Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-07-2010 Adopted CC Min~ OF DU~~~ MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL ~,,` OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ~~ -~ az - ~ ~ REGULAR MEETING December 7, 2010 ' \ ~ _<~ A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, December 7, 2010, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m., by Mayor Sbranti. ~i ROLL CALL 7:05 PM PRESENT: Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Hildenbrand, Swalwell, and Mayor Sbranti ABSENT: ~ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7:06 PM The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the City Council, Staff and those present. ~ ~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Selection of Vice Mavor 7:07:03 PM 3.1 (610-20) Mayor Sbranti stated that the City Council's policy was to select, in December of each year, a member of the City Council to serve as Vice Mayor for a period of one year. In the absence of the Mayor, the Vice Mayor would become Mayor Pro Tempore and would assume the temporary responsibilities of the Mayor. On motion of Mayor Sbranti, seconded by Vm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the City Council selected Councilmember Hart to serve as Vice Mayor for a period of one year. ~Gi Public Comments 7:08:08 PM 3.2 No comments were made by any member of the public at this time. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 29 REGULAR MEETING December 7, 2010 ~ °e . ~ i i~~111~~~N `~~/ll ~`~LIFOR~~ 1 ~/. CONSENT CALENDAR 7:08:13 PM Items 4.1 through 4.5 On motion of Vm. Hart, seconded by Cm. Swalwell and by unanimous vote, the City Council took the following actions: Approved (4.1) Minutes of November 16, 2010 Adopted (4.2 600-60) ORDINANCE NO. 26-10 APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND THE LIN FAMILY FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH NORTH PROJECT (AREAS A, B, C, D, E, F, G AND H) PA 07-006 Adopted (4.3 390-20) RESOLUTION NO. 169-10 MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING UNEXPENDED TRAFFIC MITIGATION CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 200~2010 Adopted (4.4 170-10) RESOLUTION NO. 170-10 RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 90-92 AND APPOINTING DIRECTORS TO ABAG PLAN CORPORATION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN Approved (4.5 300-40) Check Issuance Reports and Electronic Funds Transfers. ~i WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None ~ DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2 VOLUME 29 ~,~oF~ REGULAR MEETING ui ~ ~~~ December 7, 2010 ~ '~~~~~~ ~G/~OR~ PUBLIC HEARINGS Dublin Securitv Storaqe Zoninq Ordinance Amendments and Neqative Declaration 7:08:53 PM 6.1 (400-20/450-20) Mayor Sbranti opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Marnie Waffle presented the Staff Report and advised that Dublin Security Storage was requesting a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow Mini-Storage as a permitted use in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. A Zoning Ordinance Amendment was also proposed to identify the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District as being consistent with the Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage General Plan Land Use designation. A Negative Declaration for the project was prepared and circulated for public review from October 2, 2010 to October 22, 2010. No public comments were received. On November 9, 2010 the Planning Commission approved a Site Development Review for the construction of a new 8,160 sq. ft. mini-storage building and the conversion of 4,650 sq. ft. of an existing warehouse building for mini-storage uses. That approval was contingent upon City Council approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Negative Declaration. No testimony was received by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Sbranti closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm. Biddle and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 171 -10 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO AMEND ZONIIdG ORDINANCE CHAPTER 8.12 (ZONING DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED USE OF LAND) TO ALLOW MINI-STORAGE AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT AND CHAPTER 8.28 (INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS) TO IDENTIFY THE M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT AS CONSISTENT WITH THE BUSINESS PARK/INDUSTRIAL AND OUTDOOR STORAGE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE Alm SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 8,160 SQUARE FOOT MINI-STORAGE BUILDING AND THE CONVERSION OF 4,650 SQUARE FEET OF AN EXISTING WAREHOUSE BUILDING TO MINI-STORAGE USES AT DUBLIN SECURITY STORAGE CITY-WIDE 6005/6015 SCARLETT COURT (APN 941-0550-033 & 941-0550-034) PLPA 2010-00005 & PLPA-2010-00006 and waived the reading and introduced an Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.12 (Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses of Land) to Allow Mini-Storage as a Permitted Use in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District and Chapter 8.28 (Industrial Zoning Districts) to Identify DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3 VOLUME 29 ~oF vti~ REGULAR MEETING ai~ ~ ~~~ December 7, 2010 '`~~~~~~ ~~FOe~ the M-1 (Light Indusfirial) Zoning District as Consistent with the Business Park/Industrial and Outdoor Storage General Plan Land Use, PLPA 2010-00005. ~'i Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.24 of the Dublin Municipal Code Pertaininq to the Citv's Conflict of Interest Code 7:15:14 PM 6.2 (640-40) Mayor Sbranti opened the public hearing. City Attorney John Bakker presented the Staff Report and advised that this was the first reading of an ordinance amending the City of Dublin Conflict of Interest Code to include the following positions: Assistant to the City Manager, Planning Director and Principal Planner. No testimony was received by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Sbranti closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Biddle, seconded by Vm. Hart and by unanimous vote, the City Council waived the reading and introduced an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.24 of the Dublin Municipal Code relating to the City's Conflict of Interest Code. ~ UNFINISHED BUSINESS Dublin 101 Academv 7:17:07 PM 7.1 (150-80) Assistant City Manager Chris Foss presented the Staff Report and advised that the City of Dublin had offered the Dublin 101 Academy (also known as the Dublin Leadership Academy) since 2004. The City Council would consider a new name (INSIDE DUBLIN) and schedule for the Dublin 101 Academy for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. Cm. Biddle stated that, with website promotion of the program to reach a wide audience, the program provided a benefit to our residents as was presented. Cm. Hildenbrand supported the changes. She stated the change to seven weeks in duration, along with a new marketing strategy, could assist to obtain the draw of participants desired. She also stated she was pleased the program would continue to provide citizens an opportunity to grow from this experience. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4 VOLUME 29 G`~,~OFDpB~ REGULAR MEETING n~ ~ ~a December 7, 2010 '``~~~~~ ~G/FOR~ Cm. Swalwell supported the program. Promotion of the program to draw new participants could occur by those residents that had already participated in the program. Vm. Hart stated the program had potential to be eliminated from the budget last year; however, the City Council valued the learning opportunity for its residents and the importance of keeping the program. He stated his support for the revamped program outline. Mayor Sbranti asked how Staff had determined the new format. Mr. Foss stated that, based on the experience and feedback of past sessions, the program would prove to hold the citizen's interest in attendance with a condensed course. He stated that Staff could certainly post the presentations online for the public's use. ~ By consensus, the City Council directed Staff to move forward with the revamped program. ~"/ Extension of the Citv's Sales Tax Reimbursement Proqram 7:27:51 PM 7.2 (470-20) Economic Development Director Linda Maurer presented the Staff Report and advised that Staff was seeking to extend the termination date of the City's Sales Tax Reimbursement Program from January 9, 2011 to January 9, 2013. Cm. Swalwell asked how this program could benefit existing and small businesses as opposed to just new businesses. Cm. Hildenbrand stated that this had been researched and previously offered to both existing and small businesses which had not participated in the program. Perhaps given the current economic times, businesses would now be receptive to hearing how the program could potentially provide assistance to their business. Mayor Sbranti stated that he agreed with comments made. However, the program did include existing businesses and had proven to be successful in our business community. City Manager Pattillo clarified that City Council asked for a report back on the pros and cons of expanding thresholds previously established in the Sales Tax Reimbursement Program, and a report on the feasibility of an expansion of the current program to include small business incentives was already addressed in the City Goals and Objectives. On motion of Cm. Swalwell, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 172 -10 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5 VOLUME 29 ~~.