Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-28-1996 CC Adopted Minutes REGULAR MEETING - May 28, 1996 A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, May 28, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 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. AWARD TO THE CITY FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING 7:04 p.m. 3.1 (150~20) The Government Finance Officers Association notified the City that its comprehensive annual financial report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1995 qualified for a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. Mayor Houston presented the Certificate of Achievement plaque to Paul S. Rankin, Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services Director. SPECIAL RECOGNITION TO DUBLIN POLICE SERVICES BY DUBLIN HIGH SCHOOL 7:05 p.m. 3.2 (580-30) Dublin High School Student Body President Ryan Schrader read a letter from Mary Eversley, Principal at Dublin High School, commending the Dublin Police Services for their outstanding support to Dublin High School. Dublin High School has received the California Distinguished School Award three times. CITY' COUN(;IL MINUTE.~ V'OLUMK 1 S RE~iUL~R MEET1N(i PAGE 236 New Power Poles on Hansen Drive & Silvergate Drive (1020-30) Rick Van, 11447 Rampart Drive, indicated new power poles are being put up along Hansen Drive and Silvergate Drive. He did not understand why poles were being used rather than undergrounding the utilities. He stated the poles were taller than poles used in the past. It was his understanding that Pacific Bell had been installing the poles without a permit. Dublin was trying to upgrade its looks. He wanted to preserve the property values in Dublin. Mr. Thompson, Public Works Director, stated he had met with Pac Bell representatives. They have agreed to remove the new poles and put in lower poles. Mayor HoustOn asked about the permitting. Mr. Thompson responded that the work had been done without a permit. They will be going underground with the utilities in the future. Cm. Burton stated it was a nice presentation and that he wanted lower poles. He asked how long it would be before the utilities went underground. Mr. Thompson replied when P G & E put in new utilities in two or three years. Concern about Landscaping (530-20) Diane Soto of 11486 Silvergate Drive has been a Dublin resident for over 20 years. She addressed the Council about her concerns regarding the landscaping throughout Dublin. She has just returned to the City and has observed that shrubs are dead along Silvergate Drive. Driving along San Ramon Road used to look nice, but now there are all kinds of weeds. Why isn't the landscaping being maintained? She felt Dublin looked worst than when she first moved in. Cm. Howard agreed with Ms. Soto. She felt the landscaping was not looking as good and wanted Staff to look into the contract. Cars Running Red Lights (590-30) Valerie Vann, 11447 Rampart Drive, expressed her concern about the number of people who run red lights, especially on Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road. She has seen at least 20 cars a day run red lights. What can be done? She is surprised there are not more accidents. She saw on television that some cities have installed cameras CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ~/OLUME ! 5 RE~iULAR MEETIN~I ]~l[~.'y ~{~, 199~ PAGE 237 in the traffic lights to take pictures of cars going through a red light. She believed the cost of installing such equipment would pay for itself. Mayor Houston indicated he has seen cars running the stop sign at Silvergate and Amarillo. When such problems are brought to the attention of the City, police will work harder on that particular area. Cm. Howard stated there was a problem at San Ramon Road and Shannon Avenue. Gun Issue (585-80) Greg Somersett wished to address the Council in regard to the gun issue in this town. He believed everyone had a right to own a gun. He felt crime control and gun control were two separate issues. He stated if someone sells guns from their home, they will be regulated by ATF. He believed it would be violating his rights as a gun owner to prevent people from selling guns from their home. Problem with Utility Poles (1020- 30) Leo Warren, 11435 Rampart Drive, brought pictures he had taken of the utility poles from his backyard to show the Council. He asked where the utilities would be undergrounded. Mr. Thompson, Public Works Director, responded 1,500 feet pass the intersection which meant only the first couple of houses would not have the poles. Mayor Houston indicated that at least they will be reducing the size of the poles so that the higher poles will not be there. Miscellaneous Concerns (1000 ~ 70) Tom Ford, Tina Place, indicated he had spoken with the City last year and determined the area known as Kennedy Garden was City property. He was told it could be upgraded with the widening of Dublin Boulevard. He feels it is substandard. He also wanted to address the fact that Zone 7 Board of Directors has received a letter on City of Dublin letterhead supporting the water transfer from the Berrenda Mesa district. This issue had not been reviewed or discussed by the City Council or the Planning Commission. He felt it was a strong endorsement for the project, while both the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton strongly opposed the transfer. Voting on the issue by Zone 7 will take place June 12th. He felt it would be prudent for the City to review in IglTY' COUN(~IL MINUTE~ VOLUME 15 RE6UL&R MEETIN(I l~ay 28, 1996 PAGE 238 an open forum the issue and note the impact on our City. He felt if the City supports the transfer, it will hurt the development in Eastern Dublin. He asked whY we were trying to support this? EBMUD has committed to providing water to Dougherty Valley in the year 2000. He felt the City should be neutral or have a public airing because it was a serious matter. CONSENT CALENDAR 7:29 p.m. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved (4.1) Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 14, 1996; Adopted (4.2 600-50) RESOLUTION NO. 50 - 96 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT FOR SUPPLEMENT NO. 006 (CYCLE 6) STATE-LOCAL PARTNERSHIP FUNDS (SB300) Adopted (4.:3 670-40) RESOLUTION NO. 51 - 96 APPROVING QUITCLAIM DEED FOR UTILITY EASEMENT PROPERTY AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND DOUGHERTY ROAD and authorized Mayor to execute the deed; Approved (4.4 600-30) Third Amendment to Agreement for Legal Services with Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson and authorized Mayor to execute the Agreement; Accepted (4.5 150~70) gift in the amount of $2,000 from Soroptimist International of Dublin Inc. to be used to develop and implement curriculum for the Pioneer Day Program for third graders at the Dublin Heritage center; and directed Staff to prepare formal acknowledgments to the donor; Adopted (4.6 600-40) RESOLUTION NO. 52- 96 AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA REGARDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 CITY' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME. '15 RE~iUI~R MF_~TIN6. May 28, 1996 PAGE 239 and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement; Received (4.8 600-30) Staff presentation on agreement between the City of Dublin and Kaufman and Broad regarding Rental Availability In-Lieu Fee for Donlan Canyon/California Highlands and authorized Mayor to sign agreement; Awarded (4.9 350-20) bid, not to exceed the amount of $13,348 to Lynn Peavey Company for the purchase of the TraQ Evidence Tracking System; authorized the budget change and additional appropriation to complete the Evidence System purchase; and awarded bid, not to exceed $7,388, to Derek Consulting Group, for the purchase of the Government Fixed Assets Management System (G-FAMS); Directed (4.10 590-20) Staff to investigate speeding concerns on Village Parkway and to work with the City of San Ramon regarding future improvements; Authorized (4.12 600-30) the Mayor to execute an agreement for the placement of artwork at Stagecoach Park with Dubline Fine Arts and Artist Twyla Arthur; Approved (4.13 300-40) the Warrant Register in the amount of $319,866.06. Cm. Moffatt pulled Item 4. 