Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-30-1989REGULAR MEETING - October 30~ 1989 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, October 30, 1989, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:37 p.m., by Mayor Paul Moffatt. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Moffatt. Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle- giance to the flag. INTRODUCTION Planning Director Tong introduced Ralph Kachadourian, the City's new Assistant Planner. Ralph began his employment last Monday and comes to Dublin from Paso Robles where he was a~Planning Technician. The Council welcomed Ralph aboard. East Dublin Study Ms. Bobby Foscilina, 5200 Doolan Road stated that according to Alameda County, they received a copy of an EIR about 1 1/2 weeks ago which refers to documentation done bY property owners/developers in the canyon and they requested material from City Staff and were told there was none. She requested that the City Council tell the appropriate people to release the information. If it is available to the government, it should be made available to the public. Mayor Moffatt stated that this item is on the agenda later in the meeting. Planning Director Tong explained that this is a separate issue and stated that Staff spoke to her and several other interested individuals last week and discussed the items in which she was interested. All plans and documents that City Staff has have been made available. Cm. Snyder felt that perhaps this request should go to LAFCO. The contractor working on the EIR is a LAFCO contractor. Mayor Moffatt felt that if City Staff had the information, they would provide it. ************************************************************************** CM-8-308 Regular Meeting October 30, 1989 Cm. Snyder requested that Staff call Bruce Kern to contact the contractor and question this. They need to go back to the source of the information. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 9, 1989; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 115 - 89 AWARDING CONTRACT 89-10 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRE-EMPTION SYSTEM TO STEINY AND CO., INC. ($98,600) and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement; Approved appointments to the Livermore Amador Valley Childcare Task Force (Chamber of Commerce Representative-Joan King, School District Representatives-Betty Roerts & Cindy Cobb-Adams, Park & Recreation Commissioner-Barbara Donnell, At Large-Sister Marie Myers, Principal, St. Raymond's Church & Julie Fead, Parent and Licensed Day Care Provider; Approved the City's continued participation in the NORCAL Employment Relations Consortium and authorized the City Manager to execute the agreement; Accepted the September 30, 1989 Financial Statements; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $1,266,586.48; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 116 - 89 ADOPTING PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE EMERGENCY RESPONSE COST RECOVERY PROGRAM Authorized Staff to purchase registration and scheduling software from Leisure Soft for the Recreation Department ($11,425). Cm. Snyder requested that the item related to setting goals for the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. He questioned if the City could adopt the program on an open-ended basis rather than doing it on an annual basis. Acting City Attorney Silver stated she saw no problem with doing this, but there may be percentage changes necessary in future years. ************************************************************************** CM-8-309 Regular Meeting October 30, 1989 Since Public Works Director Thompson was not present to discuss this, on motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to table this item until the next Council meeting on November 13, 1989. Cm. Snyder requested that the item related to the purchase of an Unmarked Police vehicle be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. He expressed concern that we are buying a used vehicle for undercover purposes and the companies will not give warranties because it is for Police use. He did not view this as Police use. Also, comparing Ford and GM products is like comparing apples to oranges. Cm. Jeffery asked if the Council should establish a dollar figure that Staff could go up to without coming back to the Council. Acting City Attorney Silver advised that the City's Purchasing Ordinance requires that the City go out to public bid. The specifications were discussed and Lt. Rose advised that a requirement was that the vehicle offered have 25,000 or less miles. Cm. Snyder felt we were being too specific about the kind of car we want. Cm. Hegarty felt staff should be given latitude to purchase a car up to $15,000 to get the kind of car they need. Cm. Vonheeder was concerned that the Council might be creating a stipulation to the Ordinance that would read like the IRS Code. She suggested that the Council review the Purchasing Ordinance with regard to limitations. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council awarded the bid to Avis Car Sales ($12,892.08) and authorized Staff to issue a purchase order based on the bid. By a consensus of the Council, Staff was directed to bring the Purchasing Ordinance back to the Council at a future meeting for review. PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR STOP SIGNS ON BRIGHTON DRIVE @ CALLAN STREET Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Chris Kinzel advised that as a result of two pedestrianS being struck and injured by a vehicle during the first week of October, a petition was presented to the City Council on October 9th requesting that stop signs be installed on Brighton Drive at the intersection of Callan Street. The City's Traffic Safety Committee discussed this issue at its meeting of October llth, and the City's Traffic Engineer, TJKM, conducted a study which was presented to the Council. The study involved a field survey, traffic volume counts, pedestrian counts, a review of accident history, and sight distance and critical speeds. ************************************************************************** CM-8-310 Regular Meeting October 30, 1989 Mr. Kinzel summarized by saying that they felt that stop signs would actually decrease the safety of pedestrians. Cm. Hegarty stated he did not see how Mr. Kinzel's recommendations address the pedestrians that were hurt. Mr. Kinzel stated that if a car were parked there, it could affect the view of the driver. Cm. Hegarty stated there have been many requests like this before the City Council in the past. All the rules are there, but the book of rules did not prevent the accident from happening. Mayor Moffatt asked if there is a crosswalk at the corner of Village Parkway and Brighton Drive. Mr. Kinzel responded that there are, plus this intersection is scheduled to be signalized in about 2 years. Kathy Hovore, 7168 Brighton Drive, stated that a little bit of paint will not stop kids from being hurt. She did not understand why Staff is against this. They do not want to see any more kids hurt. Mike Stahl, 7144 Brighton Drive did not want the City to take away his parking places. His family has lived there for 8 years and he stated that this place is unreal. The problem is Brighton Drive. William Dyer, 8662 Bloomington Court stated he wished to take exception to Mr. Kinzel's comment that there would be an increased risk of accidents by placing stop signs there. If one car stops that would not have otherwise, you have protected a child. Jim Hansen, Principal of Dublin High School stated he would appreciate anything the Council could do to protect students. He was inclined to believe that a stop sign would be helpful. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. Cm. Vonheeder stated that she could testify, being a resident near a stop sign such as this, that people don't always stop. While the sun is a problem on this street, if someone cannot see a human, will they see a stop sign, particularly if it's in a location not warranted. She felt that it is an attitude problem. The accident that occurred was due to sight, and there is not much that can be done regarding the sun. Removing vehicles from the corner does help the sight of the driver normally. Everytime issues such as this come up, it is very difficult for the CoUncil to deal with them. Every time she backs out of her driveway, she has to question whether the drivers will or won't stop at the stop sign. Cm. Hegarty felt that people may be saved because you put in a stop sign. A lot of people signed the petition requesting this, and further that this Council has never turned down a stop sign request. ************************************************************************** CM-8-311 Regular Meeting October 30, 1989 Cm. Jeffery stated that a lot of the people who signed the petition are not Dublin residents. Cm, Jeffery stated she lived in this neighborhood for 26 years and can state that stop signs do not prevent accidents. If the Council continues to Put in stop signs where they are not warranted, the City loses credibility. Stop signs should be placed only where numbers warrant them. Cm. Jeffery made a motion to adopt TJKM's recommendation listed as Option A in the Staff Report regarding parking prohibitions and signing and marking changes. Cm. Vonheeder seconded the motion, but the motion was defeated due to a majority of NO votes cast. Mayor Moffatt stated that knowledge of a stop sign is an important piece of information that people get used to. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 117 - 89 PLACING STOP SIGNS ON BRIGHTON DRIVE AT THE INTERSECTION OF CALLAN STREET Cm.'s Jeffery and Vonheeder voted against this motion. PUBLIC HEARING . ORDINANCE RELATING TO ENCROACHMENTS Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Assistant City Engineer Lierly advised that this Ordinance, which was introduced at the October 9th Council meeting is part of the municipal code update. The main purpose of the Ordinance is to regulate performance of work or placement of objects in the public right-of-way. The Ordinance requires that utilities, contractors, and any other persons intending to do work within the public right-of-way obtain a permit, and establishes general conditions such as bonds, insurance, standards for performance, and compliance with safety regulations. Mayor Moffatt asked if this would prohibit real estate signs, garage sale signs and things of this nature. City Manager Ambrose responded that it would and that the Public Works Department will provide the enforcement. No comments were made by