~oF~,~ REGULAR MEETING a; December 7, 2010 1\\~'~~%/ c~~, ~,~~ EXTENDING THE TERMINATION DATE OF THE CITY'S SALES TAX REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM ~i NEW BUSINESS Dublin Housing Authority - Consolidation of Dublin Housinq Authoritv with the Housinq Authoritv of the Countv of Alameda 7:36:29 PM 8.1 (430-90) City Attorney John Bakker presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would consider the adoption of a resolution authorizing the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA) to operate within the City and approve the Dublin Housing Authority's assignment of existing agreements to HACA. These actions were necessary to continue the redevelopment of the Arroyo Vista housing development. Cm. Hildenbrand elaborated on the historical points of the Arroyo Vista housing development. Mayor Sbranti asked if HACA would maintain contact with past housing residents of Arroyo Vista, as opposed to the City maintaining contact. City Manager Pattillo stated that one of the conditions of HACA would be to maintain relations with all past residents. One of the most important elements to this project would be that all financing components would come together as anticipated in March 2011. On motion of Vm. Hart, seconded by Mayor Sbranti and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 173-10 AUTHORIZING THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA TO OPERATE WITHIN THE CITY AND APPROVING DUBLIN HOUSING AUTHORITY'S ASSIGNMENT OF ANY EXISTING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE DUBLIN HOUSING AUTHORITY TO HACA ~/ DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6 VOLUME 29 ~~oe Du~ REGULAR MEETING a; ~ a~ December 7, 2010 '\`~~~1/` ~4GI R~~ Request to Initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to Modify the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Desiqnation for the Site Desiqnated as Semi-Public within the Positano Development 7:46:07 PM 8.2 (420-30) Planning Consultant Mike Porto presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would consider whether to initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to modify the Land Use Designation for the Semi-Public site in the Positano neighborhood. ~ Cm. Hildenbrand asked why there was a lack of interest in the proposed study area. City Manager Pattillo stated the cost and designation of the size of the lots were factors in the lack of interest. Vm. Hart asked why it was urgent to start this study. Andy Byde, Braddock and Logan representative, stated the proposed property had been graded since 2006 and now would be an appropriate time to revisit development. Cm. Hildenbrand stated that lengthy discussions had been held in the past regarding this project which included the issues with public/semi-public designation and were put into place to provide options. Mayor Sbranti stated that a different approach with land size and public/semi-public designation could be reviewed by Staff. City Manager Pattillo stated that would be a policy review discussion. Staff would review the policy in place, check in with the development community and report back in the future. On motion of Vm. Hart, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 174-10 APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY TO MODIFY THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE SEMI-PUBLIC SITE IN THE POSITANO NEIGHBORHOOD Rameet Kohli, Dublin resident, asked if this particular project had been considered for other use such as parks rather than commercial and residential development. He also asked if there would be noticing to residents allowing comments regarding any future development proposal. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 29 `~oF~ REGULAR MEETING ~ii ~ ,~~ December 7, 2010 '``~~~~ e~~roa~'s 7 Cm. Hildenbrand informed Mr. Kohli that there was a Parks Master Plan in place that determined a park implementation dependent upon the size and type of the proposed development and the public would be notified upon all development studies. ~/ Initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study for 1,450 Acres Located Immediately East of the Existinp Boundarv of the Dublin Citv Limits and Sphere of Influence 8:10:08 PM 8.3 (420-30) Planning Consultant Mike Porto presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would consid~er a request from Pacific Union, on behalf of Dublin Active Investors, L.P. to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study for 1,450 acres located immediately east of the existing Dublin City Limits and Sphere of Influence within unincorporated Alameda County to create a new General Plan Land Use Designation and policies to guide future development of up to 1,990 residential units for active senior housing, preservation of open space, park provisions, an extension of the Development Elevation Cap, major ridgeline protections, grading, and other implementation measures. Bruce Meyers, Pacific Union Homes representative, stated the proposed Dublin Preserve project would provide Dublin with upscale living geared to the retired community with sustainable elements and a high priority of preservation of the surrounding area. Matt Vandersluis, Greenbelt Alliance