. However, there should be the ability for future development if it should go that way. Not to say that it will, but the provision should be made. He felt the road should go to the property lines. Cm. Moffatt asked Mr. Peabody what stubbing out meant. Eddie Peabody stated you would carry the roadway to the property line so that it could be used by other properties. There were a number of ways to either provide or prevent access now, which could limit our options in the future. Cm. Johnson asked to see the Open Space Land exhibit on a transparency. Tasha Huston put up a transparency of the Open Space Land. Cm. Johnson questioned if the road going north on H Court, is the location of the easement for the Northern exit? . Mr. Parsons explained where the easement would be and that it would provide an EVA to the property to the North. He also stated that there would be a gravel road there. He stated there would be an emergency vehicle access going out to the East, there was one proposed going to the North and to the West. He stated if there was development to the West, that the primary access would come from Eden Canyon and it would connect back to Schaefer Ranch through the EVA's. Cm. Johnson asked if the extension of Dublin Boulevard becomes Schaefer Ranch Lane? He asked if the two lots beyond the cul-de-sac would have a private driveway to the west? Mr. Parsons stated yes and that they had to provide fire department turn arounds and there was a 60 foot wide easement coming off the end of the cul-de-sac that goes down to the property line and hits the existing . , 60 foot wide easement. He stated it also serves as a driveway. He stated that the perception was that .': Schaefer Ranch was cutting off3000 acres, however it was not. There is access from Skyline Road from . the East. There was access to the other properties from other sides of their properties. em. Johnson stated he wanted to see Dublin Boulevard. extended to Eden Canyon and that an EastlWest access to the City was needed. He stated if the freeway was to back up, another alternate route other than the super highway was needed. Mr. Parsons stated Dublin Boulevard. would be extended to Schaefer Ranch Road which goes under the freeway. Cm. Geist asked if Schaefer Ranch Road did go through as proposed, how difficult would it be for it to become a public road in the future. Mr. Peabody stated that would be addressed at the Planned Development stage. Marjorie LaBar, 11707 Juarez Lane, disagreed with Mr. Peabody regarding the repercussions of stubbing out roads. She stated that the community spoke clearly that the community did not want massive development in that area. She stated folks were working with the Schaefer family on dealing what could be done to address some major issues. Extending Dublin Boulevard defeats 85% of what these folks have tried to do. This project does not meet the kind of goal to open up that area again. Schaefer has designed a self-controlled project and has done a lot of work to address the needs of the community and the City. She would like see the roads left alone. John Anderson, 11174 Brittany Lane, asked who paid for the extension of Dublin Boulevard? .. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joint Study Session [4-8 SSMI] 172 April 8. 1996 Mayor Houston stated the developer pays for it. -'.". Mr. Anderson asked if everyone would still have access to their properties. .' Mayor Houston stated yes. Tony Field, 22084 Eden Canyon Road, stated his easement has been there for many years. There used to be five entrances to his property, the highway went through and took three of the entrances and when the freeway was put in, it took the remaining two entrances. The reason the easement was there was so that they could get to their property. He stated he was not going to quit-claim the easement. He stated he would know more in a week, as they were working with attorneys in assessing the situation. Mayor Houston agreed the integrity of the easements would have to remain. Gary BaIsdon, representing some of the ranchers in the Western Dublin area, explained the reasons for the EVA. He stated all of the ranchers have been there since 1930 or so, and the City asked them to be included in the sphere of influence. If the City approved Schaefer Ranch, they would be making a policy statement. These ranchers need public dedicated access to the west and to the north. Mayor Houston supported the project as designed with the EVA's and not roads stubbed to the property lines. Cm. Moffatt reminded City Council Members and Planning Commissioners that there was a referendum on development in the Western Hill. He also stated the 10 people up here represent the City, and speak for the City folks. He felt that with the Schaefer Plan, the developer did their homework, and a majority of the Dublin citizens would welcome this type of project. He noted the purpose of the Study Session was not to make any decisions, but to give Staff direction whether processing of the project should move ahead. He .'"<. felt that with easements remaining in place, he recommended Staff move ahead. .-; em. Lockhart agreed with Cm. Moffatt. He supported the project and noted Schaefer applicants worked well with the community and felt it was a good project. Cm. Geist stated she had nothing to add that had not already been said. Cm. Jennings complimented Mr. Balsdon on the points he made, and questioned whether applicants would work with Mr. Fields to discuss issues. This was confirmed. - Cm. Burton asked if Schaefer Ranch Lane was a City street? Mr. Thompson, Director of Public Works, stated the City Council could accept whatever they wanted. This would come in as a Planned Development which allows standards to be set at that time. He noted the street would be 60' right of way which is wide enough for a street to be put in later. Cm. Burton stated he supported the project. Cm. Johnson supported the project. Cm. Barnes supported the project. Mayor Houston asked for a summary of the third issue: Park Land requirements and ownership and maintenance of Schaefer Ranch open Space lands. _, Ms. Lowart stated the project would be required to dedicate approximately 7.6 acres of park land. She .gave the breakdown of the parks. She stated staff would ask to include a public neighborhood park. This ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joint Study Session [4-8 SSMI] 173 April 8. 1996 project would be subject to the new public utilities fees, and it would have to be recalculated based on the new population to the city. Mr. Parsons stated their design was based on no cost to the City, making the parks private, under the .', direction of the Homeowner Association. As the project progressed, there have been different options proposed to meet the needs of flat areas, but to meet the 5-7 acres park requirement, would be difficult. They would look to expand the basketball areas and tot lot area. Cm. Burton felt they could get 5-7 acres of flat land within the development. Mr. Parsons stated the previous ElR had a constraint map, and they have tried to work within those constraints. Ms. Lowart stated when the standards were put together for parks, the cost of maintaining the parks was a factor. Smaller parks were more costly for the City to maintain. Mayor Houston stated that a lot of our standards were geared toward Eastern Dublin, and we should be flexible in applying the standards to this project. Cm. Moffatt stated that in other areas such as Berkeley, many of the parks were not flat with multiple kinds of topography and they were used a lot. He agreed with Mayor Houston and felt we should be flexible. Ms. Lowart stated that the Western Dublin projects should not impact the existing Dublin facilities, because those'facilities were exceeded to the limit. Cm. Burton felt that we were all in Dublin, and people should be allowed to use all the facilities. Ms. Lowart stated that the City did have a policy that all new development pay their own way. Cm. Barnes felt the project should provide public neighborhood parks on site. She felt large usable type of .',-: facilities were necessary. She felt a tot lot and basketball hoops near homes, does not cut it. She stated 5- 7 acres of good parks should be required. Dr. Kahn commented Donlan park was not flat. It was multi-tiered with basketballs and tot lots combined, however it does not allow hit balls. It was a 5 acre park, and might not be big enough. MaIjorie LaBar suggested that we give the developer some time to come back with some community park facilities. She felt there should be some public facilities in that area. Tom Ford, 7262 Tina Place, felt that parks were important. He felt it was an excellent project, but felt the parks needed to be addressed. Mayor Houston stated that there was a willingness of the Applicant to work on this park issue. He suggested that it may have to be modified from the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Mayor Houston stated that if the improvements were provided, the developer should be eligible for a credit towards the reduction in the community parks land component of the public facilities fee. Cm. Burton stated it was important that we stay consistent. They have to meet our goals and standards. The consensus of the City Council and Planning Commission was to stay consistent, but also allow some flexibility from the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Standards for the Western hills. Mayor Houston moved on to Ownership and Maintenance of 161 acres public open space for dedication of a regional park. . loint Study S=>ion [4-8 SSMI] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 174 April 8, 1996 Linda Chavez, East Bay Regional Parks District, stated the Park District did have a regional trail that connects Las Trampas to Pleasanton ridge. This project offers the prospect of providing the link to that ._, trail. The District may take the open space, but it would come under the Zone of Benefit. On April 16, the .": Board will vote on accepting the K & B project open space. . Mayor Houston stated the two components would be the trail, and Zone of Benefit. Ms. Chavez explained how the Zone of Benefit worked. She stated the District was interested in the open space. They want to pursue a trail corridor for this area, and wide open space in the region. Cm. Moffatt asked about the Zone of Benefit. Would it be for the immediate area. Ms. Chavez stated yes. Both projects would have a regional corridor with trails, and have open space. She stated they would have to work with the developer in setting up the fee and do a study. All Dublin residents are paying a fee now, but when this project and K & B are approved, they will be paying an additional cost. The cost could vary, but approximately $35 per unit. For the K & B project, they are proposing a $24 per unit fee. Cm. Burton asked how the fees were determined? Ms. Chavez stated it depended on how much fencing there would be, how much of the local trails and infrastructure needed to be maintained. She stated it is determined on actual costs and park personnel. Mayor Houston stated that he does not want the City to own or maintain the open space. It either has to be EBRPD or a homeowners association. There was a consensus on this issue. He asked ifthere was any other issues that needed to be addressed at this time. Hearing none, he adjourned the meeting. ADJOURNMENT .;-: The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Minutes prepared by Maria Carrasco, Planning Department Office Assistant ll. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Community Development Director ATTEST: Mayor , '. City Clerk . . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joint Study Session [4-8 SSMI] 175 April 8, 1996 REGULAR MEETING - April 9. 1996 A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, April 9, 1996, in .' the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m., by Mayor Houston. "H",.,_' ,+. ""'H,. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmembers Barnes, Burton, Moffatt and Mayor Houston Councilmember Howard .' _ H_'''''''''H '.. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Houston led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. '''''''''_H,,,,,,,,,,,,,. + '''''H''__"""",,,,. Mayor Houston announced that Item 8.4 Nielsen Ranch GPA would be moved to immediately follow the Consent Calendar. There has been a request and the City Council will be tabling this indefinitely. .",,,---.,,,,,,,, "", +'HH"H"'" .'-- RECOGNITION OF AWARD TO CITY FOR FACILITY DESIGN & PARK PLANNING 7:08 p.m. 3.1 (I 50-20) Parks & Community Services Director Lowart stated the Dublin Heritage Center was chosen as a 1995 award recipient in the facility design and park planning category by the California Park and Recreation Society. One of the key factors in the selection process was the involvement of the community in the planning process and the impact of the project on the community. The award was presented to the City at the Annual Awards and Installation Banquet of California Park and Recreation Society, District III, held on March 29, 1996. Mayor Houston accepted the plaque and congratulated the Parks & Community Services Department. ."'''' __""""'"''H'~''''''''' CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE6ULAR MEETIN6 Aprll 9, 1996 PAGE 176 .