7 from the Consent Calendar and wanted the public to be aware of the high cost of graffiti and what the cost to the City was to remove it. He indicated that ten to twelve windows were going to have to be replaced due to the etching, which will cost between $8~000 to $1~000. He felt it was a shame the City had to spend the mone~ but our facilities should be clean and presentable. In regard to the rejected bids, he asked if the bids could include a layer of plastic which would cost between $5 to $10 to prevent future etching. Parks & Community Set.ices Director Zowart indicated that once the windows were installed that vandal resistant film was going to be placed on the windows and she indicated that 41 windows have been damaged Cm. Barnes stated it was 37 windows when the bid process had started On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted (4.7 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 53 - 96 REJECTING ALL BIDS FOR CONTRACT 96-05 SHANNON COMMUNITY CENTER WINDOW REPLACEMENT and authorized Staff to readvertise the project with a modified scope of work; ClT~ COUNCIL MINUTES ~OLUME 15 RE6ULAR MEETIN(i lV~ay 28, 1996 PAGE 240 City Manager Ambrose requested that Item 4.11 be pulled from the Consent Calendar so Staff could give an update to the Council. Cm. Barnes stated she would abstain from voting on this item. City Attorney Silver reported that the final form of the agreement had not been received from PG~E as yet. The final agreement form is to indicate insurance coverage in the amount of $5,000,000 which is the City's current limit rather than the $I0,000,000 coverage shown in the agreement. Cm. Moffatt asked if the City had an oral agreement with PG~E. City Attorney Silver indicated the Countywide group has said there shouldn't be a problem. She has talked to the PG~E attorney, but they have not come to a resolution as yet. Mayor Houston asked if passing the resolution would keep the City on schedule, for the transfer of ownership. On motion by Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Barnes abstained), the City Council adopted (4.11 ~)4~-30) RESOLUTION NO. 54 ~ 96 APPROVING POLE ATFACHMENT AGREEMENT WITH PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC RELATIVE TO STREET LIGHTING FACILITIES and authorized Mayor to execute the agreement; Mayor Houston announced that Item 8.1 Mape Park Renovation would be moved to immediately follow the Consent Calendar. MAPE PARK RENOVATION 7:35 p.m. 8.1 (920-30) Parks & Community Services Director Diane Lowart presented the Staff Report. At the March 12, 1996 meeting of the Dublin City Council, the Council approved a consultant agreement with John Nicol & Associates to provide landscape architectural services for the renovation of Mape Park. As part of the design process, two neighborhood meetings were conducted to obtain input on the preferred design for the park. The proposed master plan includes the following design elements: 1) separated younger and older children's play areas with accessible equipment and surfacing; 2) new park furniture including benches, trash receptacles and picnic tables; 3) two small group picnic areas; 4) concrete walkway encircling the park; 5) upgraded park CITY' COUNCIL MINU~ VOLUME 15 RE~iULAR MEETIN{i ll~a~'y ~-8, ~99~ PAGE 241 lighting; 6) sand volleyball court; 7) restroom building; 8) pedestrian bridge over the creek; and 9) enhanced shrub and tree plantings. The estimated cost for the base park improvements is $205,023. The sand volleyball court, the pedestrian bridge and the restroom building are estimated to be $122,500 making the total estimated cost for the Mape Park renovation on the proposed master plan as $327,523. At the May 20, 1996 meeting of the Parks and Community Services Commission, the Commission unanimously approved the proposed master plan including the three optional items. The Commission felt strongly that these items should not be identified as options but should instead be included as part of the base park design. The Five Year Capital Improvement Program does not currently appropriate funds for construction of the Mape Park Improvements. The City Council will be adopting a new Five Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 1996-200I in June. Unfortunately, there are more park projects than available funding. The Parks and Community Services Commission will be conducting a special meeting on May 29, 1996 to review and prioritize the park projects and to make recommendations for the funding and scheduling of these projects. Staff would recommend that the City Council approve the master plan in concept and direct the Commission to reevaluate the Mape Park project against other park projects and the available funds. Cm. Moffatt expressed a concern about the restrooms and asked if they would be checked at night. Ms. Lowart responded that the restrooms would be locked at night and opened in the mornings. Cm. Moffatt asked about routine police patrol indicating that bathrooms have been destroyed twice, once being blown up and the second time being destroyed by a sledge hammer. Ms. Lowart answered that the police do patrol the parks on a routine basis. It will also depend on the help of neighbors to report problems. John Nicol, the architectural consultant for Mape Park, gave an overview of the proposed master plan. He indicated that the park has a large open green space; there is a walking path through the area; plantings around the perimeter of the park will act has a buffer between park users and the neighbors; and the picnic tables will be spread around the park instead of being in one area. Cm. Howard asked what would be around the volleyball area to protect balls going into neighbors backyards? CITY* COUNCIL MINUTF. S VOLUId£ 15 ~ay ~8, 1996 PAGE 242 Mr. Nicol indicated there would be a 20 foot clearance between the volleyball area and the neighbors' backyards, as well as a ¢ foot chain link fence. There will be existing trees and more trees will be planted. So physical separation and tree planting should separate the volleyball area from the houses. Cm. Burton stated there was no mention of an area for dogs or cats. Since it is a neighborhood park, it would be more accessible to dogs with so many handy trees. Mr. Nicol responded that signage would be incorporated to restrict use by dogs. Becky Hopkins, 7510 Calle Verde, felt time was running out. Mape Park is the only neighborhood park in Dublin that has never been renovated. It should be at the top of the list. She felt Mape Park had a bad image. As a child she was terrified to walk past the park because of all the drug and alcohol activity at the park. She doesn't believe it is a safe place now. It saddens her to have the park a place of fear. Renovation of the park would mark a new era. Mape Park was actually named as a memorial to a Vietnam veteran, the first casualty from Dublin. The park is under used and under served. She asked the Council to approve the complete renovation for the park. Cm. Burton indicated he had not realized it was a memorial park. Ms. Lowart responded that the City had inherited the park from Dublin San Ramon Services District who had established the park as a memorial. Mayor 'Houston suggested the park have a rededication. Joan McNew, 7541 San Sabana Road, stated she strongly believed in the renovation. It had been carefully developed and was a beautiful park design. The restroom, volleyball court, and bridge should not be optional, but are necessary for safety and security. This would be the only volleyball court Dublin has. Brigit Craig, 7575 San Sabana Road, indicated "option" on this park was not in their vocabulary. To be a success, every item needed to be with the park. The volleyball court, the bridge, and the restrooms are needed. She urged the Council to approve the total concept. Bob Vogel, 7548 San Sabana Road, indicated he lived a half a block from the park and was not an extensive user. But he supported the park, especially the safety improvements for the younger children. Right now the kids are playing in the street because the park is not safe. Trees block the view. Safety lighting is poor. There is dated Playground equipment which could lead to increased injuries. He indicated the Council had two choices. One, the Council could support the improvements and make the park a healthy, safer place. Or the Council could delay the renovation and hope there are no tragic consequences. CITY' COUNCIL MINUTES ~/OLUME 15 RE(iULAR MEETINfi PAGE 243 Dick Hopkins, 7510 Calle Verde, stated he has lived in Dublin for 30 years. He strongly urged the approval of all the recommendations. There was a need for the bridge. The bridge would make the park accessible to a hundred more people. Mike Wolfe (12 years old), 7507 San Sabana Road, indicated he did not usually go to the park. There was not much to do there. He felt the park did not look good. There were rocks and dirt in the sand. The kids played in the streets because they had to remove garbage at the park in order to play there. Mike White, 7500 San Sabana Road, stated he supported the park except for one concept. He lives down at the end of the park and has had park users use his bathroom. He indicated when Prop. 103 passed, it was good for property owners, but it was bad for parks. He and his neighbors backhoed parts of the park to cover the debris. His 23 year old played there. He has watched for years as other parks have been renovated. It is now our turn. He has reservations in regard to the volleyball court. If it is the only one in the City, it will turn into a community park. He felt the volleyball court belongs at the Dublin Sports Grounds. Otherwise, a lot of traffic would be generated in their neighborhood. He agreed that the youth needed the volleyball court, but not at this neighborhood park. Cm. Howard expressed concern about the balls going over the fence. She asked if it was possible to move the volleyball court. Jim Stewart, 7502 Calle Verde Road, indicated he had owned his home for 4 years. When he moved in, he was told the park was going to be renovated. Funds that had been planned for the renovation of Mape Park had been taken to renovate the Heritage Center. He felt it was important to renovate the park now. He did not have any kids, but he enjoyed hearing the kids play. Carol Wolfe, 7507 San Sabana Road, stated hers was the second house from the corner. She wanted to thank Diane Lowart and John Nicol for all their hard work. She felt this was a total plan providing something for everyone. There was an area for tots, an expansive field to practice soccer and baseball, and a volleyball court for the teens and adults. The sand in the volleyball area could