representative, urged the City Council to deny the initiation of a general plan amendment study due to the importance of preserving the open space land and the quality of life that currently existed for the Dublin community. Approving the resolution to move forward with the study would violate the existing memorandum of understanding that had already been developed. Every acre mattered in achieving health and air quality goals, regional goals for transportation funding and infrastructure, and water supplies for the region and how those would be affected. This would also impact the existing community related to keeping it thriving if the City had to stretch resources on a new community. He cautioned of recent measures passed in favor of protecting open space land in the surrounding cities. Jean King, Dublin resident, urged the City Council to deny the study proposed and to honor the existing memorandum of understanding befinreen the City of Dublin and the City of Livermore. She recommended the City initiate discussions with the City of Livermore and LAFCO Staff on the future of Doolan Canyon. Marian Brent, Livermore resident, asked that the following be noted in the record, "I am dismayed that Doolan Canyon development has come up, I urge the Council to deny the Initiation of a General Plan Amendment study to develop 1450 acres of Doolan Canyon. This area is protected from development by County Measure D." DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 8 VOLUME 29 ~,~oP~ REGULAR MEETING ui ~i ~~~ December 7, 2010 19~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~'~GIPOR~~` Tamara Reus, Livermore resident and~ Friends of the Vineyards Organization representative, stated that the property in question was protected by Alameda County Measure D, which designated that the land would remain undeveloped and she hoped the City Council would respect that decision so as not to affect Doalan Canyon. It would be important to include the City of Livermore in future discussions, as well as consider the memorandum of understanding currently in place. Any development in the proposed property would create stress in the Livermore community which had voted not to approve future development in the North Livermore area. The City Council had a responsibility of the impacts this could create for the entire region, not only to the City of Dublin. If the City Council changed the General Plan now, this could create future repercussions even if the proposed project was never built. Dick Schneider, Sierra Club representative, stated their opposition of the proposed study and urged the City Council to deny the proposed study and encouraged conversations to occur with the City of Livermore and LAFCO Staff on this proposed project. He was strongly involved with Alameda County Measure D in 2000, in which the voters of Alameda County made a clear decision to protect the open space in the County. Livermore residents had a strong fear that the City of Dublin would develop in the east, despite their efforts of preventing development in North Livermore. The City of Livermore purchased $2.5 million of land in Doolan Canyon, and a 2002 memorandum of understanding between the two Cities could be compromised with this decision. Bob Baltzar, Livermore resident and Chair of the Friends of Livermore organization, urged the City Council to deny the study and find an amicable solution to the issue of greenbelt separation between Dublin and Livermore in this proposed project. Mr. Baltzar stated that this study would almost ruin a pristine western rural valley and could compromise the 2002 memorandum of understanding between Livermore and Dublin. John Delrambo, Sheetmetal Workers Local #104 representative, stated he was in favor of denying the General Plan Amendment Study. This would be a dynamic decision for LAFCO to consider an annexation. They would need to be assured that all the surrounding jurisdictions discussed all possibilities regarding the appropriate development, if any would be supported. While this proposed project would generate millions of dollars worth of wages to the construction trade, he cautioned as to how the surrounding communities would gain or what potential threats would be created. Jodi Bailey, Save Mt. Diablo Organization representative, urged the City Council to deny the General Plan Amendment Study. Doolan Canyon would irrevocably change with this type of development as would the open space of the Canyon. The Canyon further protected the distinction between the finro communities as it did the quality of life. Bryan Hold, East Bay Regional Parks District Senior Planner, stated the East Bay Regional Parks District felt this proposal was inappropriate at this time and urged the City Council to deny the General Pfan Amendment Study and, should future discussion occur, include East Bay Regional Parks District along with the City of Livermore, LAFCO and the City of Dublin. The District would be