- .'" "...1 PRESENTATION BY DUBLIN UNITED SOCCER LEAGUE 7:09 p.m. 3.2 (950-10) Eric Swalwell, 11404 Betlen Drive, addressed and updated the City Council on Dublin United Soccer League's plans to construct soccer fields at Camp Parks and requested that this item be placed on the next City Council meeting agenda for further discussion. Mr. Swalwell stated last weekend marked the opening of the major soccer season in the Bay Area. Dublin's soccer program serves over 1,000 youth. The problem is we do not have enough space set aside for children to play the game. In reviewing their programs, they have identified an opportunity by working with Camp Parks to provide 20 acres of land. They will come prepared to provide greater details at the April 23 Council meeting. .'.."""""""""""'."'.."""""..'.'+. PROCLAMATION 7:12 p.m. 3.3 (610-50) Mayor Houston read a proclamation declaring the month of April, 1996 as California Earthquake Preparedness Month and encouraged all citizens to enhance their knowledge and awareness of proper safety measures to follow before, during, and after an earthquake. ,..~~'. .-..-..-:' 'J ."""''''''''''''''''''''~''''''''''''''''''''''''''. Traffic Enforcement (590-30) Zev Kahn, Harlan Road stated he had two items of concern. The first has to do with the many Dublin citizens that commute to work on our streets each day, particularly San Ramon Road. He is concerned about the City's apparent change in laws or rules that citizens have not been made aware of, primarily when the speed limit has been changed to 50 mph and faster. The signs are still posted at 40 mph. Another concern relates to as he was driving past Village Parkway and Dublin Boulevard. There was another instance where the City has changed the laws and now on red you are allowed to go through intersections. It would be nice if the City would notify citizens of these changes to the laws in the future. Mayor Houston commented this was a tongue in cheek request and stated he hoped the Police Department representatives present noted the comments. ---.,-",,,,,,,,,,,, +.""".""""""""". CONSENT CALENDAR 7:16 p.m. 4.1 through 4.8 On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote (Cm. " '. Howard absent), the Council took the following actions: ."'. .. CIn" COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME t 5 REG ULAR MEETING April 9, ~99G PAGE 177 Approved (4.1) Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 26, 1996; Accepted (4.2 150-70) gifts of 45" color TV for the Parks & Community Services Department and $582 from T-shirt sale fund-raiser for the Shannon Center Preschool; directed Staff to prepare formal acknowledgments to the donors; and approved Budget Change Form; . Accepted (4.3 600-30) improvements constructed under Contract 95-06 San Ramon Road Landscape Improvements, and authorized retention and final pay item payment of $2,542.94 to Nimco Landscape; and authorized a $2,564.71 additional appropriation from the San Ramon Road Specific Plan Assessment District Reserves; Authorized (4.5 600-30) a $5,792 appropriation to the Annual Sidewalk Safety Repair Budget for Contract 96-01 to be funded by an increase in the CDBG funds allowed for this project; Adopted (4.7 700-20) RESOLUTION NO. 36 .. 96 ESTABLISHING A SAlARY PlAN FOR FULL..TIME PERSONNEL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERSONNEL RULES and RESOLUTION NO. 37 .. 96 e. AMENDING THE BENEFIT PlAN (Dental Insurance, Disability Insurance, Education Reimbursement) and RESOLUTION NO. 38 .. 96 AMENDING THE PERSONNEL SYSTEM RULES (General Leave) and RESOLUTION NO. 39 .. 96 AMENDING THE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MANAGEMENT POSITIONS EXEMPT FROM COMPETITIVE SERVICE AND PRESCRIBING LEAVE BENEFITS FOR THE POSITIONS Approved (4.8 300-40) the Warrant Register in the amount of $814,475.93. ern' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME. 15 <<EGULA<< MEETING April 9, 1996 PAGE 178 .' ~> . ." . Mayor Houston stated Ralph Hughes had requested that Item 4.4 related to the Chamber Sign be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Ralph Hughes} 7581 Brighton Drive} stated in 1990 he was the President of the Chamber. He understands that some members of the City CouncJ1 would like to see the sign placed further down San Ramon Road It has never been called a City Limit sign} but instead it is to identify service clubs. The location is a matter of tradition. People can see and read the sign at its current location. Moving the sign would require permission from a land owner and if it is on private property it requires some type of an easement and guarantee that it will remain. The City has not taken any steps to acquire any easement for this purpose. He would like to see the sign remain where it is. , Cm. Moffatt clarified that the request was for the City and the Chamber to enter into a dialogue and just discuss the topic. Mayor Houston clarified whether the sign was on private or public property. He felt it was more appropriate for it to be at the gateway to the City. An additional sign may be located at a gateway in the future. The City may want to conslder this in the future and if the Chamber wishes the sign to remain where it is} this is no problem to the CouncJ1. Economic Development Manager Reuel stated the sign is on private property. Cm. Burton felt we willloak into additional signs in the future. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the City Council received (4.4 400-30) the report related to the City's request for relocation of the Chamber of Commerce Sign. Cm. Moffatt requested that Item 4.6 be pulled and stated he was curious as to what the increase in the fee would do. Ms. Iowart stated there has been additional work incurred by the Consultant and there were several additional areas to the study and additional meetings. We will be dealing with administrative guidelines next to address some of the concerns brought up in the public hearings. Mr. Ambrose explained that a consultant agrees to a certain number of meetings. If we go through a long process} it will probably exceed the budget. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the City Council approved (4.6 600-30) $5,000 Change Order #2 and Budget Change Form for $3,131 to the agreement with Recht Hausrath & Associates for the Public Facilities Fee Program Study. '...'."...".."'.'------...+..'...'.'............-.',.-. ern' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME. 15 RE6ULAR MEE.TIN6 A.prll 9, 1996 PAGE 179 INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY (200 + ACRE PORTION OF THE NIELSEN RANCH 7:25 p.m. 8.4 (420-30) .' Mayor Houston stated there has been a request to table this General Plan Amendment Study for a 200 :t acre parcel east of the terminus of Brittany Drive and Brittany Lane to an undetermined time. He encouraged interested parties to get together and try to work out some of the issues. Vince Fletcher stated he respectfully requested that this item be tabled. They will go walk the site with interested parties and share some ideas. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the City Council tabled the Nielsen Ranch GPA and EIR. Cm. Burton asked if he would be available to get people's cards so he can contact them since they have gone to the trouble of coming here to hear this tonight. ,'.UU.""""""'UU,. + ,.u"'u"""",,"uu,, WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM STEVE STEWART REQUESTING THAT THE CITY FUND THE PRODUCTION OF THE CITY SONG 7:28 p.m. 5.1 (120-50) Administrative Assistant Honse presented the Staff Report. As a result of a contest held in early 1993, Steve Stewart's song, "Dublin Town" was selected by the City Council as the winner, and a Resolution was adopted declaring "Dublin Town" to be the City's official song. Mr. Stewart feels that if the song were to be professionally recorded, it could be used to generate pride in the community, could be a vehicle by which Dublin communicates with the rest of the world, and if marketed, could provide a means to raise money for worthy projects in the community. The estimated cost to profession- ally produce the song will be $5,000 and the City would receive 1,000 taped copies. .' .. Steve Stewart stated he was very pleased to see in the report the reasons why the City should produce this and make it available to the people. He felt this was a good and very fair question. The first thing that comes to mind is community pride. He shared a short note from Mayor Cathie Brown which was included with the song for Livermore. Livermore doesn't have a corner on pride. In fact, he stated he's not aware of any other city that has designated an entire week to celebrate pride. He read from the proclamation that was presented to him in 1993. People need to hear it and learn it before they will be able to sing it for years to come. With regard to the issue of unity, there are so many ways to divide people, but this project unites people in a real physical sense. This Council Chamber filled with those who would like to raise their voices in celebration of home town pride and spirit, he felt was unprecedented. He could come up with dozens of reasons to do this. Pride is an intangible; it is a feeling. What this does is allow us to package the feeling. He understands that 11 other CIn" COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE6.ULAR MEETIN6. April 9, 1996 PAGE 180 .' Dublins will be visiting here in 1998 and also understands that not one of them has an official city anthem. He requested that the Council move forward with this. . Cm. Burton complimented Steve for his good organization of this project. Cm. Barnes felt the whole point is to bring the City together. She likes the idea of having the Chambers filled with 150 people singing and would also like to see us give tapes to someone for a fund-raiser; i.e., the Heritage Center, schools, library, etc. We could help some other organization in town. Mr. Stewart also suggested involving another segment of the community with an artwork contest in the schools. Mayor Houston stated he felt the 150 or ZOO people might pay to be on the tape. It could be a fund-raiser to get it done. He would have a hard time finding $5,000 in the City's budget for this item, but felt there are probably enough people who would pay to participate. It should be done through groups in the community. Cm. Moffatt asked if there is any discretionary money left over from Dublin Pride Week. Mr. Honse replied that we spent pretty much all of the funds allocated. , . .. Cm. Moffatt felt the City should go forward with this project. The City can turn around and use the tapes to develop some funds to partially cover the costs. He pointed out that Mr. Stewart will be donating his time. The tapes, recording studio and musicians are the cost factors here. He suggested that maybe we could use our hometown band instead of hiring musicians. Mr. Stewart stated his experience had been that a professional recording would be more accepted. Cm. Barnes felt the professional aspect was appealing. The names of the people in the chorus would be listed on the jacket. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote (Cm. Howard absent), the Council instructed Staff to place this request as a budget item in June for discussion and consideration with the FY 1996-97 budget. Mayor Houston voted in opposition of the motion. .".........."..'....'..'+....'....."..'."""'..... . CIn" COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REEiULAR MEETINEi A..prll 9, :J..996 PAGE 181 PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 9.28 OF THE DMC - QUIMBY ACT ORDINANCE 7:41 p.m. 6.1 (390-h20) b' h . .' , Mayor Houston opened t e pu lIe earmg. Parks & Community Services Director Lowart presented the Staff Report and advised that this chapter of the Dublin Municipal Code requires that each subdivider of land classified by the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance for residential use shall as a condition to filing a final subdivision map, dedicate or reserve lands, pay fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for neighborhood and community park or recreational purposes. The Ordinance was introduced at the City Council meeting on ,March 26, 1996. Cm. Moffatt asked when this fee would be due. Ms. Lowart responded at the filing of the subdivision map. No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 6 - 96 . AMENDING SECTIONS 9.28.040, 9.28.050 AND 9.28.060 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE (QUIMBY ACT - PARKLAND DEDICATION) ''''''''---..''''''''''''