[0:00] Two, one. Good evening
[0:05] everyone. Today is tuesday, february 3rd, 2026.
[0:10] uh, we will call the regular meeting in place.
[0:14] and let's have a pledge of allegiance.
[0:23] allegiance to the flag of the united states of america
[0:28] to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god
[0:32] in his with liberty agenda for all,
[0:40] just king out of the closed session, we'll ask our legal council
[0:44] to do a report. Yeah, madam mayor. Uh, we do have a report
[0:48] out, uh, this evening, uh, by a vote of three to two, uh, with mayor who
[0:52] and vice mayor josie voting no. The council voted to refrain from seeking appellate
[0:57] review of the save mount de alo versus city of dublin case. That's
[1:01] the end of my report. Thank you. And let's moving on
[1:05] to agenda item three, presentations and proclamations
[1:10] 3.1 presentation of the ramadan proclamation.
[1:17] ramadan is a night month of the muslim calendar year
[1:22] and is a annual new holy month of fasting and
[1:26] spiritual renewal. It is a time to reflect
[1:31] spiritual identity, build community, and
[1:35] those in need, spend time with friends and
[1:40] families and celebrate and express gratitude.
[1:44] so, marcia, we have a public comments for this item, right?
[1:48] I do have a public comment for this item, mayor, and that's brent sanji. Thank you.
[1:59] so I don't want to offend anybody, but this is part of the dei calendar and
[2:04] I think it's offensive to americans and christians. They're not on the dei calendar, and
[2:08] I don't think that's an accident. So it's like a good thing that we're celebrating the muslim holiday, but
[2:12] most people don't celebrate this holiday. We don't know anything about it, and I can't really like, celebrate
[2:16] with people that, uh, we don't even know their culture or anything,
[2:21] um, that I want the city to celebrate christmas and thanksgiving and,
[2:25] and, uh, 4th of july, and that's not on the di calendar. So it's not like it
[2:29] doesn't make sense to ask to put that on the calendar. I think it's left off the calendar on purpose. So I
[2:33] think the whole dei should be thrown out the whole calendar. We shouldn't be celebrating religious
[2:37] holidays of these people. No offense. Um, that's just my opinion. Thank you,
[2:45] maia. Do we have any additional comments? I have no other speakers slips on that item. Mayor,
[2:49] thank you. Thank you. So we have a do muslim culture
[2:53] society, um, arabia butter to
[2:58] accept the proclamations, and also there's
[3:02] a muslim community center is the bay sima. But
[3:06] we want both of you come to accept the proclamations
[3:10] and then take photos with us.
[3:17] and also if you have anything you want to say, please. Thank you.
[3:24] so good evening, um, mayor and, uh, respected council members. Um,
[3:29] first of all, thank you so much for recognizing ramadan with this proclamation
[3:33] on behalf of the, as a board member of the mcc east bay, um, I'm very deeply
[3:38] grateful to you and, um, grateful for the city of dublin for, for this
[3:42] proclamation and for your continued, um, commitment to, for inclusion of our
[3:46] community and our partnership. Um, ramadan is a very sacred time for us as
[3:50] muslims. It's a month of reflection, gratitude, service, and,
[3:54] um, at mccs east bay, these values guide our our work
[3:59] year round. Um, our example is our food pantry, which now serves
[4:03] hundreds of households in the tri-valley serving dublin, pleasanton,
[4:07] and all across the bay area. Um, through these partnerships with the alameda county food
[4:11] bank and local organizations, we provide fresh pood, produce, staples and essential
[4:16] items, ensuring families can access food with dignity, especially during these
[4:20] challenging times beyond food security. Mcc supports refugee families, provides
[4:24] emergency assistance, offers educational and youth programs, um,
[4:29] and engages in interfaith and civic work. All rooted in the belief that caring
[4:33] for our community is a shared responsibility. Um, this work
[4:37] would not be possible without your support. So we thank you so much for continuing to support
[4:41] us and we, um, we really, um, stand with you for, for
[4:45] recognizing our values and the values that ramadan represents. Um, before I conclude,
[4:49] I'd like to, um, uplift the next generation of leaders in our community.
[4:54] I'm honored to introduce my daughter rabia. She's an 18-year-old student from varese high
[4:58] school. She was the recipient of the three valley community foundation next gen award.
[5:02] phil the young philanthropist award. And, um, she's gonna speak on behalf of the dublin muslim
[5:06] cultural society. Thank you.
[5:11] good evening, mayor, council members, community staff, and
[5:15] members of the community. My name is rabia and I'm
[5:19] a senior at ave high school. It's an honor to accept the
[5:23] ramadan proclamation on behalf of the muslim cultural society
[5:28] of dublin. Ramadan is a month rooted in reflection,
[5:32] generosity, connection, and we're grateful to
[5:36] the city of dublin for recognizing it and for fostering a community where
[5:40] people of all backgrounds feel like they belong.
[5:45] the spirit of connection is at the heart of our upcoming
[5:49] events. This ramadan, we're bringing neighbors together at
[5:53] our community fr on friday, february 20th
[5:58] at 5:30 pm at meza and
[6:02] moca in livermore, hosting a food drive to support the
[6:06] dublin unified school district food and assistance pantry from march 9th
[6:10] to march 23rd and celebrating eagle fifth
[6:14] with the city at on april 21st at
[6:18] the civic center, followed by I aha
[6:23] on may 30th at the dublin senior center. Each of
[6:27] these moments is about service, celebration and building relationships
[6:32] across our city. As a young person involved
[6:36] in community service, it means a great deal to see our city uplift
[6:40] faith communities, and celebrate, uh, people
[6:45] and to come together in meaningful waves. Thank you to the city of dublin
[6:49] for this proclamation and for your partnership and for
[6:53] helping make dublin a pa place where everyone feels
[6:57] welcome. Thank you. And ramad, thank you
[7:02] very much. So we have proclamation for you to accept that we
[7:06] made two for each of you great work
[7:12] except for together.
[7:26] thank you.
[7:34] that item four, public comment. At this time, the public
[7:39] is permitted to, to address the city council
[7:43] on non agenda the items, please step to the podium
[7:47] and clearly state your name for the record.
[7:52] mayor, I have 18 speaker slips right now for this item, and so we will start
[7:56] with those in person and then we will go to those on zoom. So our first speaker is
[8:00] shirley lewandowski.
[8:08] good, good evening, counsel staff.
[8:13] my name is shirley lewandowski and this is my helper today. Todd benson.
[8:17] we're both dublin residents. This doland canyon. This
[8:21] is doland canyon. I think I got the, my wrong, my wrong
[8:25] glasses. Can I switch? Is it okay if I switch? Yeah. Oh god.
[8:29] oh, wrong glasses.
[8:33] that's okay. I'll just stand here and look. Pretty . That's what happens when
[8:37] you get old . Okay. Anyway, sorry about that. Thank you.
[8:42] this picture is doula canyon and it's located in alameda county, unincorporated
[8:46] land, and one of the last beautiful and breathtaking open space in
[8:50] agricultural area left in the tri-valley. It is protected
[8:54] from development under the 2014 open space initiative and serves
[8:59] as a green belt barrier between dublin and livermore. Now, the
[9:03] second slide shows all the existing animals and plants in the canyon.
[9:07] their habitats will be destroyed or disrupted by
[9:11] any type of development. The open space initiative does not mandate
[9:15] a road to connect dublin and livermore. It only says that the city
[9:19] may consider one. If that is the case, then it becomes a question
[9:24] of what the road will look like and at what financial and environmental cost.