be used by tots during the day and later by the teens to play volleyball. The bridge would provide access to the Kildara residents. The Dublin Police supported the bridge. The pathway around the park allows a place to walk. She urged the Council to accept the master plan with the options and asked that they don't piecemeal the project. Patricia Dugan, 7587 San Sabana Road, wished to address the safety point of view. The playground equipment is 30 years old and not safe. The slide is too high and too hot. There is a real need for safe, modern playground equipment. The kids are playing in the street. She felt the walkway around the park would be nice to enjoy. CIT~ COUNCIL MINUTES V~OLUME 15 RE(IUL&R M£ETIN(I ]~t~ay 28, 1996 PAGE 244 Cm. Howard asked about the lighting in the park and the drainage. Mr. Nicol responded that the master plan did not show the light fixtures. There would be four or five standards. Cm. Howard asked if the volleyball court could be moved away from the house. Mr. Nicol indicated it could be moved 80 feet. Cm. Barnes stated she loved the whole plan, but was concerned about the lighting by the bridge for safety. Carol Wolfe wanted to address the restrooms. There were lots of young moms in the neighborhood, almost 60 kids on San Sabana and Calle Verde. She suggested the Council visit the restroom at Boone Park in San Ramon. It was a tiny facility, but was a really good thing to have. She felt during the early hours the park would be used by young kids while from 4 pm to 6 pm the park would be used for soccer. Mr. Nicol stated it would be easy to light the area by the bridge. Ms. Lowart indicated the Police Department would be reviewing the documents in regard to safety issues. Cm. Howard asked if the bridge had hand rails. Ms. Lowart indicated the bridge would be similar to the one at Shannon Park. Cm. Barnes wanted "Memorial" added to the name for John Mape. Ms. Lowart explained that the park sign was fairly new and that they weren't planning on replacing it. Cm. Burton wanted the word "Memorial" put in reference to Mape Park in the future. Mayor Houston suggested a formal rededication. Cm. Moffatt felt the master plan was a good idea, but he was concerned about the volleyball court with the sand. He felt kids and cats don't mix. He suggested that the sand be substituted with bark like at Kolb Park. Ms. Ix>wart indicated that the park is currently being maintained and that the sand is raked for glass. Since the sand is not handicapped accessible, it could be replaced with bark similar to Kolb Park. CITY' coUNcIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE(iULAR MEETINil lay 28, 1996 PAGE 245 MaYor Houston wanted the volleyball court moved south as far as it could be moved. He indicated he had spoken with the owner of Hayward Fishery who supported the idea. Cm. Moffatt requested that in all future literature and discussions that the name of the park be referred to as "Mape Memorial Park." On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the master plan in concept and directed the Consultant to begin work on construction documents for the base improvements which would include the sand volleyball court being moved as far south as.possible, the restroom building and pedestrian bridge with safety lighting. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed the Parks & Community Services Commission to reevaluate the Mape Memorial Park project against the other park projects and available funds as part of the 1996-97 budget process and recommend to the City Council the park priorities for I996-97. Mayor Houston asked when the Parks & Community Services Commission would be meeting. Ms. Lowart responded tomorrow night (May 29th) at 7:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ~ BUS STOP ON WEST SIDE OF VILLAGE PARKWAY AT LEWIS AVENUE 8:37 p.m. 6.1 (1060-20) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Public Works Director Thompson presented the Staff Report. He indicated that this was the second reading of this proposed ordinance. Staff had received a request from an elderly resident of San Ramon to have a bus stop placed on the west side of Village Parkway across from the post office. The nearest stop on the west side of the street is at the corner of Amador Valley Boulevard near the Oil Changer. Staff contacted the County Connection, which had no objection to placing a bus stop at this location. At the May 14, 1996 Council meeting, a concern was expressed that a bus stopped at this location would cause a traffic backup and a problem for drivers making a northbound-to-southbound U-turn. Staff feels this situation would not occur frequently since the bus would only stop if there were passengers getting on or off. CITY' GOUNGIL MINUIF.,S VOLUME 15 RE6UL.A.R MEETIN6 May 28, 1996 PAGE 246 Cm. Moffatt asked if the business owners had been notified and if any complaints had been received. Mr. Thompson responded that the owners had been notified and that no complaints had been received. Cm. Moffatt requested that the Council revisit the issue in six months to see if the City has received any complaints or if any accidents have occurred. Cm. Howard felt it would be safer having the bus stop. Mayor Houston indicated the issue can be revisited at anytime if the City receives any complaints. Cm. Burton wanted to confirm that the bus would not be staying at the bus stop for a long time. No testimony was entered by any member of the Public relative to this issue. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 7 - 96 ESTABLISHING A BUS STOP ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF VILLAGE PARKWAY SOUTHERLY OF THE DRIVEWAY OPPOSITE LEWIS AVENUE PUBLIC HEARING RENTAL AVAILABILITY ORDINANCE REPEAL 7:35 p.m. 6.2 (430~20) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Tasha Huston presented the Staff Report. The Housing Element of the Dublin General Plan dictates that the City shall require a percentage of units in large multi-family projects be rented for a specified period of time. The objective is to "Insure availability of rental units in Dublin." The purpose of the Rental Availability Ordinance is to provide rental housing in the City of Dublin by requiring that 10% of the total number of units in all new multi-family projects of more than ten units be maintained as rental units for a period of five years. CI*I¥ COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE6UL~R MEETIN6 May 28, 1996 PAGE 24 7 The City Council had asked Staff to report on the status of rental housing availability in the City and whether the City's Rental Availability Ordinance is still needed to regulate this condition. At its meeting of March 12,199¢, the City Council determined that the City's objective regarding rental housing availability is being met by the housing market and the Rental Availability Ordinance is no longer necessary. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the repeal of the Rental Availability Ordinance and related General Plan Housing Element Amendment at its May 21, 1996 meeting. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, adopt a General Plan Housing Element Amendment, and repeal the Rental Availability Ordinance. No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED the ordinance repealing Chapter 8.04 of the Dublin Municipal Code known as the Rental Availability Ordinance and deferred action on a resolution adopting a negative declaration and approving a General Plan Text Amendment regarding the repeal of the Rental Availability Ordinance until the June 11, 1996 Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ~ ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.12.120 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE AUTHORIZING REFERRAL OF CUP REVOCATIONS TO PLANNING COMMISSION 8:41 p.m. 6.3 (420~20) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Community Development Director Eddie Peabody presented the Staff Report. He explained that the current Municipal Code needs to be updated so that the Community Development Director shall have the discretion to refer any administrative action on Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Site Development Reviews and parcel maps directly to the Planning Commission. The normal appeal procedures would remain and the Planning Commission decision could still be appealed to the City Council for final action. This Ordinance was introduced at the May 14, 1996 meeting of the City Council. No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. CITY' COUNCIL MINUTES ~/OLUME 15 RE(IUI~R MEETIN(i l~ay 28, 1996 PAGE 248 On motion of Cm. 'Burton, seconded bY Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 8-96 AMENDING SECTION 2.12.120 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE PUBLIC HEARING INCLUSIONARY ZONING ORDINANCE 8:43 p.m. 6.4 (430-20) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Tasha Huston presented the Staff Report. The City of Dublin General Plan Housing Element and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan require the City of Dublin to prepare an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Joint Study Sessions of the City Council and the Planning Commission were held on February 6 and March 19, 1996. The draft Ordinance contains the policy direction resulting from these study sessions. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Ordinance at its May 7, 1996 meeting. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and approve the Ordinance. The purpose of the proposed Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance is to further the City's goals of making available an adequate supply of housing for persons of all economic segments of the community, and contributing to the attainment of this goal by increasing the production of residential units affordable by households of very low, low, and moderate income housing. For new residential projects of 20 units or more, 5% of the units must be units which are affordable to very low, low, or moderate income households. The Inclusionary Unit requirements apply to both rental and ownership projects. Options for developers to meet their affordable housing obligations in ways other than on-site construction would be available. Incentives will be offered to encourage Inclusionary Units to be constructed with the understanding that no incentives are guaranteed to any projects. The City will use the Department of Housing and Urban Development data on an annual basis for the purpose of determining afforclability. An Affordable Housing Agreement approved by the City Manager will be required to demonstrate how a project complies with the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance requirements. The Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance would not replace any provisions of the City's Density Bonus Ordinance or any other City Ordinances. Administrative Guidelines will be prepared to provide procedural details and will provide assistance to developers to comply with the Ordinance's requirements. COUNCIL MINUTF. S VOLUME ~ 5 RE6UI~tR M~.£TIN6 ]~{~a.y '"~,, 1996 PAGE 249 If development projects do provide Inclusionary units, the City would need to be actively involved in monitoring or managing some aspects of the project, such as income qualification screening and financing details. City Staff have met With staff of the Dublin Housing Authority to discuss administration of the Ordinance. The Housing Authority staff has proposed an arrangement for consultation services on a time and materials basis with City Staff overseeing the administration. Research of other Cities' programs revealed two methods commonly used by Cities to assist affordable housing development to be waivers and deferrals. When fee waivers are granted by a City, it is usually considered a project subsidy. When fees are deferred, the total amount of revenue collected would not change, but the collection time frame would be affected. When Cities allow deferrals, they usually require that an agreement be entered into by the developer and City, establishing the terms for payment and method for recovering cost in the event of projects which are not completed. The proposed Ordinance offers two levels of deferred fees. The first level could be approved by the City Manager and would apply to project processing fees (i.e. planning applications, plan review). The second level would require City Council approval and would apply to project impact fees (i.e. Public Facilities Fees). Cm. Burton agreed with the first page with the affect you are trying to do, but he is very disturbed with the way it has been interpreted in making it a bureaucratic maze. We have got into the what ifs to the extent that it has now become unrealistic in what is going to happen. He felt we would be asking new people who are going to move into our town to solve a social problem which is affordable housing. The present people will not be contributing or participating even though they are the ones who caused it. He doesn't know if we can solve that. He sees us looking at new people coming in and paying for affordable housing. Secondly~ he felt it was unrealistic for us to say inclusionary units shall stay affordable for 30 years. If we had a thousand homes with inclusionary housing, there is 50 houses. Is the City going to watch it for 40 years. Will we be there when the guy moves or sells? We should try to figure a nice, simple way. Secondly, he believed most people will pay the fee because they are not going to put up with this nonsense trying to keep track of something for 30 years. Then, how much money would the City get and what would we do with it. That would be another bureaucratic structure that would have to be maintained. He didn't believe it would be a lot of money and it would not be solving the affordable housing problem by writing an ordinance like this. He wanted to find a way to attract or encourage development so that the market should provide good, affordable starter homes. The City could throw in their fees because that is the way the City can do it by having the present people help pay for affordable housing instead of putting it all on the new people. If we want to have affordable housing, we have got to let the market do it. We cannot artificially do it with five pages of this and that and which will discourage anyone from building. He didn't believe the City would get enough money to help create affordable housing. He would rather the City find ways to encourage the developer and not make him build the same house. If we restricted resale, then CITY' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE{iUI~R MEETINfl May 28, 1996 PAGE 250 what about maintenance? He had really thought about it and he can't support it. He felt there should be changes and be a little more realistic. Cm. Moffatt indicated Terry Ward was in the audience and could answer questions. He was more concerned about house renting rather than house buying. He felt we were getting into a pseudo rent control problem. He asked if the City would be using HUD scenario? If the City brought in the Housing Authority, would they have this responsibility to fix these rents and/or monitor them7 Ms. Huston responded the City would use HUD data and then create the formula to calculate the rent formula levels each year. Cm. Moffatt asked if it was based on the household salary? Ms. Huston indicated any income used to contributing to the household rent was included except newspaper route income of the kids. Cm. Moffatt asked about the Section 8 subsidy if it could be applied to the situation. Ms. Huston responded that the Section 8 subsidy is a separate program in that it is federally funded. The Ordinance does encourage combinations of programs. Staff would look into when the administrative guidelines were developed if Section 8 subsidies could be used because she was not sure it was considered a guaranteed income. Mayor Houston stated how the Ordinance would be administered is in the future. Terry Ward, Northbay Ecumenical Homes, felt it would not be appropriate for him representing a nonprofit that is in the area of affordable housing to suggest housing policy or direction to the City. He felt it was a tough problem in every community in California and across the country. He did have a program that addresses affordable homeowner housing. It deals with that issue on a market rate basis by providing a financing program allowing a home to be financed at its fair market value. It does address some of the questions raise. He believed that would be down the road at a time the Council decides it does want to go forward. It is a program that is unique in that it brings funds in from an outside investor, a bank, to match funds with the City. It helps a responsible renter move into homeownership. He gave the Secretary a packet with information on the program. George Zika, 8046 Peppertree Road, indicated that there was an alternative called low income housing tax credits where you work with the State; you get private companies, private individuals, and nonprofits involved. The City doesn't get involved. It doesn't have to administer. If you get the credit by State law, they have to be maintained as low income for 55 years. You pay one of the nonprofits to run the program for you. CITY' COUNCIL MINtITF~ VOLUME 15 Rt~fULZtR Mi~ETIN6 'l~ay ~8, 1996 PAGE 251 The people who buy the credits get an income tax write~off. Fanny May buys these credits. Major corporations like Chevron and Pac Bell buy these credits. They also get a lot of publicity that they are helping low income people in the community. There are all kinds of options. The City does not necessary have to get involved in the administration. The only thing they may have to do is put a little seed money to fill the gap between what the rents will support on the first mortgage, what the credits will support, and what's left on developer costs. Cm. Burton agreed with Mr. Zika. He felt they were all excellent ideas. But he was fighting the ordinance and the way it was written. He felt there were things that were completely impractical. He objected to paragraph D on page 5. He believed there should be no resale restrictions necessary. Mr. Zika felt the ordinance provided alternatives. Cm. Burton agreed with Mr. Zika that the market place is where it should be. Mr. Zika stated his kids can not afford to buy a house in Dublin. He paid $25,000 for his house and it was low income housing when he moved in out here. It is not our fault inflation went up. Mayor Houston indicated that the Council was not setting forth how to run the program so there are many options in the future. The way it is laid out, in the beginning the City has nothing to do because there won't be any money. Cm. Burton stated that We have people that are coming in the door now. They are making their decisions right now. Ms. Huston explained that restrictions may be necessary to prevent speculation. Mayor Houston