+''''''.- ---,..."""" PUBLIC HEARING - REDUCTION OF RENTAL AVAILABILITY RENTAL IN-LIEU FEE AMOUNT AND CONSIDERATION OF RENTAL AVAILABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR DONLAN CANYON PROJECT - 7:44 p.m. 6.2 (430-20) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Carrington presented the Staff Report and stated this item deals with consideration of reducing the In-Lieu Rental Fee from $10,808 to $986.24 and requests direction on how to condition projects and agreements with regard to the Rental Availability Ordinance. Crn COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING April 9, :1996 PAGE 182 . r""'., ..: "..:-;"--.. .~ . Mr. Carrington explained that the City Attorney has concluded that the final map for the Donlan Canyon project cannot be amended to remove the condition requiring compliance with the rental availability requirements until the General Plan is amended to delete these requirements. Mr. Carrington stated two options are available to refund the Rental In-Lieu Fees if the City does amend its General Plan. The first would be to enter into an agreement with Kaufman & Broad, the developer of Donlan Canyon, whereby the City agrees to refund the Rental In-Lieu Fees when and if the General Plan and Municipal Code are amended to delete the rental availability requirements. The second option would be to amend the condition of the tentative map which requires compliance with the rental availability requirements to allow the subdivider to pay the Rental In-Lieu Fees at a later point in time (i.e., one year after the last unit is finaled) if the General Plan has not yet been amended. The second option requires a noticed public hearing. Cm. Burton asked if any consideration had been given to the accrued interest. Mr. Ambrose stated they haven't paid yet because the fee hasn't been established. This would have to be worked out as part of the agreement between K&B and the City. It would be brought back to the City Council. Assistant City Attorney Jarvis stated when we collect the fee under option 2, it would be placed in an account. Cm. Burton asked if the ownership changes and they haven't paid it is this one of the failings of option 2 that you could have change of ownership or bankruptcy. How does that fly as far as who will pick up the tab? Can it go with the land? Mr. Carrington stated it would go with the land. Whoever buys the land inherits this obligation. Matt Koart, K&B stated either option is acceptable to them. They would be more than happy to waive any interest they would be entitled to. Staff has committed to him with a handshake. Cm. Burton commented that it does pay to have the Mayor on your side. Mayor Houston felt we do have it in the General Plan now, so lowering the amount is acceptable and stated he would go for option 2 and if it is still here after a year, it would have to come back to the City Council. cn"}" COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE6ULAR MEETIN6 April 9, :I.996 PAGE 183 Cm. Burton felt we need to be consistent with everyone. He did not see a problem with option 1. It is prudent for us to have the money on something we have in our code now. What if the next City Council doesn't go along with this? ._ Mayor Houston explained he felt the difference is, this is going to go away. Staff has researched this and done their homework. This is going away in 3 or 4 months. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. Cm. Burton made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Moffatt to adopt Option 1 and pay interest. Assistant City Attorney Jarvis asked if the City Council was directing Staff to negotiate with K&B The agreement would formalize the arrangement. Cm. Burton yes Staff should negotiate an agreement. Cm. Moffatt stated he would not support this. It should go into an account and we refund it. We're just entering into an agreement with K&B. Cm. Burton restated his motion to adopt the resolution revising the rental in-lieu fee to $986.24 and to instruct Staff to enter into an agreement to refund fees to K&B when and if the rental availability requirement is deleted. This motion was seconded by Mayor Houston who clarified that with Option # 1, if and when we delete this .~. ordinance they will get their money back. Mayor Houston stated hopefully, this ordinance will be gone before someone else comes m. Mr. Ambrose stated this is a condition of their map so this agreement would provide assurance that they will get a refund. Cm. Barnes asked what's wrong with Option #2. Why incur an added expense if we are so sure in a reasonable time we will take care of this? Cm. Burton felt at election time, the make up of the City Council could change. He stated either one was okay with him. Cm. Barnes felt they were talking about the City's money and a minor expense. Cm. Burton suggested paying the expenses out of the interest. crIT COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 aEGULAa MEETING .April 9, ~99G PAGE 184 .- Cm. Moffatt felt K&B was willing to pay the fee and put it in a separate account. If it's not used after a certain period of time, it is refunded. If the City Council changes and there is thought to keep the funds, the City Council would be protecting a future Council. e.; On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Mayor Houston, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 40 - 96 APPROVING REDUCTION OF IN-LIEU RENTAL FEE AMOUNT and selected Option 1 (enter into an agreement with K&B where the City agrees to refund the Rental In-Lieu Fees when and if the General Plan and Municipal Code are amended to delete the rental availability requirement) with an added stipulation that the City will pay interest on the money. .".,.""'''''.--.------.~,..".''''''''''''''''.,.,. PUBLIC HEARING - REVISION TO EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEEl AREA OF BENEFIT FEE 8:01 p.m. 6.3 (390-20) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. e:' Public Works Director Thompson stated the City Council has directed Staff to periodically review and update the Traffic Impact Fee. The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan were adopted by the City in 1993. The GPA outlines future land use plans for the 4,176 acre eastern Dublin sphere of influence. " Approximately 13,906 dwelling units and 9.737 million square feet of commercial/officelindustrial development are anticipated in the GPA area, in addition to parks, open space and institutional uses. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provides more specific detailed goals, policies and action programs for the 3,313 acre portion of the GP A nearest the City. Approximately 2,744 acres to the east of the City's sphere of influence are designated on the Land Use Map as "Future Study Area". The GPA does not outline future land uses in this area and this area was not considered in developing the Traffic Impact Fee. Mr. Thompson eXplained that TJKM prepared a revised report which updates the Barton-Aschman Study. A separate report was prepared by Santina & Thompson which provides updated estimates of the cost of constructing the improvements which are included in Categories 1 and 2 of the Study. T]KM's Study Update and Santina & Thompson's updated cost estimates incorporate changes based on last year's comments from the public. e: CITY COUNCIL MINtJTf:S VOLUME 15 RE6ULAR MEETIN6 A.prll 9, 1996 PAGE 185 The major concerns by developers at the initial approval of the Eastern Dublin TIF, and that were deferred to this first update were: 1) The developers east of Tassajara Road were concerned that the values assigned to their properties for the determination of e- ':, fees and for reimbursement and credit for building improvements and dedicating right-of-way was too low compared to the property west of Tassajara Road. 2) There was concern by the representatives of the Pao Lin property that the assigned traffic trip rate for the Town Center was too high and that there were only two tiers of residential density used to spread the trip rates and costs. Mr. Thompson stated the Study Update and Cost Estimate Report Update conclude that the total cost of all TIF improvements attributed to the SP/GPA areas rose by approximately $20 million from $101,444,240 to $121,995,379 and are broken down as follows: Category 1 Improvements (100% SP Area): Category 2 Improvements (Outside SP Area-Local): Category 3 Improvements (Regional): Resolution No. 1-95 TIF $ 71,911,500 $ 19,118,740 $ 10,414,000 $101,444,240 Proposed Revised TIF $ 85,351,314 $ 25,570,473 $ 11,073.592 $121,995,379 Mr. Thompson explained that the Traffic Impact Fee revisions are the result of more detailed studies, updated land values, inflation, changes in land use categories and interest on funds already advanced. This item was continued from the City Council meetings of January 23, February 27 and March 26, 1996, to receive additional e: comments from property owners and to incorporate those comments into the report. Mr. Thompson stated the amount of the fee would be adjusted if the City Council adopts a Regional Transportation Fee as recommended by the Tri - Valley Transportation Council for regional improvements. It is anticipated that such a fee would replace the Category 3 component of the fee. The fee could also be adjusted as a result of Staff negotiations for a TIF with Contra Costa County. In summary, Mr. Thompson stated copies of the public hearing notice, draft Staff Report and draft resolution were mailed to all East Dublin property owners on January 9, 1996, in addition to the required public notice which was published. Revised reports were mailed on April 5, 1996. Cm. Moffatt asked about commercial and if they will be charged on the basis of per- trip. Mr. Thompson stated this was correct; it's the same as it was last time. Crn' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME. t 5 REGULAR ME.ETING April 9, ::1..996 PAGE 186 e. .'..,' " .::\ . ..-:"'"... Mayor Houston asked about regional components and what they are and the total amount of monies to be raised for regional projects. Mr. Thompson referenced Table 2-4 of the TJKM report. Eastern Dublin would be assessed for the 1-580/1-680 Interchange Project, $1.332 million, for the 1-580 Auxiliary Lanes, $4.810 million, State Route 84 would be $720 million, and Improve Transit Service at $4.212 million. Mayor Houston commented we also have the Hacienda and Tassajara Road improvements under a separate agreement. William D. Ross, Attorney (425 Sherman Avenue, Suite 310, Palo Alto, 94306) representing Allwin Development, owner of property in town center area, addressed the Council. Allwin Development presently opposes the adoption. TJKM has represented several landowners in the area. There is presently nothing in the record to establish the independence of judgment on the part of TJKM. AB 1600, Government Code Section 66000 and the Dolan standard were mentioned and a case cited. TJKM's memo dated March 12 was referenced. Mr. Ross discussed an example in the Santa Clara County plan. The matter before the City Council should be based on an engineering analysis. The City is taking a unique position and one they are not aware of specifically with regard to objectivity. In the April 1 communication of CCS a comprehensive analysis is set forth as to why their position is justified. Government Code Section 65 I 04.b was referenc~d and they feel there is no comprehensive consistency in the City's plan. Goals and policies of traffic and circulation are analyzed comprehensively. Affordable housing also relates to the findings of the Government Code. Allwin Development requested that the matter be continued to address these matters. They request notification of any future updates. Chwen Siripocanont with CCS Planning & Engineering discusseci. their correspondence with City Staff. They received comments from City Staff and then met to discuss the comments. One of the major comments was that Staff felt the town center was no different from other areas in the SP. CCS requests an additional 30% reduction in trip generation for the Town Center as they feel that having a mixed, high density use will greatly reduce the amount of vehicle trips. They submitted another letter on April 1 with all the justifications for supporting their request. She showed several slides summarizing their assumptions. She discussed the definition of medium density as spelled out in the Specific Plan; the assumption is 10 units per acre. CMA adopted a policy in Santa Clara County to encourage transit usage and they allow up to 30% and they requested that this percentage apply to the Town Center area. Cm. Moffatt asked if the figures were based on the Santa Clara County and Virginia area that she referenced. crIT' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME. 15 RE6ULAR MEE.TIN6 April 9, :1..996 PAGE 187 Ms. Siripocanont stated a firm commissioned by CMA conducted extensive research in Santa Clara County about 4 or 5 years ago. Cm. Moffatt asked if they have the same percentage of overpasses and new highways that we are required to do. . Ms. Siripocanont stated Santa Clara is more of a suburban type community and people there primarily are driving. This is an incentive for people going into the area. The survey was done in the 80's in Brandenmill, Virginia. As traffic engineers they have to take what's in the ITE handbook. Mayor Houston asked about the Santa Clara County CMA numbers stating they permit a maximum of 30%. What percentages have actually been granted? Ms. Siripocanont stated if it is within a quarter mile of transit facility they are allowed to take 30%. Mayor Houston asked her to explain the applicability of Van Ness in San Francisco to this situation. Ms. Siripocanont stated a very high density commercial is why they look at this high extreme. This area is not served directly by BART. Commercial along Van Ness is sort of like a transit spine. Mr. Thompson stated when the plan was originally before the Council there was some . kind of a transit spine and this was changed to make it a 4 lane street. If you give a ' 30% reduction in this area, you will have to push it into commercial and other residential. We already have a fee with a higher generation rate. We may want to look at some of the issues Mr. Ross brought up. Mayor Houston stated presently we have areas for buses with turnouts, and he asked if this is similar to what will be out in this area? Mr. Thompson stated it will be similar to what we currently have in Dublin. Cm. Moffatt felt transit improvements in the past have been borne by the developers. Mr. Ambrose pointed out the fact that the City is currently processing plans for single family housing and there is a lot of product that is single family detached housing; 7- 14 units per acre is not necessarily townhouses. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. crn' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING .A..prll. 9, I99G PAGE 188 . .' .' '. Cm. Burton asked if we can we say what the numbers will be. There seems to be an inconsistency with what is being challenged. Mr. Thompson stated we are seeing some different housing types than what we have seen in the past. Carl Springer with TJKM commented with regard to the 30% reduction. This is the top of the scale in the policy in Santa Clara County, and this is as much as you can discount. Their policy allows up to that much. The whole analysis structure is geared toward short term impact. The numbers have to be warranted; they don't just give carte blanche. They are trying to give the City a reasonable average. Their role in this project was simply as a calculator. They made very little engineering judgment. Cm. Burton stated he was aware that this is very subjective. This is a very expensive proposition and he asked how we would stand if somebody challenges us and takes us to court. Are we on safe ground to actually set figures that are very subjective? Mr. Jarvis advised if we get charged in court, the court will defer to our records and how we arrived at our decision and if it was backed up by the record. Mr. Springer discussed the starting rates to generate the model. Cm. Burton asked if we are comparable with San Ramon, Livermore, etc. Mr. Springer stated he wasn't familiar with what their fees are. Cm. Moffatt felt this is consistent with what the TVTC has looked at. What we have here is considerably less than what was discussed by this group in the past. This is a little bit more of a realistic way to apply the mitigation fees. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Howard absent), the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 41 - 96 REVISING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE AND AREA OF BENEFIT FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE EASTERN DUBLIN AREA, AS PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION NO. 1-95 .,""""""""""""",.,.,"',.+.,""""'"',',',"".,"." CI1Y COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 Rt:6ULAR MEt:TIN6 April 9, :1.996 PAGE 189 INTERSTATE 580/680 DIRECT CONNECTOR (MEASURE B) PROJECT - 8:50 p.m. 8.1 (800-30) City Manager Ambrose presented the Staff Report and advised that this project was approved by the voters in their adoption of Measure B in 1986. The project replaces the existing southbound 1-680 to eastbound 1-580 loop with a flyover ramp connecting 1-680 southbound directly to 1-580 eastbound. The project also includes hookramps from 1-680 into Downtown Dublin. ACTA has identified Dublin's fair share of the required Local Match as $2,038,500 of which the City has already paid $111,700 to date, resulting in a remaining balance of $1,926,800. Dublin's Local Match share would increase if other Tri-Valley agencies do not commit to their share of the project's cost. .'.:' Executive Director of ACTA Vince Harris introduced his legal counsel, Bertha Ontiveros with the law firm Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean, Christine Monsen, Deputy Director of ACTA, Eugenie Thomson, the Authority's Transportation Engineer and Tom Wintch, Design Manager for the 1-580/1-680 project. As indicated, the 580/680 project is part of the projects approved by the voters by Measure B in 1986. For this particular project, the matching funds are $10 million. Eugenie Thomson discussed the benefits of the project and explained why Dublin was assessed $1.9 million. The project will carry some major benefits for Dublin. A cloverleaf simply doesn't suffice for 250,000 vehicles per day. This is a high accident location. Cm. Moffatt asked if Danville and San Ramon were also assessed in this model. e::. '. ~ Ms. Thomson stated they calculated their benefits also. Pleasanton is paying for their share of the ramps. Tom Wintch discussed the specifics of the connector street. Cm. Burton asked how much parking would be taken away from the Good Guys. Mr. Wintch stated approximately 14' of right-of-way will be taken. He did not have the number of parking stalls but felt they were impacting fewer than 10 parking stalls. They will provide the owners with a realigned parking diagram and show ways to recover some of the lost spaces. The roadway has not yet been named. They currently refer to it as BRX. Mr. Harris stated they have talked about the Authority's proposal as they talk to the TVTC membership. Livermore, Danville and San Ramon have taken actions to participate through a TVTC impact fee program. The Contra Costa County jurisdiction remains at the level as proposed and Dublin, Pleasanton and Alameda County provide CIIT COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE6.ULAR MEETING April 9, 1996 PAGE 190 .':, .~~. .. .. , .' . the balance of the shortfall. The Authority has no recourse under the law if the local match of $10 million is not funded. This is not Staffs recommendation. Cm. Moffatt asked about a time limit set when a decision would have to be made by all entities involved. Mr. Harris stated they view this in terms of total monies. The best case scenario, in order for construction to start in 1997 would be to get the entire commitment by July of this year. They must go through quite a negotiation process with Caltrans. The next best case would be to see the commitments by October. The worst case scenario would be to not get the commitments by the end of the year. Slippage costs about $3.5 million which is significant. Mr. Ambrose discussed how Dublin will fund its $1.9 million. We have 4 sources. Downtown Mitigation Fees, BART Mitigation Fees, in fee title property from the Eneas, and lastly the Eastern Dublin TIF. The first 3 sources we have obligated and have funds in hand. With respect to the Eastern Dublin TIF, many of the property owners initially aren't going to be paying us any fees within the time constraints that the Authority needs. They (ACTA) go out of existence in the year 2002. The money has to be on the table no later than 2000. The City Council intends to defease the Civic Center debt in 1999 and this would free up about $1 million after that time. One option looked at would be to commit these funds and then repay the General Fund as Eastern Dublin traffic impact fees come in. We would need to sit down with ACTA to negotiate a payment plan. At this time we should only commit to what our fair share is. We still have time to work with other agencies to pay their fair share. Mr. Ambrose stated given that the participation of other entities in the Tri-Valley is presently uncertain, and there is a possibility that their participation could change or could modify the results of the Local Match .required, Staff recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution committing only to its fair share of $1,926,800 at this time and authorize Staff to negotiate an agreement with ACTA which provides for a payment schedule. If the circumstances necessary to fund this project change in the next several months, Staff would propose that that change be brought back to the Council at a later time. Cm. Burton asked how much money is not being paid by the other agencies. Mr. Ambrose answered about $1.6 million. Mr. Harris stated Pleasanton has taken no formal action at this time. They don't know what Pleasanton plans to do at this time. Cll')' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME. 15 <<EGULA<< MEETING A.prll 9, ::1..996 PAGE 191 Mr. Ambrose stated the City Council has by adopting the TIF, committed future funds for the Highway 84 project. Mayor Houston felt if we don't work together and pool funds we can't get as many e projects done. Cooperation is important. Our TIF has a regional element. We are authorizing funds for Highway 84 and are committed to this. He is the representative on TVTC and stated he would like direction from the Council to make Highway 84 as the next priority project. This does benefit us also. It's another ACTA project that we have a shortfall on. We need to make that a priority as number two. The 580/680 project is number one. Also, he would like us to consider encouraging other cities to adopt an impact fee. He distributed a political cartoon showing the developer fees pot as empty because no one is collecting. We need everybody to adopt a traffic impact fee and it can be adjusted when the regional fee is put into place. We should send a copy of our ordinance to others and tell them they need to do this. When the regional fee is put into place, they can adjust. Mr. Ambrose stated Pleasanton very strongly wanted the West Dublin BART station ahead of Highway 84. They have $1 1/2 million in this project. Livermore has $700,000. Mayor Houston felt they still have to go back to the TVTC. Livermore feels they aren't getting anything or receiving a return on their investment. We need to make some overture to listen to what Livermore has to say. Mr. Harris stated they will continue to work with other jurisdictions. They also ask that this body assist them in working with the other jurisdictions. They need to get the others back to the table. e:- Mayor Houston stated everybody at the TVTC has agreed that 580/680 is the top priority project. Cm. Burton stated he would support Mayor Houston's request if the Western BART station were placed as priority number three. The initial impact of the BART station on our City will be tremendous. Mayor Houston pointed out that when Highway 84 is improved, this helps us also. On motion of Mayor Houston, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 42 - 96 APPROVING CONTRIBUTION TO THE 1-580/1-680 DIRECT CONNECTOR PROJECT crn' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE6ULAa MEETIN6 April 9, ::1..996 PAGE 192 . '.-:-;;, . .<~':<"" , , .'" , ' The motion also included, "authorize commitment to local match, authorize the City Manager and Staff to work with ACTA on payment schedule and give direction to make a motion that Highway 84 be the next priority project, also send letter to jurisdictions speaking of regional impact fee and suggest they follow our model until the regional fee is put into play and support and encourage ACTA in any way we can to get the projects into play." "''''''''.'''''''''''' APPROVAL OF MASTER CONSULTANT CONTRACTS ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS FOR OVERFLOW SERVICES IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 9:39 p.m. 8.2 (600-30) Community Services Director Peabody explained that with the acceleration of new development projects in both Western and Eastern Dublin, and the requirements related to Eastern Dublin Implementation Measures, the Community Development Department has contracted with numerous outside consulting firms on a project-by- project basis. Anticipated workloads over the next year dictate we retain ongoing consultant firms to handle overflow work. Consultant rates are $65 per hour and all charges are to be funded through direct developer fees for major planned development applications or as approved Planning Division budgetary projects in the 96-97 Budget. The contracts would be with 4 firms: Stevenson, Porto and Pierce, Inc. (Planning); Cannon Design Group (Planning); Jerry Haag and Associates (Planning); and Sycamore Associates (Biologists). Mr. Peabody explained that each of the contracts contain provisions that the consultant will only work on a time-and-materials basis at the direction of the Community Development Director. No work will be done without expressed permission and all costs will be charged to the Community Development Department budget in accordance with costs associated with that project. Cm. Burton asked if he had worked with all of these consultants and who will do the oversight? Mr. Peabody responded yes, except for the biologist. He explained how the budgeting will work. He will oversee the contracts. Cm. Moffatt stated he was pleased to see this type of arrangement set up to do extra work be done as we need it. This is a terrific idea. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the Agreements for Professional Services with: 1) Stevenson, Porto and Pierce, Inc.; 2) Cannon Design Group; 3) Jerry Haag and Associates; and 4) Sycamore Associates and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreements. '"'''''''''''.''''''' crn' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REG.ULAR MEETING. April 9, ISSG PAGE 193 AGREEMENT WITH SINGER, HODGES & EVANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A PARKS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR EASTERN DUBLIN 9:46 p.m. 8.3 (600-30) Parks & Community Services Director Lowart stated in order to process the planning applications that are being submitted for Eastern Dublin, and to insure that park and recreational facilities are being provided for in accordance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan, it is essential to have a parks implementation plan in place. To complete the parks implementation plan in a timely manner, Staff is recommending that a consultant be retained to assist in the development of the plan. .' 'Ms. Lowart stated Staff proposes to enter into a Consultant Services Agreement with Singer, Hodges & Evans for the development of a Parks Implementation Plan for Eastern Dublin. The proposed fee for services is $6,200 and the fee will be recovered through the collection of the public facilities fee in Eastern Dublin. Mr. Ambrose pointed out that we went through a lot of discussion with the public facilities fee and this will fit in with the public facilities impact fee and direction given to resolve some of the issues. Cm. Moffatt asked if it would be appropriate to carry this over to western Dublin and Schaefer Ranch. Ms. Lowart felt at this time they should concentrate on Eastern Dublin. .::. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the Agreement with Singer, Hodges & Evans, authorized the Mayor to execute same, and approved the Budget Change Form. .""'.......__._,......."'.~.,.,..,._. POLICE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SERVICES 9:48 p.m. 8.5 (600-40) City Manager Ambrose stated in order to process development review applications in a timely manner and provide recommendations to improve security to new projects and to minimize the potential for crime to occur, the Police Chief has recommended that the City secure the services of Sgt. Dave DiFranco on a part-time basis for the next several months. The additional cost for these plan review services would not exceed $19,000 and costs would be recovered through project application fees. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the City Manager to secure additional services from the Sheriffs Department to provide plan review for upcoming development projects during the CI1Y COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME t 5 REGULAR MEETING .A.prll 9, 1996 PAGE 194 . /~-:- .. .'" e'" . remainder of FY 1995-96 and authorized an additional appropriation from New Revenues in the amount of $19,000. "". u,,,,,,, ."'" OTHER BUSINESS 9:51 p.m. LAVWMA/East Bay Dischargers Authority 0030-30) Mr. Ambrose stated we have been informed by DSRSD that they intend to terminate the mediation services as a result of the last LA VWMA meeting. We are also a party to the agreement. Most of the services are related to the LA VWMA project for sewer expansion. The Pleasanton City Council recently took action which was not in accordance with direction that DSRSD and Dublin was going with regard to sewer services. The District feels that based on this action there is no need to pursue mediation services any further. We thought we were close to agreement and we proposed a lot of different alternatives which were rejected by a majority of the Pleasanton City Council. Pleasanton has indicated they will pursue their alternative with the East Bay Dischargers Authority to downsize the pipe. .. Tri-Vallev Planning Committee (420-50) Mr. Ambrose stated we've had some indication that other agencies want to get going on the TV Planning Committee. Staff will bring this back to the Council. Cm. Burton stated his feeling that we have enough cooks in the kitchen already. ,.'. ' ABAG Dues Increase 040-10) Cm. Moffatt advised of an ABAG meeting coming up and they are requesting a 2.8% increase in dues and also they have some cleanup motions for their bylaws. The dues increase has been budgeted, so he wanted to let everyone know that he would support this on behalf of Dublin. """''''.''''''''''.'''''' crn' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING April 9, 1996 PAGE 195 BART Safety Issues & Tour of New Station 0060-30) Cm. Barnes stated she was concerned last Wednesday night regarding the BART accident on top of the Dublin grade. Something appears to be a little wrong with 2 separate accidents and cars becoming airborne and cars landing on the tracks. What's wrong? Why does a vehicle go airborne? Do we need to build a higher fence? e:, Mayor Houston said he heard a truck hit a car and that launched it. Cm. Barnes reiterated that in both cases, the cars landed on the tracks. There will be BART trains on those tracks soon. Mr. Ambrose stated we can raise the issue with both Caltrans and BART. Cm. Moffatt asked Lt. Gomes about the new speed law of 65 mph and asked if trucks are supposed to go 55 mph. Lt. Gomes stated in theory trucks aren't supposed to go over 55 mph. Cm. Moffatt asked if there is any way we can get the CHP to give more enforcement over the Dublin grade. Lt. Gomes advised that this would have to be presented to the station commander He wasn't sure what the limit is on the hill. .,': Mayor Houston felt maybe everyone needs to talk about this. Adjacent to a BART track maybe a 55 mph limit would be more appropriate. Mayor Houston stated he recently talked with Michael Dunn with BART and some dates were suggested for the City Council to take a tour of the new station. The suggested dates were either April 23, 24 or 25. They are suggesting a morning tour at 9 a.m. He pointed out that April 24 is Secretaries Day. The City Council determined that the best day would be Tuesday, April 23. Mayor Houston said they suggested that they meet at the end of Scarlett Court, put on hard hats and walk in. ..........._-_.,...........~.---_........,.....,_..,,., crn' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 8EGULA8 MEETING April 9, 1996 PAGE 196 . . i) . ADJOURNMENT 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:02 p.m. -"-------.~"""..". A TrEST: Mayor City Clerk ""'."".+."""""""'" CIn' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME t 5 REGULAR MEETIN6 April 9, 1996 PAGE 197 REGULAR MEETING - April 23, 1996 A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, April 23, 1996, in .'.' the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m., by Mayor Houston. '-.""'+. ',,' ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Barnes, Burton, Howard, Moffatt and Mayor Houston. ABSENT: None .'", """'''''''''~.'''''''''''''''''' PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Houston led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ....",,,,,.,,,,.,,,, ',..'''". PROCLAMATIONS 7:04 p.m. 3.1 (610-50) Mayor Houston read a proclamation declaring May 1, 1996 "Loyalty Day" and urged all individuals to display proudly the Flag of the United States of America and to .:: participate in public patriotic Loyalty Day activities. No one was present to accept the Proclamation. 3.2 (610-50) Mayor Houston read a proclamation declaring April 21-27, 1996 "Fraternal Week" and urged citizens to lend their support for the contributions made by the fraternal benefit system. John Avila, representing the Luso American Fraternal Organization accepted the Proclamation, and stated this is the Portuguese American Society. They are headquartered here in Dublin. They operate in several states. He accepted this on behalf of all fraternal organizations. """""",.,"',.,--+.,""""',',. CONSENT CALENDAR 7:08 p.m. 4.1 through 4.9 On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Cln' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME. t 5 REGULAR MEE.TING April 23, 1996 PAGE 198 .- . '." . .:: . ...r-:-.-. , .' Approved (4.1) Minutes of Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session Meeting of March 19, 1996. (Cln. Burton cOlnmented he felt the 1l1inutes were well done.) Adopted (4.2 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 43 - 96 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTING CONTRACT WITH WPM PLANNING TEAM FOR RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR FOR SCHAEFER RANCH authorized the City Manager to execute the $15,750 amendment to the agreement, and approved a $39,945 Budget Change Form amending the Planning Department Professional Services budget; Adopted (4.3 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 44 - 96 AWARDING CONTRACT 96-03 ANNUAL STREET SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM TO GRAHAM CONTRACTORS ($36,123.88) and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement; Received (4.4 320-30) the City Treasurer's Investment Report for the first quarter of 1996 showing the City's investment portfolio at $22,634,236.14, with funds invested at an annual average yield of 5.738%; Accepted (4.5 150-70) a gift of $150 from the Murray Elementary School Parent Faculty Club to be used to purchase extra equipment and games for the Afterschool Recreation Program; directed Staff to prepare a formal acknowledgment to the donor; and approved the Budget Change Form; Accepted (4.7 600-30) the recommendation of the City Council Audit Subcommittee and authorized the Mayor to execute an agreement with Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., for audit services for FY1995-96; Received (4.8 330-50) the Financial Report for month ending March, 1996; Approved (4.9 300-40) the Warrant Register in the amount of $717,090.95; Cm. Burton pulled Item 4.6 from the Consent Calendar regarding repairs to the sally port and stated it appeared.we are throwing $10)000 at this. Wiule there may be a situation he CIn" COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING .April 23, 1996 PAGE 199 doesn't understand, he was sure many cities don't have this type of a system. How often do we have criminals that might be running away? The Council struggles over spending $10,000 many times a year over many different things. . Chief Rose stated he felt we have a tremendous risk by not having the sally port functional. We have a situation where we have to bring inmate prisoners in through the employee's entrance through the back We jeopardize the safety of employees. We have had occasions where officers have been flipped on their butts and knocked into the walls. There is potential for office personnel and/or citizens to be harmed We should be able to feel safe in our own building. With the condition the way it is, this is not the case. Cm. Burton stated most police departments don't have this type of a set up and maybe it is not necessary. Chief Rose stated this is more than a garage door, and elaborated on the way the sally port operates and functions. Mr. Ambrose stated it is an electronic problem. The whole building is designed so the security system is electronic. We have tried with our Staff and we simply can't fix it. This renders our holding cells useless. Cm. Moffatt commented that he felt a lawsuit would be more than $10,000 11 we had problems. This is a small amount to pay for the safety of our people. , On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Mayor Houston, and by unanimous vote, the .': City Council authorized (4.6 200-20) Staff to prepare a purchase order with McMillan Technology for the repair of the Civic Center Sally Port; and approved Budget Change Form for additional appropriation of $6,924 from unallocated reserves to the Building Management Operating Budget. (The total estimated cost for evaluation and repair is $10,424.) ".."..------....'