[9:28] within the doland canyon, it's a crosby property
[9:34] where the proposed dublin extension will cut through 80 acres
[9:39] of the crafted property here, and it's gonna use that
[9:43] open space in to connect to livermore. The extension is
[9:47] one and a half miles long, and depicted by this dotted line here,
[9:52] starting from fallon road, going east all the way to north canyon parkway in livermore,
[9:57] it's gonna consist of 12 six to car lanes wide and a bike
[10:01] pedestrian lane, and it's gonna be sitting 1200 feet above and parallel to five
[10:05] 80. Here our proposed, uh, uh,
[10:09] option is the solid line here, the yellow line here,
[10:14] which is a two lane road, which is kirk road, and it starts from fall
[10:18] goes south, and you only have to build a third of a mile road to connect
[10:22] it to the another existing two-lane road called collier canyon road
[10:26] two livermore. Okay. And our proposed,
[10:31] uh, lane also includes a bike and pedestrian lane. Next
[10:35] one, the city's design is estimated
[10:39] to cost 160 million building. It means losing 80
[10:44] acres of crosby property, open space, and a major disruption
[10:48] to the biodiversity of the area. It's multi lanes means more traffic
[10:52] with more added from five 80 and creating more air pollution. This
[10:56] design is currently not completely funded. The city is borrowing $71 million
[11:01] from general funds to jumpstart it to help offset the cost
[11:05] the city wants to commercially develop along the road on the crosby property.
[11:10] but this must be voter approved commercial development would eliminate
[11:14] any financial support from livermore and require annexation of the crosby
[11:18] property. Our alternative to lane design is estimated
[11:22] to cost $44 million. It can be fully funded within the
[11:27] city's capital improvement budget. It saves open space,
[11:31] minimal impact to the existing biodiversity. Two lane means less traffic,
[11:35] less pollution, no commercial development or annexation needed. This
[11:39] is the more cost effective and responsible use of taxpayer money.
[11:44] if a road is considered to connect dublin to livermore, this is the design the
[11:48] city should build. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Mm-hmm .
[11:54] is brad doki.
[12:03] good evening. My name is brad dubinski. Good evening mayor who and
[12:07] distinguished members of the dublin city council. It is my honor to serve as the proudly elected representative
[12:12] and leader of the diligent, tenacious, and adaptable members of the dublin teachers association.
[12:17] normally, I restrict my comments to the school board meetings, but tonight I'm reaching out to our larger community.
[12:21] your dublin educators need our community's help to protect our students.
[12:26] please demand that dublin unified school district management reprioritize their budget
[12:30] to invest in students and avert a potential strike
[12:35] for over 18 months. The members of the dublin teachers association have been advocating for ways to
[12:39] enhance the revenue of our school district so that we can invest in dublin students. We have
[12:43] suggested early retirement incentives, an update to independent study that would align
[12:47] with state laws, allowing our district to recover funds that are lost when students are absent,
[12:51] and medical billing for applicable services. While your educators
[12:55] have been advocating for ways to invest in students, I'm sad to report that in december,
[12:59] superintendent funk revealed that an accounting error for which he has claimed full responsibility
[13:04] has resulted in an additional $3.6 million deficit.
[13:08] this would be scary news to any concerned stakeholder. However, when placed in context of
[13:12] past behavior, it really raises questions about how effective dublin unified
[13:16] school district management is at managing taxpayer dollars based on the
[13:20] unaudited actuals. In 2020 1 22, management underestimated their revenue
[13:24] by over $11 million. In 2223, they underestimated revenue by
[13:29] almost 18 million 2324, they underestimated revenue by over 9 million.
[13:33] and in 24 25, it will come as no surprise that the pattern continues with revenue again being
[13:38] underestimated by over $8 million. This context begs
[13:42] two questions. First, how many millions of dollars is dod management off by
[13:46] in their accounting this year? As a teacher, I am so happy to be able to answer your
[13:50] question. Currently, dusd management has not accounted for nearly 19 million
[13:54] in additional state revenue. The second question is, where did all the money go for
[13:58] the last four years? Some of that money is spent in ways that are not student-centered, like outside
[14:03] contractors and the sme language and unrestricted reserves. Based
[14:07] on superintendent funks presentation recommendation, the board of trustees for dublin unified school
[14:11] district recently voted to approve several cuts. These cuts amount to nearly $6 million, $6.8 million,
[14:17] and there are plans for more cuts at the meeting on february 10th. What you might notice
[14:21] in these cuts, however, is that none of them are to senior management salaries. If superintendent funk
[14:25] does take full responsibility as he claims, why are none of the cuts touching his salary
[14:29] or the salary of assistant superintendents who share the responsibility of managing the district
[14:33] budget appropriately? Our neighbors to the easton livermore also had a draft
[14:37] of proposed cuts out of their nine pages of proposed reductions in livermore. The first three
[14:41] pages almost exclusively kept cuts away from student facing employees and programs. Indeed,
[14:46] the entire first page of livermore's proposals are cuts to senior management salaries via furlough
[14:50] days. Sadly, dublin's district management have not made those same student-centered
[14:54] choices. Instead, cuts to from d os d management teams protect their
[14:59] salaries while guiding the supports of our su and services for our students. Should the superintendent
[15:03] of our dublin schools, a man who earns more than the governor of california, have his
[15:07] salary protected at the expense of the health and wellbeing of dublin students.
[15:12] this pattern of decision making and mismanagement is why time is over. No. Thank
[15:16] you. Next speaker is tom evans,
[15:21] and then followed by janine gitten and then mike grant, and then john cameron,
[15:34] mayor and council staff. Uh, my name's tommy evans,
[15:38] a longtime resident. Uh, I just want to show support
[15:42] for shirley lewandowski efforts to find
[15:46] a better solution for the dublin boulevard extension. And we could find something
[15:51] that fits our budget better as, uh, more friendly
[15:55] to the environment, uh, for example, and
[15:59] doesn't need to involve the crosby property. Uh,
[16:03] we can probably, uh, effectively accomplish all the
[16:08] requirements that we're trying to get by having
[16:13] a good road built through there. But we don't need to hang
[16:17] on to the expense of one that we're looking at now. Thank
[16:22] you very much. Thank you. Next speaker is janine
[16:26] gillinger.
[16:31] good evening everyone. My name is janine gillinger
[16:35] and I would like to address the staff report from the first january
[16:39] meeting on the sale of safe and seen fireworks in the city of dublin.
[16:44] I was saddened to see that if the options offered to the city council for
[16:48] their consideration, the option of choosing not to allow the sale of
[16:52] fireworks was not present. I believe the companion,
[16:57] the comparison cities should have only included those of our neighbors
[17:01] in the tri-valley and ben counties to the east of the hills
[17:05] that separate us from the bay. Even our weather forecast put us
[17:09] in a separate category than the communities surrounding the bay.
[17:14] we are an inland valley. We are hotter and drier than communities
[17:18] on the other side of the foothills. And let us not forget that dublin wind, which
[17:22] is a factor. Looking at this in terms of climate and vegetation,
[17:27] we can see that we are more at risk here in the tri-valley area because of a drier
[17:31] climate, a hotter climate, and a substantial shared boundary with
[17:35] rural landscape, especially in west dublin and the hills of east
[17:39] dublin. Exactly those single family home neighborhoods that make
[17:43] of one make up one of the three designated areas where these fireworks
[17:48] are allowed. I know that some people will be concerned that
[17:52] this opportunity to raise funds for nonprofits serving dublin and dublin
[17:56] residents is very significant. When I looked through the report,
[18:00] the cost of the program, the 2025 program for the
[18:04] sale of these fireworks to the city was $79,000.
[18:08] the revenue to the city was $5,000. The report also
[18:13] notes that the cost to the nonprofits have risen, and it is becoming harder
[18:17] for them to earn as much money as they had in the past for the sale of
[18:21] fireworks. So I have a couple of possible ideas.
[18:25] I would like you to also consider.
[18:29] ban the sale of all fireworks. Consider using the funds
[18:33] to have a carnival where local nonprofits can have booths to raise funds or
[18:38] let the nonprofits use the current lottery system to secure booths at events
[18:42] like splatter and st. Patrick's. Stay. Another idea.
[18:47] ban fireworks except at the allowed parks, require
[18:51] a california id to buy the fireworks to prove the buyer lives in dublin
[18:56] and add a surcharge to each sale to pay for the cost of police and fire.
[19:00] and in, and this is just an idea of mine. Limit the
[19:04] sale to 10 booths in front of the police department.
[19:09] possibilities ban the sale of all fireworks.