indicated that right now we did not know what the implementations are, whether to build a unit and sell it or to give low interest loans. The City has not come up with the vehicle. It remains to be seen how it will be done. Pat Cashman, Alameda County Surplus Property Authority Manager, stated the ordinance as proposed does have many options. He felt it was a very good start. He questioned partial credit. Kaufman & Broad will provide 10 % to 20% of units that are affordable by design. He was not clear if they would get any credit for it since they would be providing a large pool for affordable housing bY market design. Will they get any partial credit for it? Cm. Burton asked if they could bank it and take it somewhere else? CiTY COUNCIL Mm~ VOLUME ] 5 RE~iUL~R MEETIN~ ]~l~zy ~{~, ~996 PAGE 252 Mayor Houston thought that the last time Council had discussed this, it was decided that whatever you provide, you would get credit for. There were a variety of things that could be done. One of the things specifically was you would get credit for whatever you do on site. Is there a place in the Ordinance that talks about that or does it need to be cleaned up? Ms. Huston responded that it was not specifically mentioned what the arrangement would be on partial credit partially because it was something that was seen as a detail that would be addressed in the affordable housing agreement that is required for every individual project. It is expected that a wide range of options might be used when a developer wants to provide some of the affordable units but not all. Rather than try to address all those situations, Staff felt it could be handled in the administrative guidelines that will be developed. There is a section that speaks to credit transfers on page 9. It doesn't specify every single situation where transfers would be used, but it does mention that they are available. Mayor Houston asked that at least a line be put in the Ordinance that specifies that because he thinks that will come u p more often than some of the more creative ideas. He will leave it up to Staff to find where the appropriate paragraph is put. He asked if that was agreeable to everyone. Mr. Cashman responded yes. The comment means that it will still need to be worked out, but clearly the spirit from the Council and Staff is that it will be. He appreciated that clarification. Ms. Huston responded her initial recommendation would be page 9 under the In-Lieu Fee Option, a sentence could be added at the end stating that if a portion of the required affordable units is constructed on site, the in-lieu fee would be reduced by the percentage of units provided. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, Seconded by Cm. Howard, and by consensus vote (Cm. Burton voted no), the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED the ordinance with the change identified on page 9 under Section 8.24.080 B that would provide partial credit for those units that are built and deferred action on the resolution adopting a negative declaration for the inclusionary zoning ordinance and establishing method for determining amount of in-lieu fee until the June 11, 1996 Council meeting. Cm. Burton asked Cm. Moffatt if he believed the life on the inclusionary unit should be 30 years. CIT~ COUNCIL MINUTES V'OLUME 15 RE6ULAR MEETIN(~ May 28, 1996 PAGE 253 Cm. Moffatt responded yes. He saw this back in New York and without these restrictions, New York was in such a bind and such a fix that people were coming in there and buying the units at a discount and then turning around and selling them. The only person that was losing was New York City itself. He felt these restrictions are necessary. Cm. Burton Stated unless there was public money involved, the City had no business in it. Mayor Houston really believed that the City hasn't identified how it is going to be implemented which he believes is the more important part. This is a step which outlines many options and there is more that hasn't even been thought of, but that will be at the crucial time. He is excited about the possibility of having this as a vehicle for senior housing since we have none in our City. He is going to support it and how it is implemented will be the key. He called for the question. The vote was 4 ~ I with Cm. Burton voting no. PUBLIC HEARING - CALIFORNIA CREEKSIDE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 9:17 p.m. 6.5 600~60 Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Dennis Carrington presented the Staff Report. The City Council introduced the ordinances approving a PD Rezone and Development Agreement for California Creekside at its meeting of May 14, 1996. Minor changes have been made by the City Attorney to the Development Agreement in regard to indemnification and waiver of protest. The changes to the indemnification paragraph make the intent of the paragraph clearer. The changes to the landscaping maintenance along streets and creek paragraph clarify that the County or developer will assure that the purchasers of individual lots will pay for their proportionate share of maintenance costs for trails and public street and creek landscaping within the Santa Rita property. Cm. Moffatt asked when the property had been annexed to the City. Mr. Carrington responded in 1986. Steve Hicks of Kaufman & Broad indicated that his company concurred with the minor revisions and he urged the Council to pass the ordinances and resolution. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. CIT~ COUNCIL MINUTF.,S ~OLUME ~ 5 RE{IUI~R Mt~ETIN{I May 28~ 1996 PAGE 254 On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 55 ~ 96 APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING CONCERNING PA 95-048~ CALIFORNIA CREEKSIDE and waiVed the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 9 - 96 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD, WEST OF TASSAJARA CREEK, SOUTH OF THE TRANSIT SPINE AND EAST OF AN UNNAMED COLLECTOR STREET (APN 946~15~1-10 POR) and ORDINANCE NO. 10 ~ 96 APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PA 95-048, CALIFORNIA CREEKSIDE PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT OF DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.28 RELATING TO CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION 9:20 p.m. 6.6 (630~40) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. City Attorney Elizabeth Silver gave the Staff presentation. At the May 14, 1996 Council meeting, the Council directed Staff to prepare an ordinance that included I) an election period to commence 120 days prior to and following an election; · 2) a $300 limit on contributions; 3) a declaration under penalty of perjury that the candidate has not collected more than $300; 4) campaign statements shall itemize any amount over $25.01; 5) contributions can only be accepted during an election period; and 6) if any part of the ordinance is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected. The City's existing Campaign Contributions Ordinance limits contributions made "with respect to an election." Federal law, which has been upheld by the courts, limits contributions "with respect to an election" whereas State law, which limited contributions per fiscal year, has been held to violate the First Amendment. The draft ordinance eliminates the phrase "with respect to an election" and reverts to the concept of an "election period." CITY' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE6ULAR MEETIN6 PAGE 255 The current ordinance limits contributions for both the office of Mayor and the office of Councilmembers to $1,000 "with respect to an election." The draft ordinance would impose a $$00 limitation for both offices. No contributions would be allowed except during the period 120 days prior to the election and 120 days following the election. For this next municipal election that will be held on November 5, 199¢, the contribution period would be July 18, 1996 to April 5, 1997. By State law, a candidate can take out nomination papers and officially declare his or her intent to run for office on July 15, 1996. A candidate could also complete a form (Statement of Intention) stating the intention to run for future office at any time which allows receipt of campaign contributions for that future designated office. If the draft ordinance is adopted, it will apply prospectively only. If an individual has received money prior to the new ordinance taking effect, there is no requirement that such monies be returned and no violation of the Municipal Code has occurred. The change in dollar limitation from $1,000 to $$00 will impact the reporting requirements for the November 1996 election. The current ordinance relies on State law for reporting requirements which requires candidates to report amounts received in excess of $1 O0 from any contributor. The proposed ordinance would require candidates for City office to report amounts received in excess of $25. The City's existing Campaign Contributions ordinance limits contributions to $1,000 "with respect to an election." The proposed ordinance would prohibit candidates from accepting contributions except during the 120 days prior to and following an election. The Court of Appeal has struck down a campaign limitation law that restricted campaign contributions to fiscal years rather than election periods on the grounds that the law would operate to benefit incumbents over challengers. Staff recommends that the Council retain the definition of "with respect to an election" which would allow contributions during the entire time prior to an election. The draft ordinance can be introduced at this meeting and take effect immediately after adoption if the Council so designates because it relates to an election. Staff provided two draft ordinances to be considered. The alternate version (Exhibit 6) of the draft ordinance incorporates the Staff recommendations which are to retain the phase as pertains to an election and not to include the prohibition of contributions outside of that 120 day period. Cm. Moffatt asked about the second draft ordinance where there is no election period other than the period when you are elected and when you might be re~elected. His concern was could any citizen sign a 501 form and indicate that they are going to be running for an office in the future and then be able to start collecting money? ClT~ COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE(IUI.