.......,+.".......... WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - PROPOSED CAMP PARKS SOCCER FIELD 7:16 p.m. 5.1 (950-60) Parks & Community Services Director Lowart stated the Dublin United Soccer League (DUSL), plans to develop soccer fields on approximately 20 acres of Camp Parks land over the next 3 to 5 years. The first phase of the project is scheduled to begin in May of 1996, and consists of development of one regulation -sized soccer field using approximately two acres of the available land. The estimated cost of the field will be approximately $35,000. DUSL has secured $15,000 in funding for the project and is requesting that the City fund the balance of $20,000. It is the intent of DUSL to mount a capital funding campaign to raise the additional funds needed to complete the build- out of the 20 acres. At this time, DUSL does not anticipate that the City of Dublin would be asked to contribute additional funds to the project. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE6ULAR MEETING April 23, 1996 PAGE 200 . .I....~.... .~ . ... . Ms. Lowart discussed Staffs concerns which related to the project schedule and the agreement between Camp Parks and DUSL. Although Staff understands that the Army's first allegiance is to the reserve units who occupy the base, the City has a responsibility to its citizens to insure that funds are expended in a responsible manner. Ms. Lowart stated if the City Council is supportive of this request, Staff should be directed to assist DUSL in negotiating an agreement with the Army which would address the areas of concern and protect the interests of both the City and DUSL. An additional appropriation from the Unappropriated Reserves will be necessary should the project be approved. Cm. Burton asked if the Army would get to use the fields as well. Would there be some scheduling guarantees? Ms. Lowart stated yes, and to a certain degree we would want to give some preference to the soccer league. Mr. Ambrose stated the MOU is fairly vague with respect to maintenance issues. If we put $30,000 into a facility we want to make sure it is protected from a maintenance standpoint. These are important issues and we need to go in with our eyes open. Eric Swalwell, President of DUSL stated anything the City can offer to solve the problems will definitely be appreciated. He gave background information on the project. They want to present a project that can benefit all the people of Dublin. The City's contribution will help maintain existing fields. Adib Nassar made a presentation covering: Project Scope, Current Situation, The Problem, The Opportunity, Additional Benefits, Phases of the Project, Phase 1 - Cost Estimate, Schedule of Expenditures & Funding, Phase 1 - Project Timeline, and The Request. He displayed a map showing the location where they will start. DUSL will install the fields and Camp Parks will maintain the fields. They hope to have opening day on September 7, 1996. Cm. Burton asked if there will be a limitation regarding who else can use the field. Mr. Nassar stated bulk of games are from August through December, but they need practice time also. If the fields are available, they could be used by others. Cm. Burton stated he did not want to get into exclusive arrangements with one group. Mr. Nassar stated it is everybody's dream to have a soccer complex here in Dublin, and their attitude is if it's available, why not let others use it. ern' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME. 15 RE.6ULAR MEETIN6 A..prll 23, 1996 PAGE 201 Cm. Moffatt asked if DUSL is part of CYSA. Mr. Nassar stated yes it is. e: Cm. Moffatt asked what percentage of the kids using the field will be from Dublin. Mr. Nassar stated other leagues will be playing against us. About 1 to 3% of the games are Al Caffodio. Mr. Swalwell stated the idea is our 16 to 19 year olds would be using the facility because of safety factors. They would like to keep the younger ones, 14 to 16 in a more controlled facility at the Dublin Sports Grounds. About 95% would be Dublin users. Colonel Bain offered some technical information. DOD offers private organizations to obtain a permit or lease or license to utilize government property. This is a lengthy process. It has to go up the chain of command. If you are looking at a long range plan, he would recommend this type. There is a short range plan that allows the local commander to enter into a local private organization arrangement and work up a MOA where the group serves as an adjunct to the Army's recreational activities. The Army will abide with a schedule for use. There were conflicts in the past because there were no official schedules. Coordination to come up with the schedule is a critical part of the MOA and would have to be signed off by all parties concerned. The Army is in the process of doing major construction at Camp Parks. The area in e.: questions has no plans for other development within the next 20 years. The soccer league would be responsible for laying out the fields and then the Army would maintain them. They would keep them cut, repair the irrigation systems and keep them eligible to be used. He stated he had not spoken with Mr. Nassar about the snackbars, but these would have to be run by the Army. If we look at a long range plan, his recommendation would be to consider a lease or license or permit. If we look at a 5 year plan to get started, a local commander can sign a MOA. Mayor Houston asked if this is common in other areas. Colonel Bain stated it is very common. This is the reason the Army put together a regulation for this. Mayor Houston asked for clarification that right now there is no 20 year plan for this area. Cm. Moffatt discussed short range versus long range plan. Bain stated most licenses and! or permits are looked at every 2 years. CIn" COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE6ULAR MEETIN6 .April 23, 1996 PAGE 202 e ."'. , , .: .. Cm. Moffatt asked about the water costs and sewage costs and fertilizer costs. Colonel Bain replied yes to the first two, but they would not provide fertilizer. Cm. Moffatt asked if an EIR would be required. Colonel Bain stated they have an environmental assessment on this property. Cm. Moffatt asked about the owls and if they are on any list to be saved. Colonel Bain stated they are on a protected list, but not endangered list. You can move these little critters to another burrow. Their diet consists of seeds and grain. Cm. Howard asked if a new commander could terminate this lease. Colonel Bain replied no, you negotiate with the Army Corps of Engineers. Mayor Houston felt this seems more lengthy so he questioned if we should look at this in tandem. We have a window of opportunity but at the same time should we apply for a longer situation. Colonel Bain stated his recommendation would be to go with Phase I with a MOA and then start working on a license or permit for the other phases. This agreement is not with him, but rather with the Army. Mayor Houston felt if we go through the process and it's not ready by September, he would not want the soccer groups to use it. We don't want to damage it and have to reseed immediately. We do, however, have to start sometime. He urged them to not start the scheduling for this next season. He would like the City to be involved with the agreement. This project is needed because at this time, we have no alternatives. When East Dublin develops, we will have facilities, but we don't right now. Cm. Burton stated there is a supposition that the other $15,000 will be donated. He asked what happens if they don't get this money. Mr. Swalwell stated they currently have $10,000 available and they are working with companies to get the other funds. Cm. Burton felt they may have to defer a season if they run short. He asked if they would be willing to waive starting in the Fall and going to the next year? Mr. Swalwell stated if the fields are not ready for appropriate use, they would not want to use the fields. CIn' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME t 5 REGULAR MEETING April 23, :1..996 PAGE 203 Mayor Houston felt the onus is on the organization to make sure the funds are available. Cm. Burton asked if they were counting on getting a booth for fireworks sales. . Mr. Swalwell stated they could dip into their funds to guarantee that Phase I could go forward. Cm. Moffatt asked if this had gone before the Parks & Community Services Commission. ,Ms. Lowart stated there was not time, but as part of the Commission's Goals & Objectives, they did approve the City working with Camp Parks to establish soccer fields. Cm. Moffatt asked if the City funding would come in phases or one fell swoop. Ms. Lowart felt we would probably write out a check at the appropriate time. Given the time frame it might be easier to have an agreement and give them the funds. Cm. Moffatt asked if under a worse case scenario we could prorate this in any way. He felt this could be a 10 to 20 year project. If it falls through in a year or two, could we get 80% of our money back? Ms. Lowart stated right now, we do not have an agreement with the DUSL or the Army and Staff would look for direction from the City Council. e: Cm. Moffatt felt all the agreements would probably take about 2 years knowing how fast government moves. Mayor Houston felt the obligation on the City would be irrigation. We could finance this from our unallocated reserves for this year and at budget time we may want to figure out where we take this from. We can work on this. The improvements will be in the ground and we can't get it back. It's crucial for the City to be involved right up front. Cm. Burton discussed the possibly of the agreement being with the City instead of the soccer league. This might be an advantage and then we could tie in the soccer league. They are the one thing that may not be here in 5 years. The City might be in a better position to carry the agreement with the Army. He complimented the way the citizens came prepared with their presentation and stated he was very pleased. CI1Y COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING. April 23, 1996 PAGE 204 . i Cm. Burton made a motion which was seconded by Cm. Howard, that the Council instruct that funding be provided from unallocated reserves and that the agreement is to be between the City and the Army with the soccer league as a participant as long as they meet their obligations. Cm. Moffatt offered an addendum to the motion that the City first gets into a MOA through Staff that we are happy with. A MOU is very important and he would like to see phasing. We should go with a short term lease with concept of going to a long term lease but it has to be with satisfaction of Staff. Mayor Houston felt we could work on both in tandem. Cm. Moffatt felt we have to at least have a MOU in place. Mr. Ambrose stated DUSL is only asking for a contribution for the first phase. The City would be a contributor and the City would have no liability because it is not our facility. They have not asked the City for funding for the additional phases. Does the City Council want to participate in just the first phase or do we want to assume a license and if we do, we have to assume some liability in the future. We need to look at the bigger picture. Mayor Houston stated the soccer people will be looking for other sources of funding. If we could get this license for 30 years, this may be something we want to pursue. What a big benefit this would be. . Mr. Ambrose asked if Staff should execute the MOU or if it should be brought back to the City Council. The City Council agreed that it be between Mr. Ambrose, Ms. Lowart and Colonel Bain. Mr. Ambrose felt the City should give them indication when the fields are ready to be played on. Staff would also work to commence a long term license. Cm. Burton stated he would expect that Phase I City money would be separate because we may not have any involvement in other fields. Ms. Lowart stated the soccer league also want to sit down with the City and discuss the overall master plan for the site. Cm. Burton suggested that the City stay involved and be the principal negotiators with the Army and the soccer people have an agreement with the City. If the soccer league moves out, we can have the field. '. CIn" COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE.GULAR ME.ETING ..A...prll 23, 1996 PAGE 205 Cm. Moffatt stated he would like to get the P&CS Commission involved as it seems they have been bypassed. Ms. Lowart stated DUSL wanted to go directly to the City Council. In future phases, they would open up discussions earlier. . Mayor Houston stated he would like to amend the motion that the MOU must be in place and then direct Staff to work with Army to investigate a long term situation. Cm. Burton felt the primary agreement at this stage should be between the City and the Army, and if the soccer league decides they want to move out, we haven't lost out. Mr. Ambrose stated the MOU could be written so that if one party drops out, it's clarified that the City is not initially responsible for maintenance. Ms. Silver stated youth soccer would have an agreement to use the field, but in order to protect the City's agreement, the City could step in. Mayor Houston restated the motion: funding is to be provided from unallocated reserves and a MOU must be in place for Phase I and Staff should work with the Army to investigate a long term situation. Cm. Burton agreed to the motion, and Cm. Howard who seconded the motion also said ~. . Cm. Moffatt asked if it will be spelled out regarding who does the scheduling. He also asked about fees for field use. Ms. Lowart stated the City will not do the scheduling for the first phase. Field use fees will be negotiated by Colonel Bain. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the request with $20,000 in funding to be provided from unallocated reserves. A MOU must be in place for Phase I. Staff was directed to work with the Army to investigate a long term situation. L.... uu,,+.""'" WRIITEN COMMUNICATIONS-REQUEST FROM AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY (ACS) FOR WAIVER OF USE FEES FOR THE REGIONAL MEETING ROOM 8:19 p.m. 5.2 (200-10) Parks & Community Services Director Lowart stated the City had received a request from Liz Schmitt, President of the Tri-Valley Unit of the ACS, requesting that use fees be waived for their annual volunteer recognition and award dinner to be held on crn' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAI{ MEETING April 23, 1996 PAGE 206 . May 31, 1996. The estimated lost fee revenue would be $120. In the past, the City Council has granted fee waivers to the Valley Volunteer Center, the Dublin Sister City Association and the Dublin Fine Arts Foundation. /-:-. . Ms. Lowart stated if the fee waiver is approved, Staff recommended that the Tri - Valley Unit of the ACS be required to put forth the Security Deposit as well as provide a Certificate of Liability Insurance. Cm. Moffatt felt this is a great way to show community pride and allow them to utilize the building at no cost. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Howard abstained), the Council approved the fee waiver request of the Tri - Valley Unit of the American Cancer Society, but required a Security Deposit and a Certificate of Liability Insurance. Cm. Howard stated they are working with a zero budget, so anyone who wants to donate, they will gladly accept. -----+..........""".'.".""" ,...~.. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS 8:22 p.m. 8.1 (630-40) City Attorney Silver stated in accordance with Council direction, Staff had prepared a report to enable the City Council to discuss campaign contribution reform. .: The City's existing ordinance, which was last amended in 1993 limits contributions to $1,000 with respect to a single election. Expenditure limitations are subject to strict scrutiny and will be upheld only if they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The United States Supreme Court held in the case of Buckley vs. Valeo that it is unconstitutional to limit a candidate's personal expenditures as this is viewed as a restraint on Constitutionally-protected rights of expression and association. Spending limits are thus not valid unless they are tied to the receipt of public funds. Cm. Moffatt clarified that in our case one could expend personal monies up to $100,000 if he wanted to. Cm. Barnes stated her concerns were how much we are spending in elections. We have 12,116 registered voters in this community, and 7,840 total housing units. She was concerned about everything being illegal when a neighboring city has a 50 cents limit per registered voter that can be spent. We seem to be placing our emphasis in the wrong area. Something is wrong when we spend thousands and thousands of dollars to get elected. . crn' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE6ULAR IdEETIN6 April 23, 1996 PAGE 207 Cm. Howard asked if when they get the contributions, they can keep their fund open as long as they declare they are running again. A discussion was held with regard to the process of establishing and terminating committees and what funds can be used for. .-. - Cm. Barnes clarified that we cannot regulate how the money is spent. Cm. Moffatt stated he understood that you can't put a limit on spending. Cm. Barnes felt if this is the case, we should look at San Ramon's ordinance. Ms. Silver suggested continuing this item in order to give Staff a chance to review other cities' ordinances. Tom Schweser, 11576 Manzanita Lane, agreed with Cm. Barnes that there should be a spending limit but if the Supreme Court says you can't, then we can't. He has lived here for over 30 years. He had a little to do with Dublin becoming a City. He was chair of the LArCa commission when it was formed. He stated he was disappointed that there can't be a limit. It's ridiculous to spend great sums of money for a small town like this. This should be an opportunity for people that want to try to run for Councilor Mayor and they shouldn't have to spend exorbitant amounts of money to get elected. They should go out and meet the people and ring doorbells and don't spend a lot of money and don't send out a lot of mailers. .~ Janet Lockhart 7840 Creekside Drive stated as someone who is going to take out papers to run for City Council this November, she has a concern about this City Council setting a limit on what future people will do. In today's rate of exchange, if we set a limit that she couldn't send out a mailer, this would not be right. These 5 people have regular access to the press. Other people in the community do not have this access. They may need to utilize signs, mailings, fund~raisers, etc., to get out and make the contact. We should not discourage others from doing this. This should be an individual decision. Al Hunter 7994 Jade Circle stated he worked on the last election and he felt what Cm. Barnes was saying is true. Per voter for the Mayoral election we are looking at almost $4 per vote. This is obscene. If you look at the amount of money that came in from outside the City, he has a problem with somebody trying to influence a City who doesn't live in and vote in the City of Dublin. He has mixed feelings about contribution amounts, but we may need to look at where the contributions come from. He would love to see a law saying no one could contribute unless they live in, work in or own a business in Dublin. The incumbents have an advantage in that their duties Cln' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REEiULAR MEETIN6 April 23, 199G PAGE 208 . .' . .-, ..... . .-,., -, .- expand beyond the city and they have advantages for developing campaign money. He would hope to see the $4 per vote go down. Leslie Roe 7147 Hansen Drive stated what Ms. Silver said about constitutionality is important. Government shouldn't have a right to say how much she can contribute. She had a problem with saying ethics are correlated with amount. This is wrong. People should be able to get honest open views published. Government should not regulate. Bob Fasulkey, Topaz Circle, stated he is also thinking of running for City Council, and like Ms. Lockhart, he had similar feelings. David Bewly, I I 166 Brittany Lane, felt campaign contribution limits do make sense. Central focus is we are dealing with City government and this is the purest form of government in the USA. This doesn't exist at the State and Federal level. Constituents can communicate with the elected officials and this process of democracy is what it's all about. Limits should be used to further this process. Unlimited spending can be a danger to this process. Free speech - this is not what a contribution is. A contribution is monetary support of an individual. In local government, some type of limitation is healthy. We need to have a fair playing field. Ms. Silver clarified the Buckley vs. Valeo case. It dealt with both contributions and expenditures. She pointed out that Staff has the most recent ordinances from San Ramon, Livermore and Pleasanton. She stated she could review this and bring it back at the next City Council meeting. Cm. Barnes stated she doesn't want to hear people say they can't afford to run because of the kind of money needed. She personally refuses to accept large amounts of money. Someone shouldn't say they can do a good job but they have to turn it down because of the money. - Cm. Howard asked if it is legal to limit the money to people that live and work in Dublin. Ms. Silver felt this probably wasn't legal, but she could research it. Mayor Houston stated his parents live in Pleasanton. There shouldn't be any reason why they can't contribute to his campaign. Cm. Burton stated he understood Cm. Barnes' concerns, but in real life, you get into a position where people may have to resort to mailings. It isn't easy and if you put limits on people, you get committees spending money on behalf of candidates. We started ern" COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME. 15 RE.GULAR ME.E.TING .April 23, :J..996 PAGE 209 out pretty small, but not everybody can spend the time calling on people at their homes every day. It's an academic question as to whether we can even do this. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the issue was tabled. . ....' ,. ,,& ."..."...'y...'.'.'."'.'..".....................'......... TERM LIMITS FOR COUNCILMEMBERS AND/OR MAYOR 8:53 p.m. 8.2 (610-20) Mayor Houston stated he threw out the idea and suggested a limit of 8 years. This would be 8 consecutive years. This is a great idea and he would like to see it on the ballot. During the City Council's 1996 Goals & Objectives meeting in February, the Council requested that Staff prepare a report on Council term limits. SB 2 became effective January 1, 1996, and authorizes the City Councilor residents of the City to propose, by initiative, an ordinance limiting the number of terms a member of the Council may serve or the number of terms an elected Mayor may serve. Both a Council-sponsored initiative and a citizen-sponsored initiative must be approved by the majority of the voters voting to be effective and shall be effective prospectively only. If the Council wished to proceed with a Council-sponsored initiative, it would need to determine the number of terms that a Councilmember would be limited to serving and .,: the number of terms the Mayor would be limited to serving and then direct Staff to prepare the necessary documentation in order to meet the timeline established by the Registrar of Voters to get the issue on the November, 1996 ballot. Ms. Silver explained that a limitation has to be number of terms, not years. You can limit consecutive terms or you can say limit to 2 terms (lifetime). A third issue would be limitation of terms for Councilmember or Mayor. Mayor Houston clarified that this would apply prospectively and so it would not even start until the election following the passage of this. Ms. Silver stated the question is if somebody is elected in November and if this passes in November, does this apply to that term. If we want to say it does apply, we would need to address this. It could then be written in the appropriate manner. It is a little ambiguous as to how this would apply and she therefore suggested that the City Council clarify this. Mayor Houston stated he would like it to count immediately; otherwise you would have 12 years. ern' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME. 15 REGULAR MEETING April 23, 1996 PAGE 210 e- ",.,..,.. . .' . Cm. Moffatt stated he would like to offer a compromise. We should allow citizens one vote each and citizens have a right to vote for any individual they want to vote for. This eliminates shuffling people involved in City government. We don't go to Washington, D.C. and then come back and spend 10 or 15 minutes talking to people here. They meet and talk to people all the time, at the grocery store, at the gas station, etc. He suggested that we don't need term limits. Cm. Barnes commented on saying years versus terms. She asked what would happen if she were to retire. Would the time of the person filling the term start immediately for term limit purposes? How is a shorter term determined? Ms. Silver stated they would need to address this. She referenced other legislation which says that if less than half the term remains it shouldn't be counted. Cm. Howard felt there might be a problem with running jointly with another City on the DRFA Board. She felt we already have term limits and it's called election. If a majority of the people want to keep someone in office, they should be able to vote to keep them. Cm. Barnes stated she got a lot of calls on this issue. She favored letting the people have their say. If they want term limits, let them tell it. She felt people will listen to all sides of the story and then vote. Al Hunter discussed how it was pointed out just a few minutes before that campaign contribution expenditures were against the constitution. As a Republican he supported the effort to break up the power groups in Washington. People we couldn't vote for were making decisions impacting us. Congress has since set limits on how long a person can sit on a committee. The same problems exist with the State; mostly controlled by Los Angeles. We don't have districts here, so people can vote for whoever they want. Term limits may have a role in State and Federal elections, but we should not compare Dublin to them. By not allowing people to vote for whoever they want for as many times as they want, isn't this against his rights? David Bewly agreed with Mr. Hunter. Terms limits don't apply to local government. People will probably vote for it more out of cynicism than a real need. This is the level where people speak eyeball to eyeball. This is an inappropriate solution to a problem that has never existed in Dublin. This is an artificial restraint that impedes the democratic process. Do we have a known evil that needs an artificial solution to correct an abuse? Local government works differently than other government. John Anderson, Brittany Lane felt the technical need for term limits has been well received. The perception is that it removes career politicians. People will perceive term limits based on their understanding of state and federal government. At the local CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME. 15 RE.6.ULAR ME.E.TIN6. April 23, 1996 PAGE 211 level, we have individuals offering themselves as candidates and he did not feel the need exists at the local level to have term limits. Another problem we may get into is we may run out of candidates. We shouldn't hamstring ourselves over an issue that is .' .