members of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. ************************************************************************** CM-8-312 Regular Meeting October 30, 1989 On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 15 - 89 RELATING TO ENCROACHMENTS PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE RELATING TO OVERSIZE/OVERWEIGHT VEHICLES Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Assistant City Engineer Lierly advised that this Ordinance which was introduced at the October 9th meeting would separate provisions relating to oversize/overweight vehicles from the encroachment ordinance which were previously included in one Alameda County Ordinance. The purpose of this Ordinance is to regulate the passage on City streets of vehicles which are of sufficient weight to damage the street or of sufficient dimension to obstruct traffic or potentially damage facilities such as light standards, signs, or utilities. No comments were made by members of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Moffatt cloSed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 16 - 89 RELATING TO OVERSIZE/OVERWEIGHT VEHICLES ON CITY STREETS PUBLIC HEARING-ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 55-87 (TRAFFIC ORDINANCE) REGULATION OF PARKING ON HILLS Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. ASsistant City Engineer Lierly advised that this Ordinance which was introduced at the October 9th meeting would require drivers to curb or otherwise block the wheels of a vehicle that is parked on a street that is steeper than a 3% grade. No comments were made by members of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ************************************************************************** CM-8-313 Regular Meeting October 30, 1989 ORDINANCE NO. 17 - 89 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 55-87 (TRAFFIC ORDINANCE) HILL PARKING REGULATION PUBLIC HEARING - PROHIBITION OF PARKING AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD WEST OF SAN RAMON ROAD Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Traffic Engineer Kinzel advised that Amador Valley Boulevard west of San Ramon Road is approximately one block long and ends in a cul-de-sac at the entrance of the Kildara townhouse development. It was recently noted that when vehicles park along the curb on this portion of the street, there is insufficient lane width remaining for traffic using the street. The original construction plans for this street did not include provision for on-street parking. No comments were made by members of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimoUs vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 118 - 89 ESTABLISHING A NO PARKING ZONE ON AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD WESTERLY OF SAN RAMON ROAD PUBLIC HEARING REPEAL OF SELECTED ALAMEDA COUNTY ORDINANCES Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Acting City Attorney Silver advised that as a result of the Municipal Code preparation, several provisions of the Alameda County Code have been identified which need to be repealed due to provisions being covered by State Law, not being applicable to the City of Dublin, or having been replaced with Dublin Ordinances. Cm. Vonheeder questioned if this would finish off being able to put our Municipal Code together. Ms. Silver advised that neither the Subdivision Ordinance nor the Zoning Ordinance had been redone. Some of the County codes are still necessary. Book Publishing Company is currently working on the codification. Cm. Vonheeder questioned if the City would be looking at redoing these 2 Ordinances soon. ************************************************************************** CM-8-314 Regular Meeting October 30, 1989 City Manager Ambrose explained that once Book Publishing Company has finished their work, we will adopt the Municipal Code and reference will be made to the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance which will not be codified in the same format. Review of these Ordinances was given a lower priority on the Council's ranking list. No comments were made by members of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an Ordinance repealing selected Alameda County Ordinances. ZONING REGULATIONS REGARDING ANTENNAS Planning Director Tong stated that at its October 9th meeting, the City Council requested a Memorandum describing the current City regulations related to antennas and the current status of the law regarding regulation of antennas. The City Attorney's Office prepared a report listing the City's options. Staff advised that the City Council could initiate~ an amendment study to the Zoning Ordinance regarding antennas keeping in mind that any regulations must reasonably accommodate satellite dish antennas and ham radio antennas, or the Council could decide that no action is needed at this time. Acting City Attorney Silver explained the 3 types of antennas and stated that cities are allowed to regulate the height of ham radio antennas as long as the regulation accommodates reception. If the Council wanted to impose a lower height limitation, this would depend on some factual discussion on how high it must be to allow reception. There are no restrictions regarding number of antennas allowed. The City Council could limit this