[19:14] why not take the money that would've been spent? We had
[19:18] 15 booths, so divided by 15, which is the average number
[19:22] of boosts that were allowed. And give the nonprofit groups each one 15th
[19:27] of the money. You can do something that is helpful. We can be
[19:31] safer in our homes and the nonprofits can continue their good
[19:35] work. Thank you very much. The next speaker is
[19:39] mike grant, followed by john cameron and then linda
[19:44] ese.
[19:54] good evening, mike grant, longtime resident owner of guns unlimited repair in dublin.
[19:59] I'd like to comment on the item you brought up on january the 20th about the indoor
[20:03] gun range and gun dealerships. So you all know
[20:08] I'm a strong supporter of the second amendment and do support someone having
[20:12] the right to open a gun quality gun range or gun store
[20:16] in dublin. I think that all of us should know
[20:21] that gun dealers are highly regulated by the a tf and the doj.
[20:25] we're also inspected for these items like securing
[20:29] guns and proper paperwork being filled out per the law each year.
[20:35] now, on the other hand, handgun gun ranges
[20:39] are not regulated or inspected by the doj of the a tf. Only
[20:43] cal osha if they have a air quality complaint
[20:47] or an employee has to see a doctor, then that trips a workman's comp
[20:51] claim and that's when they come out. Quality ranges start
[20:56] with good air handling equipment. Indoor ranges can, will produce
[21:00] high levels of burnt powder and lead in the air. This is why you need
[21:04] a building that is almost tight, is basically
[21:08] negative air box what it boils down to. Contamination
[21:13] out of the air is pulled through two sets of high, high, high filters,
[21:18] rating from merch 15 to a merch 17, which is hepa filters.
[21:22] safety for the shooting. The shooters is also very
[21:26] important. And that's ballistic panels between the lanes. So
[21:30] you have an a ed, it doesn't shoot the guy next to you. I'm gonna talk
[21:35] about suicide. We always bring suicide up, which is rightfully so.
[21:39] I was at a seminar in, uh, recently, a, a suicide
[21:43] prevention seminar. Keynote speaker was, uh, va doug collins.
[21:48] he had a great point and he said, veteran suicide.
[21:53] he said, everyone can just do one thing and maybe we can save
[21:57] a life. So think about that on the panel, or was a member who ran
[22:01] a gun range and she was in colorado where her husband had a shooting.
[22:05] in 2022, the person came in, an older gentleman,
[22:11] he passed the, uh, sniff test. They rented him a
[22:15] gun, gave him a box ammo. He shot almost
[22:19] a whole box up, then he turned a gun on himself and he killed himself.
[22:25] so what I'm saying here is another thing to prevent suicides
[22:29] is I'm against renting guns. If you don't own a gun,
[22:34] then go buy one legally, and then you can go ahead and shoot. But renting
[22:39] guns and not having supervision on a range is very dangerous.
[22:43] thank you. Next speaker
[22:47] is john cameron, followed by linda milanese and then carol silva.
[23:01] hello, john cameron, longtime resident. Uh, right now
[23:05] in america, we're seeing growing resistance spreading quickly a against
[23:10] authoritarianism and fascism all across the country. People
[23:14] realize democracy is like a muscle. You don't use it. It
[23:18] will atrophy from the presidency to the sycophants in congress in
[23:23] the supreme court, down to local de leaders who lost sight of the privilege
[23:27] and responsibility they've been given. A correction is coming.
[23:32] there have always been fascists here, always will. But now we've
[23:36] seen what happens when they have power. Family's broken up.
[23:40] no due process, no accountability. Murder.
[23:45] people are rising and resisting who never have. They're watching closely
[23:50] as to who is full of bs and who the real leaders are. We're
[23:54] finding who caters to the rich and powerful, and who is concerned about doing
[23:58] the right thing for the good of the many. Despite the efforts of the powerful special interests
[24:03] only concerned with getting more locally, I think we
[24:07] need to pick up the pace, meet this challenge head on, offer
[24:11] to buy that federal land. Fci sits on, take
[24:15] away the opportunity for ice to get a foothold in our community.
[24:20] use eminent domain if you have to or any other way,
[24:24] but we need to get that away from them. One very practical use for this site, and
[24:28] I've already talked to firefighters about this in the area who think it's
[24:32] a great idea, is to construct a park that the land sits on with
[24:36] a considerable size reservoir for aerial fire crews to access
[24:41] from it's centrally located in dublin, to hit everything
[24:45] equally. It's a great location for that aerial fire
[24:49] crews. Um, what the helicopters do, they can come, they can extract
[24:53] nearly a thousand gallons of water in less than a minute, instead
[24:57] of spending money on an unnecessary road. Most dublin earth don't want, livermore
[25:01] definitely doesn't want. And special interests written all over it. Buy that land
[25:05] and put a park on it. You'll be preserving beautiful open space for everyone
[25:10] to enjoy and decompress from the pressures of everyday life. Protect
[25:14] our vanishing wildlife and give us a tremendous tool and
[25:18] combating a potential catastrophe quickly. When
[25:22] we have the best chance to stop it. It'll save lives, save property, and potentially
[25:27] billions of dollars. We all hope to never need such a tool.
[25:31] but don't wait to say, I wish it was something we had done before
[25:35] fire ripped through our city. It's, um,
[25:40] you know, I've been concerned about fire for a long time. The changing weather conditions
[25:44] we have here, the way the wind acts and the heat. I've never seen it before
[25:48] this february. The, the amount of frost we used to have was
[25:52] considerable. Now it's almost non-existent. So it
[25:56] is happening. And, and I agree with the fireworks. It's, it's time to
[26:00] give those up . I mean, we are in a powder keg and,
[26:05] and I think this park idea with a reservoir is a great idea if
[26:09] that, just to prepare. Thank you.
[26:13] next speaker is linda meese, followed by carol silva,
[26:18] followed by todd.
[26:23] good evening, linda meese.
[26:27] as the livermore resident. I am really annoyed
[26:31] that dublin wants to contaminate the open space between it
[26:36] and livermore with a six lane, one and a half
[26:40] mile extension of dublin boulevard. For what purpose?
[26:45] a shortcut to lpc or costco, or a
[26:49] permanent shortcut for more traffic during congested commute hours,
[26:54] measure ii misled voters into believing it
[26:58] was a clean air open space preservation
[27:02] initiative. Dublin voters were duped.
[27:06] who's gonna pay for this? $160 million
[27:10] intrusion on our open space, not livermore. The
[27:15] people of dublin will end up footing the bill for something that benefits
[27:19] them. In no way dublin residents would benefit
[27:23] more if your efforts and money were directed at developing
[27:28] a downtown, a real center for dublin. Instead of
[27:32] sprawling all over our open space dublin voters didn't
[27:36] get what they thought they were getting. And the courts agree that
[27:41] it's se questionable piece of legislation. So why not
[27:45] let it go? Let the appeal go and look at the
[27:49] sensible alternative plan for one fourth, the cost.
[27:54] a one third mile extension that connects already
[27:58] existing two lane roads. You'll have both your connecting road
[28:03] as well as the open space you promised voters in measure
[28:08] ii. As a livermore resident, I'm more than annoyed
[28:12] by the mega extension plan for dublin boulevard.
[28:17] but if I were a dublin resident, I'd be furious. Don't
[28:21] waste their money and destroy what remains of their open
[28:25] space. Let the appeal go, let it go and
[28:30] consider the alternative plan. Thank you.
[28:35] next speaker is carol silva, followed by todd,
[28:39] followed by juan pablo dalvin. Mohan.
[28:51] good evening mayor and city council members and city
[28:55] staff. On july 15th, 2024,
[29:00] livermore mayors john marshan sent a letter to
[29:05] dublin city's mayor, who's now the former mayor of dublin,
[29:09] favoring the road extension, but prioritizing, preserving
[29:14] open space and maintaining a considerable visual
[29:18] buffer between the two communities. Marmar, sean
[29:22] was concerned that the video that dublin used to convince
[29:27] its residents to support the extension shows the road
[29:31] bounded by open space. Marmar, sean states
[29:36] even more, quote, even more cynical, is the name dublin
[29:40] open space initiative. Since it eliminates open space
[29:45] at the same time, dublin staff maintains that in
[29:49] order to fund the expressway, there will be solid industrial
[29:54] and commercial buildings from fallon road to dolin road.