&R MEETIN(i l]t~ay 28, 1996 PAGE 256 Ms. Silver responded that anyone who meets the qualifications may file a 501 statement of intention to run for office. Under State law that is what someone has to file in order to accept contributions. Under the current Ordinance, an individual cannot accept more than $1,000 for City Council from one individual with respect to an election. If someone decides he wants to run for City Council in 1098, he can begin collecting money up to $1,000 and not violate this ordinance. Cm. Moffatt was concerned that an individual could collect money and utilize the money to put their name before the public. They could buy a new suit and take people to parties or the theater or hold dinners. It becomes a campaign expense, but he never files. He was concerned about how the money was spent. Mayor Houston stated that FPPC requires that an individual has to file expenditure reports and every expenditure over $100 must be disclosed. Cm. Moffatt wanted to have any expenditure over $25 be disclosed. Ms. Silver indicated that was a different issue. Campaign expenditures cannot be prohibited. Cm. Moffatt stated since it was a different issue, he would drop it. He also wanted the original draft rather than the alternate draft. Cm. Barnes indicated she was trying to understand that there would be a problem with the 120 days. Ms. Silver responded that if challenged, it would be less defensible in court than using the phase "with respect to an election." Cm. Barnes asked if an election meant a whole two years or four years. Ms. Silver agreed that was right. If you use the election period whatever the election period of time is and you prohibit contributions outside that election period, you place a graver restraint on an individual's ability to exercise his first amendment rights of freedom of expression by contributing to a potential candidate for office. The courts will uphold restraints on first amendment activities if the least intrusive way to achieve the government's goal is used. It is her opinion based on the cases that the least intrusive way to achieve the governmental interest is to place a dollar limitation over the entire period of time rather than saying to potential contributors and to candidates that you can only receive contributions during a limited period of time. That would be a more intrusive means on the first amendment rights. CITY' COUNClL MhNUTES V~OLUME ] 5 RE(IULAR MEETINtl ll~Iay 28, 1996 PAGE 257 CTM. Moffatt felt a candidate was not a candidate until the individual files. If an individual doesn't file, then he cannot collect money, but you are telling me he can collect money. Ms. Silver responded that the City ordinance says you can't collect more than a certain amount. Cm. MOffatt wanted to focus on the word "candidate". A candidate as the City sees it is an individual who has taken papers out and qualified as a candidate for an election. He asked if that was a true statement. Ms. Silver responded that the ordinance incorporates the definitions from the Government Code so the phase "candidate" would be defined in the Fair Political Practices Act. Cm. Moffatt asked what that meant. MayOr Houston responded when the 501 or 502 is filed. Ms. Silver agreed. Cm. Moffatt expressed concern that someone could say they were a candidate and never run. They would just be trying to further their own image. Ms. Silver explained that State law says what a person cando with the funds that are collected especially if he decides not to run for office. Cm. Burton felt we had a pretty good law right now and he was tired of filling out the forms that they had now. Cm. Moffatt wanted to make a level playing ground as far as incumbents versus new people who want to run. Mayor Houston indicated if there is money left over there are vehicles and ways that the funds have to be disbursed. The 501 is public record that is filed with the City Clerk. Cm. Howard asked to be a candidate someone would have to file a 501 so they can start collecting money. If someone is in office, would they also have to file the 501 to collect money. Ms. Silver responded that incumbents are not treated any differently. Cm. Howard asked if within that 4 year period someone could not collect over $1,000. CITY' COUNCIL MINUTES I/OLUME 15 RE6UL~R MEETIN6 ]~l~ay 28, 1996 PAGE 258 Ms. Silver answered that under the current law an individual cannot collect over $1,000 during that period. Under the proposed ordinance, you couldn't collect any money except 120 days before and 120 days after the election. Cm. Moffatt asked about the 490 forms that have to be reported every six months, how would you report it because you would have to be an incumbent, or leaving office. Mayor Houston stated if you run for an office and lose, you still have reporting requirements. You don't have to be an incumbent. If you raise funds and expend funds, you have an obligation to fill out the forms whether you are in office or not. Cm. Moffatt asked what would happen if you collect funds but never run for office. Mayor Houston responded that FPPC would come down really hard on you much more than the City of Dublin ever will. Those are obligations that are taken very seriously at the State level. FPPC fines and regulates for violations. Ms. Silver indicated the State law does require that you must report contributions over $100, you must report expenditures, and you can only use monies for certain purposes. If you have money left over, there are certain things you can do with it. Janet Lockhart, 7840 Creekside Drive, indicated as a long time observer of the City Council, it was her recollection that there are four members sitting on the City Council when the decision was made to go to the $1,000 limit. Now you are in a position where your name is out .there where you have that avenue to the public, the avenue of the press and doing telethons, now you are concerned with what others might be doing. So if you are talking about leveling the playing field and doing something that is fair to everybody, seriously consider not limiting the time period. She felt the people in this community are wise enough to understand who is running and what platforms they are running on and why. She feels they are wise enough to make the decisions at the polls. Obviously the $1,000 limit and time period you have now works. It worked for you so it should certainly work for others. John Wagner, 8342 Mulberry Place, felt he was hearing arguments this time that had nothing to do with the 120 days or the $300 limit. He has been hearing about what if someone files and suddenly takes the money and runs. With the 120 days limit, someone that wanted to run in 1998 couldn't collect any money until July. By the time you got the money and mount a campaign, the election is over. He felt it was basically a reelection for the incumbent. The incumbent has the big advantage. He has the name recognition. He felt it was a bad deal for the newcomer to come in and try to overcome this. He doesn't see anyone just setting up a campaign committee to go out and party with his friends. People who are going to contribute money are generally pretty careful in how they are going to contribute it. As far as the $25 thing, C1T~ COUNCIL MINUTES ~OLUME 15 Rti6ULAR M~ETIN6 Ma~2~ 28, 1996 PAGE 259 he didn't think you could buy anyone for $25. He didn't believe the law needed any changing in this particular area. Steve Lockhart, 7840 Creekside Drive, indicated that it just occurred to him the incumbents have had the last two to four years to be raising funds at one level and trying to institute a law that prohibits any newcomers from raising money. Four years of fund raising can be kept by the incumbents, but the newcomers don't get to. That stinks. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. Cm. Burton indicated an interesting point was brought up. Within 120 days, you have to order signs, order your literature, and you have to have the money to pay them up front because they don't trust politicians. So you have a question of how you raise the money in 120 days. You will need probably $2,000 to $3,000 as a minimum because the mailing is that much. You can do that in the first 30 days so that you have another 30 days to get them distributed and then you have 20 more days to visit before the election. That is pretty tough to do especially for someone that is starting from scratch. Cm. Moffatt stated that Cm. Burton had originally done that when he had first run after incorporation. Cm. Burton felt not everyone could run for $400. Cm. Barnes indicated she had spent $500 and she had done it in that amount of time. Cm. Burton stated both Cm. Barnes and Cm. Howard were unique. Cm. Barnes indicated that she was bothered by the fact that 120 days cannot be used. She would really have loved to see it stay at the 120 days, but it did bother her about the three day problem. She would like to leave it at $300 and $25 and do the election period. With all the telephone calls she has received and the comments she has had from people, they like the 120 days. They did not like the four year election period. They thought they really wanted candidates that were going to sit in this office and work and not worry about running again. She felt that was the basic concept. Mayor Houston asked what the 3 day thing was. Cm. Barnes responded because of the date the election is held and the date you can file, the 120 days would have meant you could file on the 15th, but you couldn't collect for 3 days. That will change every election, because you can technically vote as early as November 2, the first Tuesday after the first Monday. CITY' COUNCIL M1N1TrF~ ~/OLUME 15 RE6ULAR MEtiTIN6 Ma~,~ 28, 1996 Mayor Houston asked for those that were here in the beginning, what was the logic of having the election period with how many days after the election. Ms. Silver indicated in 1084 the election period was 58 days following the close of the election until the fifth day before an election. So the election period was almost four years long, but it eXcluded the period five days before the election and 58 days after the election. Mayor Houston didn't understand how you could exclude the actual election day from the election period. Cm. Barnes thought it could have been five days before because they didn't want someone to receive money the last five days. Mr. Ambrose explained it was the last minute major contributions that don't show up on your reporting statement. That was the issue. ,/ Cm. Barnes commented that she didn't understand the 58 days afterward because someone could be in debt. On motion of Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by ayor Houston & Cm. Burton voted no), the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance in the form of Exhibit 6 amending Chapter 2.28 of the Dublin Municipal Code relating to campaign contribution limitations for elections. Cm. Burton felt it was a darn nuisance to have to list $25. A Break was called from 0:58 p.m. until 10:05 p.m. TERM LIMITS 10:05 p.m. 7.1 (610-20) City Attorney Elizabeth Silver presented the Staff Report. At the April 23 and May 14 Council meetings, the City Council considered whether to place an initiative measure on the ballot to impose term limits for the offices of Mayor and Councilmember as authorized by Government Code Section 36502. The Council directed the City Attorney to prepare the language for a ballot initiative which would limit Councilmembers and the Mayor to eight consecutive years in office.. The measure would not prevent persons from serving as Councilmembers or the Mayor after a lapse of at least one term. The measure would define a "term" as two years and a day for Councilmember and one year and a day for Mayor. A person could serve any one of CITY' COUNCIL MINIJTES VOLUME ~ 5 RE.6UI~tR MEETIN6 l~ay 28~ 1996 PAGE 261 five combinations of office and after a break in service, could again serve on the Council for any of the five combinations. The ordinance may not be applicable to persons elected on November 6, 1996. In accordance with Elections Code Section 9217, the ordinance would not be effective until ten days after the date the vote is declared by the City Council. Government Code Section 36502 provides that any proposal which imposes term limits shall be prospective only. In other words, the ordinance and the limit on the number of terms will apply to persons who are sworn into office after the ordinance becomes effective. Thus, if Councilmember A is elected on November 6, 1996 and is sworn into office on the date the election results for the initiative are certified, she will not be subject to the term limits. But if Councilmember B is not sworn in until after the ordinance becomes effective, he will be subject to the ordinance's term limits. Prior service on the Council would not count towards the term limits. An ordinance enacted by the people can be amended only by the people unless the initiative ordinance states that it can be amended by the Council. As drafted, the ordinance could only be amended by the people. Cm. Burton questioned if it is voted by the people, it has to be changed by the people, but yet it said the Council could add something. Does that make it an advisory election? Ms. Silver responded no. If any initiative can only be amended by the people since an initiative is an ordinance that is adopted by the people and it can only be amended by the people unless the text of the ordinance that the people adopt says this ordinance can be amended by the City Council by 3/5 vote or 4/5 vote or can be amended by City Council after two years or five years. Language could be put into the proposed ordinance that says that the City Council can amend this ordinance. If you don't put that language in, it can only be amended by the people. Cm. Burton felt it was probably a good safety measure, maybe a 4/5 vote. He asked if it could be changed tonight without going through another hearing. Was it a significant change? Ms. Silver indicated it was within the language of the agenda. Cm. Burton stated the Council should leave that option open for the future to eliminate the hassle. Mayor Houston felt if you wanted to pass it, then the Council should just vote on it tonight as an ordinance and pass it and not have a vote of the people. If you want to have a vote of the people, then let's not water it down. IglT¥ (;OUN(;IL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE{iUI.~R MEETIN(i lltlay 28, 1996 PAGE 262 Cm. Moffatt agreed with Mayor Houston if the people are going to vote it in, let them be the ones to change it. Cm. Burton felt it was an option that sounded pretty good. Mayor Houston indicated it was not a public hearing item, but there was one person who wished to speak. John Wagner, 8342 Mulberry Place, asked the Council to pass the resolution as it is presented. He felt the people should have the right to vote on it and he had faith in the people of this City and this Country. He thought they would make the wise decision. He felt it was a fair way to encourage people to run for office. They feel that they can't run against so and so because he has been in there so long. I have to get my name out there. Suddenly there is an open seat and an opportunity to get new blood in the organization. He favored the way it is written now. Mayor Houston wanted to have this put on the ballot in this format and not have it so that the Council could change it at a later date. The limitation we have to work with being in effect for this election, he felt would be up to the individual that was elected at that time whether they wanted to forego the will of the people or not, but they do have that right to be sworn in within that 10 day period. They can make that personal decision themselves, but he was very happy with the Staff Report. Cm. Barnes stated she was opposed to term limits because she felt they do take away from her right to vote, but from the tone of the telephone calls she has received and the people she has asked, she was going to go ahead and have it put on the ballot just for the idea that the people should decide. Once and for all put this to bed. Because she personally felt it was taking away somebody's right to vote, but in order for her to say she was opposed to it and not allow them to say it, she felt was sending a bad message. Cm. Moffatt felt the same as Cm. Barnes in that he is against term limits for the same reason, but he felt the people have a right to vote on the situation. When you come down to local government, the folks that live in the City, they are the ones who really make the decision. He would be in favor of this motion to allow the people to vote on it although as a personal opinion, he is opposed to term limits. Cm. Howard indicated she did not mind it being on the ballot at all. She did have a problem with the wording of putting the Council and Mayor's seat together. She felt running for the Council for eight years, a person should be able to run for Mayor if they wanted to. She would vote for it if that wording was changed so that the Council seat and Mayor seat are separate. Mayor Houston called for the question. CITY' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME. 15 RE{iULi*tR MEETIN{i l~t[ay 28, 1996 PAGE 263 On motion of MayOr Houston, seconded by Cm. Burton, and' bYes vote (Cm. Howard voted no), the Council directed the City Clerk to return at the Council's first meeting in July with the appropriate resolution submitting the initiative ordinance (Exhibit 6) to the voters, consolidating the municipal election with the statewide election and taking other actions related thereto, such as ballot arguments and impartial analysis. REPORT ON ALAMILLA SPRING ~ SAN RAMON ROAD NEAR DUBLIN BOULEVARD 10:18 p.m. 8.2 (530~20) Public Works Director Lee Thompson presented the Staff Report. At the City Council meeting of May 14, 1996, the City Council requested a report on the spring ownership at the historical Alamilla Spring by the Springs Apartments, the condition of the