- not operational at the local level. Mayor Houston made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Barnes to have the City Attorney prepare necessary documents to allow 8 consecutive years, using the appropriate number of terms, and have term counted if elected in November and place on the November ballot. Ms. Silver asked if the Council wanted to say if a term is less than half it should not be counted. Cm. Burton felt a person ought to be able to run for Mayor and be on the Council and this shouldn't be a combination and stopping the terms. Mayor Houston felt if someone could be on the Council for 8 years and also Mayor for 8 years, this would be 16 years and this isn't term limits. Cm. Barnes stated she has a lot of faith in the voters. She hoped the remarks stated this evening would be stated to the public. Cm. Howard discussed a possible scenario where the Mayor's position would be up. If .., you say a Councilmember couldn't run for Mayor and no one else runs for Mayor, what happens? Cm. Burton felt it breaks the continuity of the office. Cm. Barnes suggested allowing 2 terms as Councilmember and 2 terms as Mayor. This would allow a total of 12 years. Cm. Howard asked why Mayor Houston was so worried about term limits. Mayor Houston replied that he believes turnover is vitally important. We should let people vote on it. Cm. Howard said she couldn't go along with this. Cm. Burton made a substitute motion that a person on the City Council could run for Mayor and this breaks the consecutive situation. It's a different job. crn' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE6ULAR MEETIN6 April 23, ~99G PAGE 212 . . .....-.-.: " e-- Al Hunter asked how many years each one had been on the Council. They are trying to make a case where no one except Cm. Moffatt even comes close. He questioned how this would apply since none of them would be affected. Mayor Houston responded that it is obviously in the future. Cm. Barnes has been on the Council since November, 1994. Cm. Burton has been on the Council most recently since November, 1990. He also served a partial term from February, 1982 to October, 1983. Mayor Houston has been on the Council since November, 1992. Cm. Moffatt has been on the Council since February, 1982. Cm. Howard has been on the Council since November, 1990. Cm. Barnes was concerned that she wants to give people a chance to vote, but they can't decide on the number of years. Mayor Houston felt 8 years is adequate and is plenty. It's good to have turnover and encourage turnover. This eliminates the old girl and old boy network of deciding who can be in office. em. Moffatt asked if this 8 years would also include someone's ability to go on to another office such as senator. If you go to a different job, you should have the number of terms associated with that job. He felt the job of a Councilmember is different from that of Mayor. The motion was restated. Mayor Houston made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Barnes, to have the City Attorney prepare the necessary documents to allow term limits of 8 consecutive years, using the appropriate number of terms, and place on the November ballot, and have terms counted if elected in November. This motion was defeated due to NO votes cast by Councilmembers Barnes, Burton, Howard and Moffatt. Cm. Burton made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Howard to allow 8 years for the position of Mayor and 8 years as a Councilmember, with the exception that less than half a term would not count. If you are on the Council and you run for Mayor, it breaks the continuity, so you could run another 8 years. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE6ULAR MERTIN6 April 23, 1996 PAGE 213 Cm. Moffatt stated his fear is that people will be elected by those who make the most contributions to their campaign. He suggested that this item be tabled until the question of contributions is settled. .' Cm. Burton stated he felt they weren't related. Cm. Barnes felt they definitely are related. She supported tabling this and stated she would like to hear from people about whether they want term limits and if so, how many years. She wants to hear from the people of Dublin. On substitute motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by majority vote, the Council tabled Cm. Burton's motion. Cm. Burton voted against the motion. ......,.,......,........,.,.+......,.,......."....."". ALAMEDA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY (CMA) BUDGET AND ACTIVITIES 9:32 p.m. 8.3 (l060-90) City Manager Ambrose presented the Staff Report and explained that the CMA was established to oversee the funding of Proposition 111 (additional gas tax monies) to insure that the monies were properly allocated to alleviating traffic congestion within Alameda County. The request of Dublin to the CMA is to keep to its original charge and to not add work programs outside that charge. Cm. Moffatt stated as the City's representative he had brought this up a couple of . times. The Board is weighted against us. It's not a situation of one person one vote. As a consequence he felt this would be an excellent letter to send. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the Mayor to sign and send the drafted letter to Gus Morrison, Chairman of the CMA Board. """,.,.+.," AGREEMENT WITH CAYUGA INFORMATION SYSTEMS TO ASSIST WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY'S INFORMATION SYSTEMS MASTER PLAN 9:36 p.m. 8.4 (600-30) Administrative Assistant Honse explained that in order to proceed with implementation of the Data Processing Master Plan, it is necessary to obtain services from a qualified technical consultant. Proposals were solicited from various firms. The scope of work to be undertaken will include a review of systems and software to determine compatibility and cost effectiveness. Mr. Honse discussed the Master Plan schedule and also an analysis of proposals received. Under Phase 1, systems to be evaluated would include: electronic land crn' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME. 15 RE.6ULAIt MEETIN6 April 23, ::1..996 PAGE 214 .' .~. .-. .:: . information database, automated document imaging system, GIS, permit tracking, utilization of data from the San Ramon Aerial Project, and replacement of the IBM System/36. Mr. Honse stated CIS proposes to perform all services as outlined in the Scope of Services, in 160 hours at an hourly rate of $80. The total cost for the initial scope of services will not exceed $12,800. The CIS proposal includes an optional Phase 2, which offers to provide additional services at an additional cost of $7,500. Phase 2 relates to the implementation of a document imaging system and this phase will only be undertaken if the results of Phase 1 indicate that the project should be pursued in FY 1996-97. Cm. Moffatt felt this was great and he was glad to see the City moving into the 21st century. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the City Manager to execute an agreement with Cayuga Information Systems for Phase 1. .U, _ummmu,uuu... OTHER BUSINESS 9:39 p.m. Joint Meeting with School Board (610-05) Cm. Barnes asked about a joint school board meeting date. Mr. Ambrose advised that we don't have a definite date yet. """"""""+.-""".""'" BART Tour 0010-30) Cm. Barnes thanked Staff for arranging the BART tour today. It gave them a good understanding. She felt whoever designed the parking lots is really asleep. It is ridiculous that you have to walk from a far area to the terminal. Whoever thought that parking for 2,600 cars total was adequate must have been asleep at the wheel. Unless you get there at 4 a.m., you won't get a parking place. Cm. Howard stated she also felt it won't be enough parking. Cm. Moffatt felt this was a good reason for electing someone from this area to the BART Board. CIn' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING Aprll23,1996 PAGE 215 Cm. Barnes stated she asked about the truck that flipped over the chainlink fence. They are looking at some sort of a signal the minute there is a breakage. They are looking into why it went airborne. It was a freak accident. . Cm. Howard said the cover is only over 1/3 of the platform. With our wind and rain, this really was not planned very well. Cm. Barnes felt a van could go around the parking lot and pick people up. She is concerned because she is one who intends to use it. .. Dublin Post Office (610-80) Cm. Moffatt referenced a letter he received from John Leonard related to the post office situation. He plans to get hold of someone and continue a dialogue. .. East Bay Division LOCC Scholarships 040-25) Cm. Moffatt indicated that the East Bay Division is giving 2 scholarships to attend the 1996 teachers institute for participating in local government. They will give an $800 .' stipend to a teacher who teaches civics. They go through a seminar in Sacramento which tries to get kids and parents more interested in participating in local government. He has applications. Cm. Barnes suggested sending one to Wells to Mr.._ Mark Woy, who teaches government classes. ,..."",,.. Le~islation (660-40) Cm. Moffatt reported that at the last East Bay Division meeting a strong request was one of the initiatives on the November ballot about the Jarvis right to vote act and it does all kinds of things related to voting procedures and what you can and can't vote on; i.e., assessment districts have to be voted on every year. It's a good idea to look at this carefully to avoid fiscal crisis which may happen in cities. There's also a question on whether Propositions 13 and 62 are valid or invalid. It was passed by a majority vote so the question is, is it legal? """--'..,,',. Cln' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REEiULAR MEETINEi Aprll23, ~99G PAGE 216 ". .' .:: . CLOSED SESSION At 9:47p.m., the Council recessed to a closed session to discuss: 10.1 (640-30) Conference with Legal Counsel regarding Pending Litigation in accordance with Government Code Section 54956.9(a): a. Dublin v. Dublin Meadow Partners, Golden Eagle Insurance Company and JL Construction Company, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. V-003778-9 b. Maryann Bell v. City of Dublin, Livermore-Pleasanton-Dublin Municipal Court Action No. C-27218-2 c. Dublin v. ASK, Inc., et al. No. V-00957Z-3; Dublin v. Gemma et al. No. V- 009575-0; Dublin v. Liberty House Properties, et al. No. V-009573-2; Dublin v. Madden et al. No. V-009574-1; Dublin v. Woolverton et al. No. V-009571-4; Dublin v. Shell Oil et al. No. V-009576-7 (Alameda County Superior Court) d. Myers v. Dublin, Alameda County Superior Court Action No. V-008171-9 10.2 (600-30) Public Employee Performance Evaluation, Title: City Attorney, in accordance with Government Code Section 54957 REPORT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION Mayor Houston announced that no action was taken in closed session. u u u uuu uu_"""" ~ ~""""'''''''''' "u u. ADJOURNMENT 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. .""..'."""""""""""+"""'" A TrEST: Mayor City Clerk ern' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING .A..prll 23, 1996 PAGE 217