purchasing 640 acres directly adjacent to the General Plan Study area which DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9 VOLUME 29 G~~oF o08~ REGULAR MEETING m ~,. ~~~ December 7, 2010 19~~~~ ~` ~ ~ ~`~GIFOR~1~ was the cornerstone of the proposed development. Significant resources and public funds had been invested in this area which could also be impacted. Darlene Steffan, Doolan Canyon Road resident, stated support to deny the General Plan Amendment Study. She supported open space as she owned 20 acres in Doolan Canyon and was pleased to see that so many interested individuals felt the same. Mr. Meyers reiterated that the decision to move forward with the General Plan Amendment Study would not initiate any decisions but would start the conversations which would at some point include the organizations represented this evening. The issue of the City eliminating the buffer between Dublin and Livermore with this proposed project was not true. Measure D gave control to the cities in Alameda County to determine what development would benefit their specific community, so Dublin had every right to initiate this discussion. Pacific Union Homes' intent was to work in consensus with all interested parties on this project and find amicable solutions in the process. Vm. Hart asked for a better description of the property in discussion. Mr. Meyers responded that if he could envision the number seven, the two ends would be the property that connected the two City limits. The proposed study would include the 250 acres that were positioned to the left of the existing 1,200 acres. The study would propose to annex the 250 acres to the City's sphere of influence. Cm. Swalwell asked Mr. Meyers for his acknowledgement that if the initiation of a General Plan Study and initiation of Staff to begin discussion with LAFCO and the City of Livermore were to occur, then the next steps would be a General Plan amendment. Mr. Meyers agreed with Cm. Swalwell's statement. Conversations with the City of Livermore Staff, Councilmembers, LAFCO and City Staff had already occurred. He did not understand what a delay in this decision would accomplish if discussions were already occurring. Mayor Sbranti asked Mr. Meyers how this proposal would compliment efforts by the East Bay Regional Parks District (District) future projects. Mr. Meyers stated that he was puzzled by the comments made by Mr. Hold representing the East Bay Regional Parks District. He had held conversations with the District General Manager Bob Doyle, which included discussion on how this project would work in collaboration with the District. RECESS 8:55:56 PM Mayor Sbranti called for a short recess. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 10 VOLUME 29 G`~oFOOB~ REGULAR MEETING nr ~ir ~~~ December 7, 2010 '``~~~%/ ~c,FOR~'~ 9:04:17 PM The meeting reconvened with all City Councilmembers present. Mayor Sbranti asked City Attorney John Bakker for his interpretation of Measure D, and if this would affect the City Council decision on the proposed General Plan Amendment Study. Mr. Bakker responded that Measure D protected property in the County of Alameda, specifically the unincorporated areas. However, if the proposed property was annexed to the City of Dublin, then Measure D would have no bearing on the City's decision to move forward. Measure D could have an impact on LAFCO's decision to have the proposed property included in the City's sphere of influence and whether or not to annex it. Cm. Swalwell stated that if LAFCO decided to move forward with the annexation process and determine the sphere of influence, the environmental organizations present this evening at that point, would be able to voice their concerns. Mr. Bakker stated that was correct. Cm. Hildenbrand stated that this was a study and not approval of a project. City Manager Pattillo stated that this was a study to increase the sphere of influence. Cm. Biddle asked what would be the next step if the City were to meet with LAFCO. Mr. Bakker stated that two steps would need to occur. First the property in question would need to be added to the City's sphere of influence, then it needed to be annexed. These two processes could be done at the same time by LAFCO, if they so chose. Typically, they would like to see planning of some degree prior to making any decision. They would also like to see environmental studies. If the City Council initiated the General Plan Amendment study, then the applicant would be hopeful of a General Plan Amendment approval, which could then be taken to LAFCO for a sphere of influence addition. Subsequently, the applicant would come back with a project level approval. At that point, an annexation could occur. Mayor Sbranti asked Community Development Director Jeri Ram what was the process if the City Council moved forward with the study. Ms. Ram explained that the applicant was initiating a General Plan Amendment Study for the sphere first, which would involve an environmental impact report which would later be used for the project level environmental impact report, or a two tiered environmental process. This would be presented to LAFCO for the sphere change. If, and when, that was approved, the applicant would come back to the City to study the planned development, environmental reports, and come back with project proposals as would be with any large development project. With the environmental process, the community and all of the surrounding area would be included to incorporate a!I potentia{ issues. EssentiaNy, the environmental study process was done twice. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 11 VOLUME 29 Gti,~~~FDUB~ REGULAR MEETING a~~~~~~ December 7, 2010 ~\ ~ ~~ C'4L~tpR~~' Mayor Sbranti asked what was the difference between the environmental study at the plan level as opposed to the project level. Ms. Ram explained that as had been done with the Eastern Dublin Plan, the initial study conducted included a large area and did not have everything fully scoped out because environmental issues changed over time. Survey and biological studies would not be detailed at that point. However, there would be a broader scope of the overall plan. This would be the program level detail. Then all the details would be planned such as the layout of roads. Mayor Sbranti stated, that assuming the plan moved forward, the program level environmental impact report was what would be presented to LAFCO initially. Ms. Ram stated that the City would potentially meet with LAFCO twice, once for the sphere adjustment and then for the possible annexation. Vm. Hart asked for a definition of "open space". Ms. Ram stated that, "open space" in the General Plan was designated as an open area of fand which had limited amount of development potential. There were also rural residential agricultural designated areas which meant that only one unit per one hundred acres, which would be essentially like having open space. Vm. Hart asked for clarification purposes due to the recurring mention of "open space" in relation to this proposed project and how it was perceived by both the City of Livermore and the City of Dublin. City Manager Pattillo stated that the definition of "open space" was based on the individual's perspective. The proposed property was in neither jurisdiction's sphere of influence and was an unincorporated area belonging to Alameda County. Mayor Sbranti asked for further clarification of what the City designated as "open space" for the proposed project. City Manager Pattillo clarified that currently the City had fifteen one-hundred fifty acre parcels, each designated as open space. Since 2002 with the development growth in the City, an additional 475 acres had been added to the designated "open space". Vm. Hart asked for the differences in the resolutions presented on this item. Mr. Meyers had stated that this issue would move forward regardless, and would only delay the proposed project. Mr. Bakker stated that the City's process is to seek Council approval before Staff works on a general plan amendment proposed by an applicant. The applicant would submit an application, pay for Staff time to work on the proposed project and start the process of the study. If the City Council adopts the resolution to deny the general plan amendment study, the applicant would DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 12 VOLUME 29 G`,~y~F ~Ue~ REGULAR MEETING rn ~'/ o~ December 7, 2010 '~~~~~~ '~LIFOR~ not submit an application, with no further action from Staff. In either case, City Council could still direct Staff to continue to work with the City of Livermore to discuss the future of Doolan Canyon. There were various options, but the ones presented for City Council consideration was to deny or approve the general plan amendment study. Cm. Hildenbrand reiterated that the City Council cou4d deny the study and direct Staff to continue working with Livermore, which had been occurring or approve the resolution to start the study. Mayor Sbranti stated that he believed now would be a good time to begin the discussion with Livermore and the development potential. He stated that although the resolution approving the general plan amendment study did not indicate to continue to have discussions with Livermore and the residents of Doolan Canyon, and report feedback to the City Council, he encouraged Staff to do so. Cm. Hildenbrand concurred that she supported approving the general plan amendment study and continue to have thorough discussions with Livermore to fully understand their perspective on this project. Cm. Swalwell stated his support for an active Senior Community development, and this was a proactive developer who had taken the initiative to discuss his project with all interested parties. His interpretation of the resolutions presented was to either deny the study or move forward without the input of the City of Livermore or the