spring, and the maintenance responsibility. The ownership and maintenance responsibility lies with the owner of the Springs Apartments. When the Springs Apartment were built under the County jurisdiction, the spring was required to be saved as a historical landmark. The bright green surface of the spring is made up of a plant called Duck Weed (Zemna) which is a floating, flowering, broadleaf aquatic plant. It resembles algae but does not give off an offensive odor and is nol/slimy like algae. This plant grows on calm fresh water and probably helps to keep the temperature of the spring low, which deters algae growth. Since the spring is not visible from a public street, the property maintenance ordinance would not apply. Staff met with Neva Spears, the Springs property manager and was informed that the Springs maintenance staff periodically removes the trash that builds up from the public using this area. The Springs staff will be removing some dead trees in the near future and will remove the existing downed branches from the spring. Cm. Moffatt indicated walking along the trail the area looks pretty dilapidated. Cm. Burton stated that duck weed is natural and is good cattle feed. Cm. Moffatt recommended that the Historical group get involved and they may help the landowner keep the area clean and maintained. He indicated he was not talking about the DHPA, he was thinking more about the historical committee that the City has. Maybe there could be a fund raiser to help. He wanted to get more people involved. He was satisfied with the report. Mayor Houston suggested that the report be passed on to the Heritage Committee and they can look at it and they could determine what might be done. CITY COUNCIL MIN~rF.,S VOLUME ~ 5 RE[{IUI~R Mti~TIN(i PAGE 2¢4 OTHER BUSINESS Fire Issue to be addressed at San Ramon Council Meeting (540~60) Mr. Ambrose passed out a staff report from the City of San Ramon that was received that afternoon. The City of San Ramon would be considering the fire issue that evening. He understood not all the Councilmembers would be at the meeting so a decision may not be made. This item could be coming back to our Council in the future. Cm. Howard asked who was not there. Mr. Ambrose responded it was his understanding that Hermann Welm would not be at the meeting. Tri~Valley Council meeting (140-80) Mr. Ambrose announced the Tri~Valley Council meeting was established for June 19th at 6:30 p.m., at Frankie, Johnnie, & Luigi Too. We have heard from Livermore and Pleasanton that they have a conflict so two of their Councilmembers would not be able to attend and so does the Mayor of Danville. But we have stuck with that date because that was the date that was agreed upon at the last Tri~Valley Council meeting. Problems with Landscaping, Weeds & General Appearance around Dublin Cm. Howard agreed with some of the speakers earlier in regard to the landscaping. She has noticed weeds coming up along Village Parkway. Mr. Ambrose indicated that an invasion of Dallas grass has struck the medians along Village Parkway. It is a major infestation that kills the other grass. Maintenance tried to kill them with chemicals, but the recent rains made the chemicals ineffective. Cm. Howard feels Dublin looks real tacky with the weeds coming up out of the bricks. There was a tree limb that has been down on San Ramon Road since Friday morning and it is still there today. Mr. Thompson responded that it belonged to the shopping center. It did fall in the street and maintenance put it in the shopping center. Cm. Howard asked why we couldn't just pick it up. Mr. Thompson indicated that maintenance had done a chemical kill about a month ago, but then we got the late rain again. They just got another purchase order to spray it today. CIT~ COUNCIL MINUTES V~OLUMt~ ~ 5 RE{iUL~R MEETIN{I PAGE 265 Cm. Howard wondered how Pleasanton looks so good. Do they spend more money? Or do they have a better company? Mayor Houston indicated since there was an emphasis on the Council and with some citizens to have Staff report back and emphasize in the next 30 days to see what can be done to get MCE going. Mr. Thompson stated that the median that was on Silvergate has been on the Council's 5 year Capital Improvement Program for a lot of years. It has been referred to as "Hegarty's Garden." Cm. Howard asked about the part of Silvergate that is down by San Ramon Road. Mr. Ambrose indicated it was part of the same project. Cm. Howard asked if it was just a matter of getting water in there. Mr. Ambrose responded that it depended upon the kind of approach the Council wanted to take. If we went with the paved brick, you won't have any need for the $7,000 water connection from DSRSD and Zone 7. Or you could go with water and irrigated. It depended upon the type of approach the Council wanted to take. Mayor Houston stated that the olive trees were brutal. He requested that Staff bring back a report in the next 30 days. Mr. Ambrose indicated the Council would have a report at budget time. Mayor Houston wanted an update regardless of the budget time. Cm. Barnes stated she has always loved the paved bricks, but now she is concerned that may be we should make them solid. Now concrete can be stamped to look like anything you want it to. She wanted Staff to look at new innovative ways. She wanted to remind the Council that Dougherty Road is part of Dublin and it is an entrance to Dublin. It is tacky as all heck. It looks worst now because one side has been fixed, but the median looks scuzzy. We should start looking at doing something for Dougherty Road. Mr. Thompson indicated there was a project to widen Doughty Road along the southbound lanes. It should get going in a month or so, but they are behind right now. They should be starting on it right after the fiscal year. The median will come out and be paved so there will be a wider lane southbound. Mr. Ambrose stated there would not be a beautified median. ClT~ COUNCIL M1NtrrES VOLUME 15 RE~iULP. R MEETIN6 l~l~an3r 28, 1996 PAGE 266 Mr. Thompson explained it would not be landscaped, but it will not be dirt either. Mr. Ambrose indicated there eventually needed to be six lanes along Dougherty Road so you don't want to put in a median in the middle of a four lane road and then have to come back and tear it out. If you improved it, it would be a throw away. Cm. Barnes just wanted it to look a little bit better since it was an entrance. Tri~Valley Council Dinner (140~80) Cm. Barnes indicated she was really upset about June 19th and the Tri~Valley Council Dinner. She is really upset about meeting at Frankie, Johnnie, Luigi Too because that is not a way of hosting our guests, it is not us hosting it. Now she finds out the guests are not coming. She is really ticked off. Now, Livermore and Pleasanton won't be there. Mr. Ambrose explained, that two of the City Councilmembers of Pleasanton and Livermore are also members of LAVWMA which will be holding a meeting that night. Because one of the representatives from each City happens to be their Mayor, they would like to have us change the date of our meeting. Mayor Houston indicated there would never be a perfect time for 25 people to all get together so we will keep the June 19th date. Cm. Howard was disappointed in the Mayors' Conference that was held at Frankie, Johnnie, Luigi Too. She was shocked that there was no coffee or dessert served. Mayor Houston explained that we got what we paid for. We didn't pay for dessert so we didn't get dessert. He liked that room because it was a good size room for that size of a group. He liked being down there. Cm. Barnes agreed to leave the date for June 19th at Frankie Johnnie Luigi Too, but there will be dessert and coffee. Mayor Houston indicated the Council would work with Kay and get the coffee and dessert. Iron Horse Trail (930~30) Cm. Moffatt asked about the Iron Horse Trail at Alcosta and Fircrest Lane. Evidently, the City of San Ramon is allowing a storage area to go in there. He was curious as to whether the 50 foot right~of~way would still be there. Would it stop the Iron Horse Trail? CI'I'~ COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE6ULAR MEETIN(I l~gKay 28, 1996 PAGE 267 Mr. Ambrose responded that San Ramon may relocate the Iron Horse Trail through another segment from just north of the County line to Alcosta. ,Staples Ranch Development (420-50) Cm. Moffatt announced that Pleasanton was going to start building and developing Staples Ranch so they have reduced acres to 40 acres redesigning it to commercial/ retail. The assumption is that they will be putting in housing or a $$ acres sports park. This is right at E1 Charro Road which will impact Fallon Road in the City of Dublin. They are asking for comments. He would like to see the impact on the traffic. Will it allow us to start developing out there faster or slower? Mr. Ambrose explained that the General Plan Amendment is already a done deal. Calendar Items (610~05) Cm. Burton asked if there was anything on May 29th for DSRSD? He confirmed that on June 6th there was the dedication of a new building at the Lab. There is a meeting on June 3rd for the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority representatiVes. ADJOURNMENT 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Council~ the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Minutes prepared by Sandie Hart, Secretary. Mayor CITY' COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 RE(IULAR MEETIN(i ~a'~or '~:~-~1~, 1996 PAGE 268