[29:58] why doesn't the video show the voters what this will really look
[30:03] like? Unquote, livermore city council
[30:07] directed livermore staff to conduct a citywide poll regarding
[30:11] preserving open space and the scenic corridor north
[30:15] of five 80. The poll reso results showed that
[30:20] livermore favors a road extension.
[30:25] this but prioritizes open space and a visual buffer
[30:29] between our communities. Respondents were much
[30:33] less likely to support a road project if commercial and
[30:37] industrial development were constructed.
[30:42] um, on april 23, 20 third, 2025,
[30:48] dublin mayors sherry yu held a state of the city
[30:52] luncheon. She noted that the five year capital
[30:56] improvement program budget is projected at
[31:00] $104.9 million, which amounts
[31:05] to approximately 21 million per year with
[31:09] the city's proposed six lane extension
[31:13] of dublin boulevard. Estimated, um, at
[31:17] that time a hundred at 160 million.
[31:22] this, including this well separately. Another
[31:27] item is the city's vision for the downtown dublin project.
[31:32] also the large regional event center and other street
[31:36] parks and general improvement projects. How does the
[31:40] proposed road make economic sense for dublin
[31:45] taxpayers? Thank you.
[31:49] next speaker is todd, followed by juan pablo
[31:53] galvin ine, followed by got sharma.
[31:59] good evening, dublin city council. My name's todd benson, longtime resident dublin.
[32:04] and what I'm here to speak about is in support of shirley's,
[32:09] um, proposal to come up with a $44 million
[32:13] option for the road extension as opposed to 160 million. That would be
[32:17] a considerable saving, but still meets the need of this road that I guess is still
[32:21] being planned. I'm thinking with that money savings, there's a lot of good
[32:25] things we could do for that in dublin. And on a selfish note,
[32:29] I can just talking about my own street, um, along stagecoach
[32:33] road, uh, we have multiple roads that, uh, feed off
[32:38] of it and people are blowing by it. They're just going right through the stop
[32:42] signs. Um, specifically jade circle and topaz
[32:46] circle, um, around our area. We have two police
[32:50] officers that park at the stop sign. These guys are making bucks.
[32:54] people are not even stopping at these stop signs. They're not even looking at
[32:58] them. And the problem here is that it's a safety issue. I'm surprised
[33:02] nobody's been killed yet. We did have a neighbor's dog that was hit
[33:07] by a car because the guy couldn't bother to stop or even go the speed limit.
[33:11] so what I'm, I'm proposing with this money savings with this option that maybe
[33:15] we put in some safety into some of our streets. Put in speed bumps,
[33:20] for example, to install one speed bump is about one to $7,000.
[33:26] and if you look at what type it is, asphalt is 3000 to 7,000
[33:31] even cheaper. Our rubber refurbished speed bumps, we could
[33:35] use that money for something good to save lives because I can tell you
[33:39] along stage coach, they think it's a raceway and it it's a lawsuit waiting to
[33:43] happen. I'm surprised nobody's been killed there yet. So that's one option I
[33:47] thought that we could use that money that we save on this other option. The other one is
[33:51] iron horse trail, right behind, uh, dublin high school. It's
[33:56] a beautiful area. A lot of people use it. A lot of people use it at night.
[34:00] um, I've seen high school kids walking over there, joggers, bikers, scooters.
[34:04] but it's really dark and it's, it's a safety issues I've seen near collisions.
[34:09] 'cause people can't see each other partly their fault. They should wear reflective vests.
[34:13] they should wear lights. They don't. So I'm proposing with some of this money, maybe
[34:17] put some safety lights out there and maybe for the summertime
[34:21] when people use it too. It it is, it's like an oven there. People are begging.
[34:26] it's direct sun. Let's put some trees over there. You guys have already put a nice
[34:30] beginning of a nice park over there. Um, with that nice little
[34:34] kind of walking trail, let's, let's pretty it up and let's make it safer.
[34:39] and looking at my time, the the one that's not as selfish is,
[34:43] um, let's look at a, a doty overpass walkway
[34:48] right along dorty parallel to the, uh, scarlet drive.
[34:53] iron horse goes right through there. Let's do an overpass. Rockway
[34:57] over dote that connects on iron horse and ends
[35:01] up at the, uh, don bridal community park. This area has a lot of
[35:05] foot traffic. It would improve the public safety and
[35:09] function of that area. Thank you. Thank you.
[35:14] next speaker is juan pablo galvin moine, followed by
[35:18] gt sharma and then reti segar.
[35:23] uh, good evening, dublin city council. Ms. Mayor
[35:27] dublin, uh, city staff. My name is juan pablo gba martinez, senior land use manager
[35:32] for se diablo. Sorry, I should, uh, learn to write a little better, but,
[35:36] uh, yeah, that, that is my name. No big deal. Uh, just up here to
[35:40] say thank you so much. To the majority of the city council that voted to
[35:45] not appeal the court's decision from this past fall, that, uh, measure
[35:49] ii did require environmental review before putting it on the ballot. We think
[35:53] it's a wise decision, uh, takes a long-term view that it's the correct decision, and
[35:57] we absolutely agree with it and are very appreciative. Uh, our, one of our utmost
[36:02] priorities in the entire diablo range, which spans 200 miles, is the preservation of the green
[36:06] belt between dublin and livermore. The last token space remaining between those two cities
[36:11] and our efforts in 2014 that created the east side urban ni
[36:15] line, the dublin enjoys today, uh, always allowed a road connection between,
[36:19] uh, dublin and livermore. I think there's, uh, quite a bit of passion in
[36:23] the community for a road alternative that could be a more economically feasible and, uh, be
[36:27] a lot easier in a lot of respects to, uh, what the city is currently contemplating.
[36:32] but we appreciate, uh, uh, city leadership that takes
[36:36] its decisions, uh, after a lot of thought and follows the rules. So
[36:40] thank you very much for the decision tonight, and, uh, we look forward to working with
[36:44] all of you in the future for dublin's prosperity and the protection of open space in the region. Thank
[36:49] you. Next speaker is
[36:53] ti sharma, followed by reti segar, followed by isha
[36:58] luri.
[37:07] so good evening mayor. And the, uh, council member, uh, pretty much
[37:11] our request is the same, but from the different perspective.
[37:16] so my name is joti sharma and I have been the resident of dublin,
[37:20] uh, from past 15 years. Uh, my beautiful kids, they have grown here.
[37:25] um, and I live in a summer glen community, which is one of the oldest
[37:29] community on the east side of the dublin. Um, I'm also
[37:33] a former special, um, ed teacher with dublin unified school
[37:37] district. Um, and through both my professional and personal experience,
[37:42] I deeply value accessibility, inclusion, and community wellbeing.
[37:46] after collaborating with our tight neighborhood group, um, who support
[37:51] this idea of building a pedestrian bridge on the tasa hara
[37:55] creek, connecting the summer glen neighborhood to the algan park,
[37:59] we seek your guidance regarding the improved, um, uh, uh, safe and accessible,
[38:04] um, access to the algan park, uh, for around
[38:08] 1000, um, of, uh, summer glen residence.
[38:13] this, this access could greatly benefit senior, um, residents, individuals
[38:17] with mobility challenges, families with stroller and children,
[38:21] helping them to enjoy the park without safety concerns, most
[38:25] importantly, access to the farmer's market in no time
[38:30] earlier there was a, uh, stairs, which used to pass through
[38:34] the stairs and, but this accessibility has been blocked from past
[38:38] two years because of flooding. Um, so
[38:43] as, um, as a longtime resident and educator, I have seen firsthand
[38:47] how thoughtful infrastructure, uh, can significantly improve the quality
[38:52] of life and promote the independence of all the members of my community.
[38:56] uh, I'm happy to share the photos of the current condition of the stairs
[39:01] and along with a few innovative ideas, um, which we, uh, we can
[39:05] develop. Um, many people are talking about the, if we can
[39:09] stop spending towards that, uh, road and how many millions of
[39:14] dollars we can save. Um, and beautiful, uh, uh,
[39:18] uh, pedestrian, uh, bridges are there in don biddle park.