based on facts determining how many are necessary to accommodate a ham radio operator. Cm. Hegarty felt it was apparent that when court cases are cited, the ham radio operator usually wins. Since the City has an Ordinance in place that more or less does what the City wants it to do, he questioned the need to change it. Ms. Silver advised that the Council would not be going out on a limb to make amendments to the Ordinance, i.e., to lower the height limits, but the Council must have some basis for doing this. Cm. Snyder stated he was concerned with the fact that a resident comes out of his house one day and finds a 90' antenna and is now asking if this is legal. He questioned if it was reasonable to ask that when someone wants to install one of these, give the neighbors a chance to comment in advance of the permit being issued. ************************************************************************** CM-8-315 Regular Meeting October 30, 1989 Ms. Silver stated that if the City were to require a CUP such an Ordinance might be held invalid. The FCC and the courts have made it clear that the City has to accommodate the requests. Cm. Snyder asked who determines the reasonableness. He stated he could understand both sides. From an aesthetic sense, this could be upsetting. Ms. Silver'indicated that the Council could set it and if necessary, the court reviews it. Cm. Vonheeder felt that there appeared to be enough concern on the part of the Council to warrant having Staff take a look at this. William Dyer, 8662 Bloomington Court stated he paid a hugh sum for his view lot. There are a lot of reception problems and there is currently an open case #90-0075 pending on this which was opened by him today. His neighbor's 61' antenna was approved on October 24th according to the Planning Department. Mr. Dyer urged the Council to study this issue. George Butler felt that because it is so windy in Dublin, the limit should be established so that if it falls down, it should fall on their own property rather than jeopardize someone .else's. They haVe had interference in the past and Mr. Butler presented pictures that were taken from inside his house. Cm. Snyder questioned if a permit is necessary. Mr. Tong advised that this particular individual secUred a building permit. Ms. Silver advised that interference would be one of the factors to be considered to regulate this. FCC deals with interference. Marjorie LaBar stated that she is the· daughter of a ham radio operator and advised that what causes a lot of the interference has to do with the quality and type of equipment being used and if the operator is using a linear to boost power. Quite often, illegal boosters are used. Jean Ryan, 8664 Bloomington Court stated that Mr. Markey showed her pictures of what the antenna would look like in September. She then saw the antenna laying on the ground and she objected to the size and location. She requested that he move it to the side of his house and was told that he could not do this. Cm. Snyder felt that Staff did what was appropriate and there was no way to prevent construction of this antenna. Mr. Tong advised that there are several options available and discussed these options. The Council should establish the priority of any study on this issue. Cm. Jeffery questioned if the Council did a study, would it require that existing situations be grandfathered in. ************************************************************************** CM-8-316 Regular Meeting October 30, 1989 Mr. Tong felt that a reasonable amortization period would have to be researched. Cm. Jeffery felt that aesthetics and interference were the main issues. Maybe some quick information could be obtained from FCC. She felt that Staff was presently overburdened, but perhaps they could look at adding this after completion of other higher priority projects. Mr. Dyer advised that he was told by Tom Hora with FCC in Livermore that they would take action to bring his neighbor into technical compliance. Ms. Silver advised that as a City, there is not much that the Council can do regarding the interference problems. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council determined that a study should be done regarding the height, location, screening and number of tv/radio antennas, satellite dish antennas and ham radio antennas. The study would follow after the completion of other higher priority items on which Staff is working. RECESS Mayor Moffatt called a short recess. Ail Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened. CIVIC CENTER COURTYARD FOUNTAIN Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that the first major project undertaken by the Dublin Fine Arts Foundation has been the selection of a recognized artist to complete a work of art for the Dublin Civic Center. The location for placement of the artwork focused on the courtyard fountain and the fountain was redesigned to accommodate the art design. The cost of the fountain project is significantly more than the estimate previously identified. At the City Council meeting on August 14, 1989, Mr. Ron Nahas, President of the Foundation, indicated that he did not feel that the Foundation could raise the funds to modify the fountain, in addition to their major effort to commission the artwork. Mr. Rankin explained that if the Council