organizations represented here tonight or formal opinions from LAFCO or EBRPD. He preferred to direct Staff to come back to the City Council with an in depth report compared to what they had in the Staff report before them, to allow the City Council to make a more informed decision. He proposed this in lieu of approving the resolution to approve the general plan amendment study, with a timeline of 60 days for Staff to report back to the City Council so that there would be certainty for both the applicant, the various interested parties and the property owners. He suggested keeping the applicant and property owners briefed on Staff discussions with Livermore and LAFCO. Cm. Hildenbrand requested clarification from Cm. Swalwell regarding what, if any, future discussions with either Livermore or LAFCO would provide. A greater detail on the outcome of this study would not be possible, if the applicant could not move forward with the process. Cm. Swalwell stated that what had been provided in terms of where Livermore stood on this proposed project was speculation. He would be more comfortable with a letter or confirmation from Livermore stating exactly where they stood. As well as a letter from the District due to conflicting messages received from their representation this evening and what Mr. Meyers was stating his discussions had been with the DistricYs General Manager Bob Doyle. He did not believe what was before the City Council tonight was sufficient to move forward. Cm. Hildenbrand reiterated that discussions had been held with Livermore, and their desires for Doolan Canyon would be to do nothing with the property. She stated that even with updates on additional negotiations, the study would not be any further along. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 13 VOLUME 29 G~,~~oFO~ei,y REGULAR MEETING m ~~ir ~~~ December 7, 2010 '~\~~~j~ 4GIFOR~ Mayor Sbranti stated that it would be beneficial to have the discussions with Livermore to define what they desired for the land, what could be developed and what was desired to remain undeveloped. Cm. Hildenbrand stated that the City could not even get to this level of discussion without a study. Mayor Sbranti commented that he believed he was saying the same thing as Cm. Hildenbrand, that a study would be necessary in addition to discussions with Livermore. Vm. Hart concurred that he would like Livermore to hold discussions just as the City Council would hold discussions, but he agreed that the City should move forward with approving the study. , ~ City Manager Pattillo cautioned that there was no guarantee that the Livermore City Staff would work with the City of Dublin on these discussions. Mayor Sbranti proposed City Staff meet with Livermore Staff and report back to the City Council, its views and position on this proposed project within approximately sixty days. At that point, the City Council could either continue to move forward or not, dependent on the outcome of these discussions. Vm. Hart asked for clarification of the Mayor's proposal. He asked if the desire was to approve the initiation of a general plan amendment study or not. He was not in favor of initiation of a study and then to receive a watered down update within 60 days and potentially halt the study. What was proposed in the resolution was a study. Cm. Hildenbrand concurred with Vm. Hart in that the process started with a study. The concern was that Livermore would not work with the City of Dublin if the City Council moved forward with the study. Mayor Sbranti asked City Manager Pattillo for clarification on the desire for feedback in addition to adopting the resolution for the study. City Manager Pattillo stated her understanding was that the City Council would adopt the resolution and would like to establish a timeline of sixty to ninety days for an update, but there would be no guarantee that all parties would agree to that. Cm. Swalwell stated he was still in favor of more research prior to approving the study, and asked for clarification from Cm. Biddle if he agreed based on his comments. Cm. Biddle stated he concurred with what City Manager Pattillo stated which was a dual process. Mayor Sbranti asked City Manager Pattillo what the dual process would be. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 14 ~ VOLUME 29 G~,~toFDOB~ REGULAR MEETING ri, ~ ~u December 7, 2010 '~`~e~~~ ~ ~4LIFOR~~ City Manager Pattillo stated that City Council would adopt the resolution to approve the general plan amendment study and direcf Staff to initiate conversations with Livermore. Cm. Biddle added that if conversations with Livermore were unproductive then the City could at least move forward with concrete information to LAFCO based on the study, if that was the direction the City Council took. Mayor Sbranti stated the ideal goal would be for Livermore and Dublin to go to LAFCO together. It would be important to be able to determine, together, what property belonged to whom, as well as determine what land was appropriate for development, which he felt was a critical part of this last undeveloped region of the City. City Manager Pattillo stated the timeline to conduct such a study would take over one year. On motion of Vm. Hart, seconded by Cm. Hildenbrand and by a majority vote (Cm. Swalwell voting no), the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 175-10 APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY FOR 1,450 ACRES COMMONLY KNOWN AS DOOLAN CANYON Additionally, the City Council directed Staff to meet with the City of Livermore Staff and report back to City Council in 90 days with a progress report. ~i Recess 9:49:54 PM Mayor Sbranti called for a short recess. 9:52:59 PM The meeting reconvened with all City Councilrnembers present. ~i~ City Council Sub-Committee Assignment for Communitv Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Communitv Support Grant 9:53:03 PM 8.4 (110-30) DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 15 VOLUME 29 .~oF ~ REGULAR MEETING ~ii~ ~ir ~u December 7, 2010 '~\~~~~ ~ici~oR~' Senior Administrative Analyst Amy Cunningham presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would confirm the Mayor's appointments to the Community Development Block Grant and Community Support Grant Subcommittee On motion of Mayor Sbranti, seconded by Vm. Hart and by unanimous vote, the City Council appointed Cm. Biddle and Cm. Swalwell to the Community Development Block Grant and Community Support Grant Subcommittee. ~ Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Strategic Plan Update and Proposed New Format for Goals and Obiectives Process 9:54:28 PM 8.5 (100-80) City Manager Joni Pattillo presented the Staff Report and advised the City Council would establish dates for the biennial Strategic Plan review and update and consider changes to the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Goals and Objectives process. Mayor Sbranti asked if a City Councilmember had a goal or objective for the City Council to consider, but it did not align with the Strategic Plan, where would it be reflected. City Manager Pattillo stated it would be reflected in the budget process in a work plan which would be assigned to one of the departments. Proposed changes would enable the Strategic Plan to be the driver of budget discussions as opposed to the task at hand. Mayor Sbranti commented on how this new process was evident with the Joint City Council and Commission work session where the majority of discussions were occurring prior to meeting with the Strategic Plan as the focus. ~ Mayor Sbranti commended Staff for all the changes presented in the Budget document. The City Council received the Staff Report and decided on the dates for the Fiscal Year 2011- 2012 Strategic Plan update and Goals and Objectives process as: City Council Strategic Plan Workshop, Saturday, January 22, 2011, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.; Joint Meeting for City Council and Commissions, Saturday, February 26, 2011, 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.; Budget Study Session #1, Monday, March 7, 2011, 6:00 p.m.; Budget Study Session #2, Tuesday, April 19, 2011, 5:30 p.m. ~ v DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 29 ~~oen~,~ REGULAR MEETING u;~ ~ „~ December 7, 2010 '`~~~~~ Gc~~,s 16 OTHER BUSINESS Brief /NFORMATION ONLY reports from Council and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AB 1234) 10:13:43 PM City Manager Pattillo stated the City o~ce closure would begin on Friday, December 24, 2010 and return to regular business hours on Tuesday, January 4, 2011. Public Safety Departments would operate as usual. She congratulated Mayor Sbranti, Cm. Biddle and Cm. Swalwell on their election win. Cm. Hildenbrand stated she attended the City's Tree Lighting Ceremony, the Lights of the Valley Tree Lighting Ceremony, and a Boy Scouts presentation. She also attended a Livermore Amador Valley Transportation Authority meeting. Cm. Biddle stated he attended the City's Tree Lighting Ceremony, the Lights of the Valley Tree Lighting Ceremony, the Heritage Center Holiday Workshop, and a Dublin Unified School District Liaison meeting. Vm. Hart stated he attended the National League of Cities Conference in Denver. He also attended the Alameda County Fire Advisory Committee meeting and noted that the new bylaws had been adopted and now allowed for two Councilmember representatives from each agency it served to be on the Advisory Committee. Mayor Sbranti stated he attended the City Tree Lighting Ceremony. ~r ADJOURNMENT 10.1 10:28:27 PM There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. in memory of Staff Sgt. Sean Diamond and our fallen troops. Minutes prepared by Dora Ramirez, Deputy City Clerk. /v •~. Mayor ATTE,ST: `'~ ~ P City Clerk DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 17 VOLUME 29 ~~"~ REGULAR MEETING ra ~i~/ a~ December 7, 2010 '~~~~~~1 ~~ ~