[39:22] very accessible, very neat with a new technology. Nothing
[39:26] very fancy. But, um, I hope you can support
[39:30] our request to, uh, conduct a cost, uh, analysis for the pedestrian
[39:34] b***h and promote, um, uh, and provide a report back to,
[39:39] um, us, um, whenever possible. Thank you.
[39:44] the next speaker is reti seger. Actually, it's okay. I'd like to go ahead. I'm
[39:48] sorry. Shall, we've talked among ourselves. Um, hi, my name is isha zaha. I'm a local real
[39:53] estate broker. I live within the sunland neighborhood and, you know, we're,
[39:57] we're all neighbors, so we're all part of this initiative. I'm here to support this initiative because I
[40:01] strongly believe in this. Um, jody brought up a lot of great points here. Uh, there's
[40:05] been a lot of suspicious, not a lot of, there's been some suspicious activity around that
[40:10] area, and we're pretty vigilant within our community. So we're always keeping an eye out to, you know,
[40:14] we see something that we don't recognize people do, we don't recognize, you know, something that,
[40:18] that doesn't seem right to us. We always call it out within our whatsapp group, and that's how we all kind of
[40:22] get together and, you know, coordinate on things, collaborate. So, um, anyways, we
[40:26] do that. But I think it would be, uh, really helpful to have that bridge connecting, uh,
[40:30] our community to summer glen par to emerald glen park, because there's
[40:34] so many community events that happen there and, uh, it's just, uh, something that will help
[40:38] senior citizens and differently abled people access the park much easier. 'cause
[40:42] otherwise you have to go all the way around and it's actually, you know, it's, it's quite a bit of a walk for
[40:47] someone who's, you know, not able to. So, um, I'm here to support this initiative.
[40:51] I'm also here to give you my perspective from a real estate angle. Um, I'm, again,
[40:55] like I said, I'm a real estate broker. I've been doing this full time for over 20 years, and in the summer
[41:00] s of summerland from more than seven years now. So I see that addition
[41:04] of this bridge making it, uh, making the neighborhood, making it accessible
[41:08] for the neighborhood residents to go across to summer health, uh, to enbrel glen
[41:12] park will greatly increase the, um, attractiveness of our neighborhood,
[41:16] the desirability of this particular neighborhood, which is already in a, in a great location because it's walking
[41:21] distance to safeway, to the movies, to, to parks, um, to the n local schools,
[41:25] et cetera. So I think it's a great initiative. And adding some lighting along that gravely
[41:29] part there, which is pretty dark right now, will certainly, um, deter any,
[41:33] you know, unsavory, unsavory characters from hanging out there. So I'm here to support that initiative.
[41:38] and, uh, again, like joti said, we're happy to put together an a proposal if
[41:42] this is something that you're willing to, uh, uh, you know, encourage us to kind of
[41:46] take this forward from this point onwards. Thank you. And
[41:50] then the next speaker is reti segar. Thank you. Good evening. Uh,
[41:54] ms. Mayor as well as city council member and city staff, thank you for
[41:58] giving opportunity to, uh, just, uh, share my perspective with regards to
[42:03] this particular esan bridge, which will be connecting to the embr,
[42:07] uh, park area. This is, uh, this is a very, uh, lively
[42:11] area at this moment. And this particular bridge will bring,
[42:15] especially, it'll be the photo worthy community destination for
[42:19] the, uh, not only for the young, uh, kids, but for the, uh,
[42:23] this community, uh, people as well. The bridge become will be the recognizable
[42:28] landmark, uh, for the visual asset perspective to the city and the community.
[42:33] and it'll serve, uh, as a backdrop for the prom photos, graduation
[42:37] photos, and the family portrait. Because that area, as, as I said, it's very
[42:41] lively from the education standpoint also, and from the nature,
[42:45] uh, appreciation, uh, perspective. Also, this will provide a
[42:49] safe and engaging outdoor learning ex extension to the doughty elementary
[42:54] school. This will act as a po point for the students to the observers,
[42:58] to the, uh, toward the creek and the wildlife. And apart
[43:02] from that, it will support the environment, education, stem learning,
[43:06] and appreciation of the natures and re uh, resources.
[43:11] uh, this particular bridge will encourage and increase the foot traffic
[43:15] to the nearby park and the amenities too as, uh, already,
[43:19] um, uh, shared by joti. This area, this will encourage this,
[43:24] uh, for the walking as well as biking for the casual
[43:28] exploration. Uh, it'll connect to the resident more directly to
[43:32] the parks trail and the open spaces. Uh, this will boost the park
[43:36] users in and, uh, in terms of a recreation as well as with the community
[43:40] health as well. And I think I, uh, from the,
[43:44] as I'm living in this community for last, uh, 18 plus year, that
[43:48] area, especially for the ra green park, this will be very, very useful
[43:53] bridge not only for the, uh, the community where we are living,
[43:57] but whoever is coming from the rael land area to the community, this
[44:01] will be a really connecting bridge to all the communities. Thank you.
[44:07] the next speaker is david ley.
[44:22] hi, good evening. Uh, she just heard my name's david ley and I
[44:26] have been living in dublin for quite some time. Uh, I am, um, the co-author of
[44:30] the, the 2014 open space initiative that,
[44:35] uh, is before you and the work is being done on that, as well as measure m that was done on the
[44:39] west side of the city. I've had some experience dealing with this legislation
[44:43] and, uh, wrote the language and created some of that for us.
[44:48] and I'm here to tell you that as to 2014, open space initiative,
[44:52] being one of the co-authors, the intent was to keep it open space
[44:57] guaranteed. I'm the author co-author of that, what can be done
[45:01] and what should be done and what's in that legislation and is really the only appropriate thing to
[45:05] do if you want have connection to go across, is not a separate road with
[45:10] a commercial development. That was not the intent. I can tell you that I'm the writer.
[45:15] what can be done, if that's what you feel you need, is you can extend
[45:19] if you, if it's necessary, the frontage road, about a third of the mile,
[45:24] that'll, that'll serve the purpose of getting across that area.
[45:29] if you put a road that has commercial development across the, across that main
[45:34] open space area, you, um, are violating the intent
[45:39] of that open space initiative that was never intended.
[45:44] I can tell you that, and that's really the way it is.
[45:49] I wrote part of it. So I hope that you will take
[45:53] that very seriously. And if you are, was to have an extension
[45:58] feel is necessary for, for purposes safety. Although those things connecting
[46:02] across to the road that goes up towards costco up there, dual and canyon,
[46:06] do it by the frontage road. Do that not an expensive extension
[46:10] across the, uh, open space that was not intended by that legislation.
[46:15] I guarantee you I wrote it. Thank you.
[46:21] someone left their glasses up here, by the way,
[46:26] . Now we're gonna go to zoom for our next speaker. So our next speaker
[46:31] on zoom is norm lewandowski.
[46:38] good evening. My name is norm lewandowski, a
[46:43] resident of dublin today about the
[46:47] proposed dublin extension road and measure ii, which are
[46:51] relevant to each other. There was a recent ruling by the
[46:55] alameda court on the lawsuit that was filed by save monte diablo
[47:00] and friends of livermore against the city of dublin.
[47:04] on measure ii, the judge ruled against dublin on the
[47:08] city's argument that there was no project associated with
[47:13] measure ii and therefore no environmental impact
[47:17] report was required. The judge said in his
[47:21] decision that an eir was necessary and
[47:25] further stated that this city misled the public on the wording of of measure
[47:29] ii. He ruled that measure ii is invalid.
[47:34] why is it that the city and the city council in 2024
[47:40] chose to mislead the public on the ballot wording and not just
[47:44] state the city's actual intended plan to eliminate 80 acres of
[47:48] open space and build $160 million, elaborate
[47:53] six to four lane road with commercial development? It's obvious,
[47:58] if you would've put the actual project on the ballot, it would most likely not have passed.