chose to delete the fountain, further discusion between the Foundation and the Artist would be necessary to determine wheher the Artist would continue the project without the water element'. Mr. Rankin discussed bid results, a bid discrepancy, references of the recommended bidder should the project proceed, and financing options, as well as project costs. Mr. Rankin stated that if the Council proceeds with the project, Staff recommended that the Capital Improvement Program be amended to include the Courtyard Fountain as a new project. A total of $131,300 should be appropriated, with $125,000 to be transferred from the City's unallocated reserve for future projects. The Council should also approve a budget transfer in the amount of $6,300 from the Civic Center project to the Courtyard Fountain Project. ************************************************************************** CM-8-317 Regular Meeting October 30, 1989 Cm. Hegarty asked how much more we were going to have to pay to put this piece of artwork into place. The price has gone up substantially. He was fearful that if we get in too far, we won't be able to say no. He questioned what caused the costs to rise so much. Assistant City Manager Rankin stated that the Architect prepared the initial estimate and they are not estimators. When the construction managers looked at it, they felt that the limited access could play a part in the costs. They will need to dig 5' below the fountain base to install the vault. Cm. Jeffery complimented Staff in the way the financial budget was put together. She stated she was willing to make a .motion to proceed with the project. Cm. Hegarty stated he was willing to spend this amount of money provided that the people agree that it should be spent. He again expressed concern that originally the project was to be presented as a gift; now it appears that it will cost Dublin more than the artwork which is being donated. Cm. Vonheeder stated that all of a sudden the estimate gets cast in stone. Some kind of an analysis must be done to get the money in the budget to begin with. City Manager Ambrose stated that the money can be used for construction or to retire the debt service. City Staff estimated a much more aggressive payment schedule originally. He stated that for the record, it should be noted that the City Council has never committed to proceed with the courtyard fountain. Cm. Vonheeder felt the Council may have complicated the matter by not making the decision sooner. Cm. Hegarty stated there may be other financing options, and he did not understand the rush. Cm. Vonheeder felt that the Foundation is trying to get enough money to commission the artwork. Everything must come together at the same time. Cm. Jeffery stated she was very pleased that with the Civic Center, everything thus far had been done first class. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 119 - 89 AMENDING THE 1989-90 UPDATE TO THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND APPROVING A sUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE DUBLIN CIVIC CENTER COURTYARD FOUNTAIN and ************************************************************************** CM-8-318 Regular Meeting October 30, 1989 RESOLUTION NO. 120 - 89 AWARDING CONTRACT 89-8 CIVIC CENTER COURTYARD FOUNTAIN TO GOLDEN BaY CONSTRUCTION, INC. ($113,770) Cm. Hegarty voted against this motion. REVIEW OF CITY OF DUBLIN COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR FOR BART DUBLIN/PLEASANTON EXTENSION PROJECT Planning Director Tong advised that at the October 9th Council meeting, the Council directed Staff to complete its analysis of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the BART Dublin/Pleasanton Extension Project and provide the comments to BART by October 23, 1989. Staff completed its analysis and provided the comments for Council review. Cm. Jeffery stated she had also spoken to BART about some of Dublin's concerns. The Council reviewed and confirmed the comments. ALAMEDA COUNTY OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: LIVERMORE-AMADORVALLEY PLANNING UNIT GENERAL PLAN Planning Director Tong advised that Alameda County Supervisor MarY King has proposed amendments to the Alameda County Open Space Element; Livermore-Amador Valley Planning Unit General Plan which are signifi- cantly different from the revisions recommended by the Alameda County Planning Commission. A new policy would encourage urban development outside of existing cities. Also encouraged was residential development up to one dwelling unit per 20 acres up to 1 mile away from a public road. Mr. Tong discussed two of Supervisor King's proposals which could have significant effects on the City of Dublin. 