[48:03] so the city labeled ballot the ballot for measure ii
[48:07] as dublin traffic relief, clean air open space
[48:12] preservation measure. Heck, who wouldn't vote for this?
[48:16] the elaborate $160 million roadway is only 1.5
[48:21] miles of road and is not necessary.
[48:25] it's meant to benefit the landowners and developers. It offers
[48:29] very little benefit to the public and will impact the endangered
[48:33] species that occupy this beautiful open space.
[48:38] our city can easily build a simple two-lane connector road
[48:42] just like all the other neighboring cities have done for a fraction of the
[48:46] cost. The city staff claims this project will be paid
[48:50] back in 10 years from traffic impact fees, grants,
[48:54] and other development fees. The reality is, these
[48:59] calculations were based on a lot of wishful assumptions to justify
[49:03] the plan. It will take decades to actually pay
[49:07] back the money for this project. The money the city
[49:11] will spend or have tied up on this
[49:15] project can certainly be put to much better use to benefit
[49:20] the residents. Thank you.
[49:24] the next speaker is melissa pache.
[49:35] hello. Good evening.
[49:42] we can hear you. You can go ahead. Can you hear us? Oh, yes. Thank you very much.
[49:47] um, good evening, mayor hu uh, city council members and dedicated city
[49:51] staff. My name is melissa pci, uh, a dedicated resident and
[49:55] active summer glen community member for the, for the past 15 years.
[49:59] um, I've had the honor of being the neighborhood watch captain
[50:04] for the persimmon drive neighborhood within summer glen for the past 11
[50:08] years. Um, we've been, uh, we've seen great improvements to our city
[50:12] during my time here. And tonight we look to our city council for
[50:16] directed assistance in improving accessibility and safety in our ne neighborhood.
[50:22] um, after long neglect per path along the eastern perimeter
[50:26] of emel, glen park has recently been repaved. However, the path
[50:30] and the abandoned stairs across sahara creek mentioned by by neighbors
[50:34] tonight mention, uh, remains to be a dark and dangerous area
[50:38] in the evenings. More lighting needs to be provided along peron
[50:42] path and extended to the gravel path at the north northeast corner
[50:47] of the park. Um, this gravel path, which connects persimmon drive
[50:51] and gleason drive needs to be paved for safety reasons and most importantly
[50:56] to provide accessibility to the elderly and all, um, all our dublin
[51:00] citizens. Um, having this all along
[51:04] the area there things from happening happening like,
[51:08] um, this past sunday, early sunday morning, um, where that area
[51:12] was targeted, specifically and abandoned
[51:16] from oakland the night before.
[51:35] melissa, you are breaking up and we are not able to hear you at this time.
[51:42] can you hear me? Yes. Hello?
[51:46] yes, can you hear us? Uh, yes. I'm not
[51:50] quite sure where I broke up. Uh, but maybe I'll
[51:54] just repeat the last portion of my, um, um,
[51:59] the last portion of what I just said. Melissa, we you at cars from,
[52:12] are you there still? Melissa? I'm still here. I'm
[52:16] sorry if the reception is not working out.
[52:21] hello.
[52:25] you can go ahead and continue your comments if you, we can hear you
[52:31] maybe. Okay. Um, having this all along the area would
[52:35] deter things from happening like early sunday morning where that area
[52:39] was targeted, um, specifically by car thieves emptying and
[52:47] cars .
[52:51] one recent example of the safety issues this darkened air caused
[52:55] through the years, um, our dublin neighborhood. Thanks you
[52:59] for your attention and for your service. Thank you.
[53:06] the next speaker is charlie coru.
[53:15] good evening mayor and council members. My name is char coru
[53:19] and I'm a sophomore at emerald high school. I've come here today
[53:23] today to speak about an issue that many people have also spoken about this
[53:27] evening, which is about the, uh, dublin boulevard and livermore road extension,
[53:32] also known as the fallon five 80 project. I wanna provide
[53:36] the perspective of a student who goes to emerald high school to every day. So
[53:40] past emeral high school, like when you drive more beyond, there
[53:45] is the construction of the dublin center, um,
[53:49] which is in the middle of many roads. And I've also noticed there's
[53:53] a construction of a new neighborhood called, um, francis ranch. So with all
[53:57] these I've noticed that there's been, dublin has been emphasizing,
[54:02] um, the importance of more urban development. However,
[54:07] as a suburban city, I believe that we shouldn't just
[54:11] strive to constantly develop into
[54:15] natural habitats. We are known as a suburban city,
[54:19] uh, for a reason. This road extension, uh, the
[54:23] dublin boulevard and livermore one will cut into the natural
[54:27] habitats that have stated such as dual and canyon and disrupt many special status
[54:32] species in the area. For example, according to the alameda county government, the
[54:36] alameda whip snake, the loggerhead strike and the california tiger
[54:40] salamander are some of the species that are considered to be these special status
[54:44] species. These species are so critical for maintaining the biodiversity
[54:49] of our environment, as that makes our habitats more resilient to
[54:53] change with this road, that chance of resilience is diminished.
[54:58] regions across the us have already experienced the devastating impacts
[55:02] of o overdevelopment into natural habitats. In florida, for
[55:06] instance, projects to create numerous homes as well as roads have reduced
[55:10] critical habitats and post threats to florida cougars making it difficult for
[55:14] these animals to roam and recover. In fact, according to the wusf
[55:19] public media, 36 of these florida cougars have died in 2024,
[55:24] many from traffic collision collisions. Past experiences like these
[55:28] must be considered, we don't wanna repeat mistakes that you should come, come with overdevelopment.
[55:34] so in conclusion, I urge you to take, make a decision that
[55:38] will allow, that will allow future generations to take into account
[55:42] the significance of our natural, natural habitats and species. Thank
[55:46] you for your time. And the last
[55:50] speaker on zoom is aia raanan.
[56:02] hello, can you hear me? So we can hear you.
[56:08] hello, distinguished dublin city council. My name is adi and I'm
[56:12] a sophomore at emerald high school, where my club emerald eco impact was brought into an issue
[56:16] raised by the sierra club. This concerns a one and a half mile long road
[56:21] that has plans to be built to connect north canyon parkway and dublin boulevard.
[56:25] the main issue with this is that the placement of the road would cross through a very sensitive
[56:29] ecosystem and has the potential to harm special status species in
[56:33] the area. Dublin has also failed to do an economic review under
[56:38] the california environmental equality act, otherwise known as qua,
[56:42] and do a roadway ballot measure tied to development, both of which are
[56:46] procedures that need to be followed in order to move the urban line limit and have,
[56:51] have not been done. This project poses a major problem not only for
[56:55] the environment, but for the city of dublin. Since moving the ull without going through
[56:59] these procedures, leaves the city open to litigation and the possibility
[57:03] of cqa forcing a much more costly full environmental review on the city.
[57:08] our proposed solution to this is a 1.0 0.3 mile long
[57:12] road with two lanes that would only cost around $44 million, which is far less
[57:16] than the 160 plus million dollars current plan for the project.
[57:21] it'll also save around 80 acres of land from commercial development and does not have
[57:25] significant impact on the biodiversity of the area, all while maintaining
[57:29] the dublin ull. The money used for this project could do so much more good for our
[57:33] community. And the current proposal does not consider the environment legality or
[57:37] the people's opinions. Please consider our solution. Thank you for your time.
[57:43] I have no more speaker slips, mayor. Yeah, thank you very much. Thanks for all the
[57:47] comments. Um, so we are going to
[57:51] agenda item five, consent calendar. So consent
[57:57] calendar items are typically non-controversial
[58:01] in nature and are considered for approval by the council
[58:05] with one single action. So I want to ask council members do
[58:09] you have any discussions, any comments,
[58:14] but good, good, good. Okay, so, um, I look forward
[58:18] to mohi. Second.
[58:23] second. Um, so all in favor say aye. A aye.
[58:28] so all the person calendar items are passed.
[58:32] um, agenda item six is public
[58:36] hearing nine, seven and finish the business nine.
[58:41] agenda item eight, new business 8.1.
[58:49] good evening, honorable mayor and city council members. Jordan foss, senior management analyst.