1) County representatives to the Local Agency Formation Commission would be required, to the maximum legal eXtent, to support or oppose proposed sphere of influence changes, annexations or de-annexations, based on whether the proposals were consistent with the County General Plan. 2) Future subdivisions of unincorporated lands designated as Residential Agricultural Open Space, to sizes to less than 40 acres, would only be permitted when the open space and agricultural, values of those areas were permanently protected through land dedications and conservation easements covering at least 95% of the land so subdivided. Cm. Jeffery felt the Council should strongly oppose Supervisor King's proposal. Supervisor Widener's suggestion that this be put on the June, 1990 ballot should also be opposed. If this passes, decisions out here in the Valley would be determined by Berkeley and Oakland. She questioned how we will get comments there on time, since the hearing is on the following morning at 10:30 a.m., in Oakland at the Court House. ************************************************************************** CM-8-319 Regular Meeting October 30, 1989 Planning Director Tong stated the information could be faxed. Cm. Hegarty felt that faxed comments do not carry any weight; and that we need to have someone present to give Dublin's position. Cm. Jeffery felt that one of the Councilmembers should be there. Marjorie LaBar advised the Council that this compromise did not just come out of space but rather was one worked out over a 2 1/2 year period. It represents a compromise between about 2 dozen property owners and concerned land conservation people. She requested that the City Council take a second look at the proposal as it represents a workable compromise. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council opposed the proposal to 1) require County representatives to base their LAFCO support or opposition on whether or not a proposal for annexation or city sphere of influence is consistent with the County General Plan; and 2) require at least 95% of unincorporated lands designated as Residential AgriCultural Open Space to be dedicated upon subdivision to open space or agricultural use. The Council directed that the City's opposition be forwarded to the appropriate agencies. Cm. Snyder indicated that he would attend the public hearing. Cm. Jeffery stated she also would attend if at all possible. EAST DUBLIN STUDIES - SECOND AMENDMENT Staff advised that on September 19, 1989, a meeting was held between Staff, WRT and East Dublin sponsoring property owners to review and discuss the East Dublin Preliminary Draft General Plan Land Use Alternatives and Policies. During the meeting, the sponsoring property owners indicated several concerns with the content of the preliminary draft land use alternatives and policies and identified portions which they felt were impractical or unworkable. They wanted to see more refined alternatives, with increased yields in some areas and reduced yields in others. They identified the types of development policies they wanted considered. At this meeting, the property owners also requested that the various subcontracting consultants be available at all future sponsoring property owner meetings to answer technical questions associated with the work produced. They also requested that technical work sessions be held. The additional work requested by the property owners is not covered in existing agreements, and in order to accommnodate their requests, new agreement amendments must be entered into. The cost factors and agreement amendments were discussed. Staff felt that it should be noted that of the 14 different sponsoring property owners, 10 have decided to participate in paying for their proportional share of the cost to do the additional work. Approximately $12,854 remains unsponsored. With respect to the $50,000 of Staff time donated ************************************************************************** CM-8-320 Regular Meeting October 30, 1989 to this study, a review indicates that we are close to or already have exhausted these funds. Unless otherwise instructed, once the $50,000 is expended, the sponsoring property owners will be responsible for paying any additional Staff costs incurred. City Manager Ambrose stated he had a conversation today with one of the sponsoring property owners who indicated they would pay the balance needed. Milton Righetti, 3088 Massachusetts Street, Castro Valley, stated that the study does not seem to really relate to the needs of the property owners. He was concerned that those who are ready to commit the aditional funds will come back to the City for favors in the future. He did not feel that WRT is really listening. This whole issue is still up in the air and the money has all been spent. The concepts show that they plan to develop the area several years in the future and the entire area needs to be developed cohesively. WRT seems to listen, but nothing comes out. Mr. Ambrose stated that they have not used all the money. The first public hearing has yet to be held. What is being asked for is some additional work that was not originally requested. The contract is very specific regarding the number of meetings that they need to attend. There will be numerous hearings and there will be an opportunity to provide comments to the'Council as they are ultimately the ones who Will make the final decisions. All of the property owners will have a chance to state their feelings at the public hearings before the City Council. It will be difficult to come up with a plan that will satisfy everyone. Mr. Righetti felt that there was a great deal of frustration at the meetings. The major developer felt that if additional funds were required, they must contribute in order to have the process continue. Carolyn Morgan, a Doolan Road resident, felt that the sponsoring property owners are making all the