[58:53] and uh, this evening, sorry, lemme get this set up for us.
[58:57] and this evening I'll be giving a presentation on the 2026 city of dublin legislative
[59:02] platform. So the city council adopts an annual legislative
[59:07] platform that guides the city's legislative advocacy efforts for the upcoming year. The
[59:11] platform itself is structured into three tiers, guiding principles, which are the broader foundational
[59:16] goals for advocacy efforts, public policy priorities, which are guiding categories
[59:21] for areas of the city's support and opposition to legislation
[59:25] and advocacy positions which provide more specific positions on each,
[59:29] uh, given public policy priority. The advocacy positions
[59:33] list is by no means exhaustive. And in the those instances when a piece of legislation
[59:37] comes up that is not listed in the advocacy positions, the guiding principle
[59:41] will inform the city's action in rare cases. And if needed, staff
[59:46] may bring recommendations on specific legislation to the city council for direction.
[59:53] the 2026 platform is very similar to last year's platform, uh, and the 2026
[59:58] platform makes modifications to account for changes in state law, anticipated issues for
[1:00:02] the upcoming legislative session, as well as grammatical and or word
[1:00:06] changes, wording changes. I would like to mention as well that townsend
[1:00:10] public affairs, who supports the city's lobbying and government affairs work, reviewed the draft
[1:00:14] platform to ensure it contains appropriate language for proposed and future
[1:00:18] legislation. Uh, additionally, department heads reviewed the
[1:00:22] platform and made recommendations in their areas of expertise.
[1:00:29] so diving into the changes in the platform, the 2026 platform modifies five
[1:00:33] existing priorities from the 25 platform. Priority number 1.7
[1:00:38] was modified to add the words without burdening city resources to address
[1:00:42] future brown act or open government initiative legislation that may negatively
[1:00:46] impact city resources. Priority 7.1 is
[1:00:50] modified to reference greenhouse gas emissions as opposed to global warming pollution
[1:00:55] levels. Uh, this updated language is in line with the language that we see
[1:00:59] used in our current legislation. Priority number 7.3
[1:01:03] is modified to include the added language of assisting local governments as well as
[1:01:07] replacing local compliance efforts for meeting compliance obligations.
[1:01:12] priority 7.4 is modified to reference water purveyors and local governments to
[1:01:16] allow for flexibility in supporting local water agencies or other municipal
[1:01:21] operators. And lastly, priority seven point 10 as
[1:01:25] modified to include the added language of local governments to specifically protect local
[1:01:29] agencies from unfunded mandates related to environmental programs and regulations.
[1:01:36] new additions were also made to the platform of which all eight were for supporting legislation.
[1:01:41] um, so the draft platform proposes additions that include supporting legislation
[1:01:45] that provides for equitable funding distribution from regional transit measures.
[1:01:49] and this position is in response to sb 63, which authorized a
[1:01:53] regional transit funding measure to stabilize operations, uh, and then prevent service
[1:01:58] cuts. So by supporting this there, we we'd basically be supporting
[1:02:02] equitable funding distribution, um, to ensure the local jurisdictions and local transit
[1:02:06] operators receive a fair share of, uh, the re the regional revenues.
[1:02:11] uh, next is supporting legislation that would promote planning and implementation of
[1:02:15] regional transit improvements, uh, and supporting legislation that would promote maintenance
[1:02:19] and rehabilitation of aging infrastructure. And then we'd also, uh,
[1:02:23] another addition is adding, um, is supporting legislation that would provide state
[1:02:27] incentives for affordable transit oriented and mixed income housing while still preserving
[1:02:32] local planning authority. And that position is in response to sb 79,
[1:02:36] which did pass in 2025 and incentivizes high density
[1:02:40] transit oriented housing development statewide. Uh, this advocacy
[1:02:45] position would support the development of affordable and mixed income housings, but, uh, while
[1:02:49] still preserving the local authority over design or community planning,
[1:02:53] um, and other other things.
[1:02:58] so to continue, um, moving forward to supporting legislation that invests
[1:03:02] in safe active transportation infrastructure and local flexibility to manage
[1:03:07] e-bike use in sensitive areas and supporting legislation that provides
[1:03:11] a balanced statewide approach to e-bike safety and supporting legislation
[1:03:15] that advocates for clear and consistent e-bike definitions use standards and
[1:03:19] safety measures that are enforceable and practical. These e-bike
[1:03:23] additions are important, uh, because as ebi e-bikes have become, uh, more
[1:03:28] prevalent, uh, the popularity is increased, there's more usage. The legislature is taking
[1:03:32] a more comprehensive look at ways to regulate safety and usage
[1:03:36] with enforceable policies. And the last position is
[1:03:40] supporting legislation that encourages state level cybersecurity investments and responsible
[1:03:45] artificial intelligence standards that enhance city operations.
[1:03:50] so for next steps, uh, if approved this evening, the legislative platform will be published on
[1:03:54] the city's website and staff will begin utilizing the platform during the 2026 legislative
[1:03:58] cycle. Staff will also be proposing a shift from a one year platform
[1:04:02] to a two year platform that is aligned with the california legislative cycle.
[1:04:07] so the next two year california legislative cycle does begin on january 1st, 2027
[1:04:11] and, and runs through december 31st, 2029. So staff
[1:04:15] anticipates bringing a proposed, uh, draft to your legislative platform to the
[1:04:20] city council in november, 2026 for your consideration to
[1:04:24] ensure that it will be ready by january of 27.
[1:04:29] so staff's recommendation is to receive the report and adopt the resolution approving the 2026
[1:04:33] city of dublin legislative platform. And that concludes my presentation.
[1:04:37] I'm happy to take any questions or comments that you may have. And I do want to, um, also mention that carly
[1:04:42] shelby from townsend public affairs is also on the call, um, this evening and she can
[1:04:46] answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Jordan.
[1:04:50] any questions? Go ahead. Thank you.
[1:04:55] um, thank you jordan. I appreciate all the work on this. Um, I only have one
[1:04:59] question, nothing about the additions, but one about a potential item we might
[1:05:03] want to, um, look at. And I'm glad that townsend is on the line as well. Um,
[1:05:07] ab 32 that is currently, um,
[1:05:13] under litigation, um, is
[1:05:17] ab 32 banned, um, private companies from running prisons
[1:05:21] in the state of california. That's been appealed and it's continuing to
[1:05:26] work its way through. Um, do you feel it is appropriate for
[1:05:30] us to have something in our platform that, um, takes a support
[1:05:34] position around, um,
[1:05:39] the prevention of private prisons, particularly given, um, the
[1:05:43] discussion of fci dublin? So
[1:05:47] I actually wish carly was online. She's not online right now. She's at another meeting. Um,
[1:05:51] so hopefully she'll be able to join shortly. Um, she would
[1:05:55] be the best person I believe to ask townsend would have a good idea if it would be appropriate for us to
[1:06:00] put that within the platform. And again, we utilize them for, um,
[1:06:04] a lot of, for them to review this to make sure that the language that we're using is appropriate.
[1:06:08] um, so I, I'll have to check with her. Um, if she does jump on the call before we're done, then
[1:06:13] we'll definitely can circle back to that. But I would like to check with her. Okay. I know
[1:06:17] it's not a, um, it's not a new bill that's moving this legislative cycle, so it may
[1:06:21] not have been on their radar. Um, but given uh,
[1:06:25] that the bureau of prisons is intending to transfer control of that property,
[1:06:29] which then makes it so that it's possibility of it being up for sale,
[1:06:33] it seems like it might be something we would wanna weigh in on. Um,
[1:06:38] I mean, it doesn't mean we can't weigh in on it if it's not in our legislative platform, but it seems like it, we might want
[1:06:42] the, um, nimbleness of staff. So we can talk about that more at, um, discussion
[1:06:46] time. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Questions.
[1:06:51] who wants to do it? You wanna do it? Go ahead.