decisions and it is her and her neighbors' lifestyle that will be changed. They are making all the decisions behind closed doors. Staff told them they can't participate because they have not paid, and yet, they feel their lifestyles are being jeopardized. They should be able to go to the meetings and comment. She did not understand why there is a consultant because the sponsoring property owners are making all the decisions. Marjorie LaBar, Preserve Area Ridgelines Committee stated they have a large Dublin membership in her organization. It has been a year since there has been public comments allowed on the East Dublin planning process. Closed meetings are being held rather than what is best for all of Dublin being considered. It is unfair that people who might end up having to live within the City have no choice or voice in the matter. WRT is a good firm and Staff has made some good input, but the public has had no chance to comment. Ms. LaBar felt the public needs to be given a chance to comment before this goes any further. ************************************************************************** CM-8-321 Regular Meeting October 30, 1989 Donna Ogelvie, 5360 Doolan Canyon Road stated she used to live in Dublin and moved to Doolan Canyon at great expense. She felt this is a very sensitive area; it slips and slides and she has holes in her house from the recent earthquake. The City must listen to the consultant, as the property owners paying for the study have only had the property for about 6 years. She felt that everyone together could come up with a workable plan. She and her neighbors would be happy to be in the City if they are allowed to have a place to'ride their horses. Cm. Vonheeder questioned how the public got excluded and if there was something that precludes them from participating at the study level. Cm. Hegarty pointed out that it simply has not gotten to the public hearing stage yet. They will have an opportunity to comment in the future. Mr. Tong stated that from a practical standpoint, we hay 2 dozen different property owners within the 7,400 acre 11 square mile area. There were initially 14 property owners who indicated a willingness to help pay for the product. Those 14 property owners, in order to make progress in developing a plan, wanted to meet and work with the consultant to prepare their development proposals and they did not want to have general public involvement at this stage. They wanted to have the technical aspects worked out and then present it at a joint meeting between the Planning Commision and City Council. It is premature to have public meetings at this point. Cm. Vonheeder questioned if they could sit in and listen at the meetings. Mr. Tong stated there is a wide divergence, even among the 14 property owners. For the second amendment, we have only 10 of the original 14 property owners. There is no legal requirement that the meetings be public. Staff could approach them to see if they are willing to open them to the public. Ms. Silver stated that the study is for a General Plan Amendment and the law requires that public hearings be held at the Planning commission and City Council levels. It is not appropriate to have public comments prior to the public hearings. Ms. LaBar disagreed with this and questioned if Pleasanton and San Ramon meetings were illegal. Cm. Vonheeder stated these were most likely study sessions. Cm. Snyder stated it is unfair to compare Dublin to Pleasanton or San Ramon. Dublin is receiving and acting upon advice from its legal counsel. ************************************************************************** CM-8-322 Regular Meeting October 30, 1989 On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 121 - 89 APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT (EAST DUBLIN) WITH WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES and RESOLUTION NO. 122 - 89 APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT (EAST DUBLIN) WITH SPONSORING PROPERTY OWNERS and authorized the City Manager to sign the agreements, all of which should occur after monies have been received from sponsoring property owners paying for the additional work. OTHER BUSINESS Doolan Canyon LAFCO Report City Manager Ambrose advised that LAFCO has issued their report on the Doolan Canyon Area and it will be agendized for the City Council's November 13th meeting. Earthquake - October 17~ 1989 Mayor Moffatt advised that he and Mr. Ambrose had recently met with Vice President Quayle, Secretary of Transportation Skinner, Senator Pete Wilson and representatives of FEMA. They wanted to assure us that federal assistance would be forthcoming as soon as possible. Keys for Civic Center Cm. Hegarty stated he would like a key to be able to get into his office at the Civic Center after hours. Mr. Ambrose advised that City Staff will be distributing keys in the near future to all Citty Councilmembers, as well as' those members of Staff who need off-hour access to the building. ************************************************************************** CM-8-323 Regular Meeting October 30, 1989 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to come before.the Council, the meeting ATTEST: ~ Mayor ************************************************************************** CM-8-324 Regular Meeting October 30, 1989