[1:06:56] just got two basic questions for you. Um, first is this
[1:07:00] informs our alleged, uh, policy or positions at
[1:07:04] the county, state and federal level, if I'm correct? Correct. It'll cover
[1:07:08] all. Um, traditionally it's focused on the state, but yes, it covers
[1:07:13] all different levels. And it, and last time this was brought up, uh, in terms of
[1:07:17] our ledge platform, um, we were pushing for
[1:07:21] certain stances and, and there was some pushback around that. How if,
[1:07:25] um, or I guess, has the climate changed and if so, how?
[1:07:30] yeah, and that would be a great question for carly, but, um, I did speak, I've spoken
[1:07:34] to her about this. Um, the climate has changed at this point. Townsend
[1:07:39] feels like it's appropriate, um, to add certain language into the
[1:07:43] platform, um, both from like the state perspective as well as the federal perspective,
[1:07:47] that there, uh, is not as much backlash necessarily
[1:07:52] for certain terms, um, when it comes to funding opportunities or,
[1:07:56] um, you know, grant opportunities, those types of things. So yeah, I've got some
[1:08:00] suggestions, but I'll wait for, um, after a public comment. Any
[1:08:05] questions question? Yeah, go ahead. Yeah. Okay.
[1:08:09] thank you, mayor. Um, good evening, mr. Foss. Good evening. Good to see you.
[1:08:13] uh, I have one question that I wanna ask on behalf of residents and then my own question
[1:08:17] after that. So, uh, the very first one is actually more of a administrative
[1:08:21] question. Um, so if I may ask this, which is the, um,
[1:08:26] by the way, this was a lot to go through, so thank you for doing that job for me. I appreciate
[1:08:30] it. Uh, the, but that, that, I, I had that preamble
[1:08:35] because the question that I have from the resident was, given that we have a
[1:08:39] lot here in terms of our legislative, um, platform, could
[1:08:43] you share with us how our strategic plan may or may not
[1:08:47] tie into how we support some of legislation or vice versa? So just give
[1:08:51] us a overview, if you may. Yeah. So I mean, our legislative, they don't tie
[1:08:55] directly, right? So the legislative platform is going to align with our mission, vision,
[1:09:00] and values. It's going to align with council priorities, um, and
[1:09:04] council goals. So there is overlap in that sense, but the
[1:09:08] public policy priorities do not tie directly
[1:09:12] to a, to a strategic plan goal, um, or objective.
[1:09:17] um, but again, that being said, the policies
[1:09:21] of the city council are taken into consideration when developing the legislative
[1:09:26] platform. Okay. Thank you very much. That's the clarity I was looking for. Then
[1:09:30] lemme get to my question, which is, uh, on
[1:09:34] legisl legislative platform, item six, under parks and community
[1:09:39] services, item six or number 10.
[1:09:43] so six point 10, it states that, uh, we will,
[1:09:48] you know, we're ex supporting, uh, or sorry,
[1:09:52] state it states that expands the protection of natural resources
[1:09:56] and strengthens the safety and scrutiny of these resources,
[1:10:00] uh, which I'm all for. Uh, would it be appropriate
[1:10:04] considering the number of folks who are up here this evening providing public comment
[1:10:08] that some of an interpretation could also be rendered towards
[1:10:12] the definition of open space because of six point 10?
[1:10:17] uh, it, I believe you could interpret it that way, if that's, you know, again, if the direction of council
[1:10:21] is to add specific language, then that's the direction of council, obviously
[1:10:25] staff would be, will be able to make those changes. Um, but yes, I
[1:10:29] mean, the idea of natural resources, again, we're talking about open space,
[1:10:33] uh, we're talking about waterways, natural habitats, um,
[1:10:38] those types of things. Air quality, those types of things. Thank you for the affirmation. Appreciate
[1:10:42] it. No further questions. Thank you. No question from you.
[1:10:46] no. Okay. So I have a, I have a one quick question too. Um,
[1:10:50] so this is our city's, um, legislative platform.
[1:10:55] um, but we work with townsend to, um,
[1:11:00] to develop this. So my question is townsend also work
[1:11:04] with all the other triva cities. Do other cities have
[1:11:08] a similar, uh, legislative pla platform as what we have?
[1:11:13] so not all of the cities within the tri-valley coalition have legislative
[1:11:17] platforms. Um, a couple do, and they are gonna be relatively similar
[1:11:21] to us. We do follow the tbc framework, which are very high level
[1:11:25] points that then we kind of build our more specific dublin,
[1:11:29] um, detail around in our platform. So the framework
[1:11:33] is a, a guiding principle that we get about every, it's every two years. Um, and
[1:11:37] then we, again, we tailor it towards dublin, um, and each city does the same thing.
[1:11:41] okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm . Um, so we get all our
[1:11:46] questions asked. Um, do we have a public comments? I do have two
[1:11:50] speakers. Mayor, the first one is dan morley.
[1:12:03] hello, mayor and city council. Uh, thank you for your time.
[1:12:07] I'm generally supportive of this resolution, acknowledging the fact that local
[1:12:12] government does not exist on an island. I appreciate that the city is
[1:12:16] the foresight to create this platform because legislation enacted at
[1:12:20] the federal, state and county levels all have an effect on cities and their residents.
[1:12:25] cities need to know where they stand in relation to policies and enforcement
[1:12:29] of said policies. As we have been seeing in minnesota when
[1:12:33] faced with policies enforced by a reckless federal government agency
[1:12:38] acting with impunity residents on the ground, look to their local neighborhood
[1:12:42] organizers, cities, counties, and states for support.
[1:12:47] so I, I thank you for having this package. Specifically,
[1:12:52] I wanna applaud the part in, uh, two point
[1:12:56] 11 that supports legislation lowering
[1:13:00] the super majority from two thirds to 55% to approve local
[1:13:04] general obligation bonds and special taxes for affordable housing.
[1:13:08] we need affordable housing. And on one wordsmith correction,
[1:13:14] I think in section 4.2 that you mean citing,
[1:13:19] starting with an s instead of citing, starting with a c.
[1:13:23] that's it, . And the next speaker
[1:13:27] is liz schmidt.
[1:13:37] madam mayor, city council staff. It's true that we
[1:13:41] have a flow from this government state to this county, to the city, but I want
[1:13:45] to let you know that it also can go the other direction because of the
[1:13:50] bravery and the, and the pri principle of the, this council,
[1:13:55] alameda county, has now declared the county an icefree zone, and it's
[1:13:59] considering making or setting a re resolution that will allow, not allow
[1:14:03] a detention center in dublin. I commend you and I tell people I'm proud to be in
[1:14:07] the city, to be in the forefront of any organization that we'll have the courage to
[1:14:12] stand up and say what is happening is wrong, and we need to change it. Thank you.
[1:14:18] I have no other speaker slips. Thank you for the comments. We'll come back for
[1:14:22] additional comments. You have additional comment.
[1:14:27] sure. Appreciate the public comment. And, uh, for the background, I, I
[1:14:31] actually wanted to propose three changes. Um, the
[1:14:35] first two are adding, um, the phrase
[1:14:39] regardless of immigration status. So the first one is 1.3. Uh, currently reads,
[1:14:43] assures every person the right to equal treatment in and access to
[1:14:48] all government sponsored benefits or funding funded
[1:14:52] programs. And, um, my suggestion here is to
[1:14:56] add, uh, regardless of immigration status to the beginning of that, so assures every person,
[1:15:00] regardless of immigration status, the right to equal treatment and in and
[1:15:04] access to all government sponsored benefits, uh, or funded programs. So this is
[1:15:09] under, uh, the general admin section. Um, the second one
[1:15:13] is to section five, uh, one three, uh, which
[1:15:17] is under the public safety. Um, and so currently
[1:15:21] reeds provides for public safety reforms that prioritize the safety, dignity, and
[1:15:25] fair treatment of all individuals. And my suggestion is to again, add regardless of immigration
[1:15:30] status at the end of that. Um, and then the third
[1:15:34] suggest suggestion that I had was under section eight technology,
[1:15:39] um, would be to add, uh, a line item, which
[1:15:44] would be supports protecting our residents information,
[1:15:48] uh, from being used for surveillance and targeting.
[1:15:55] that would be a new one. Yes. Can you say that wording for me one more time? Uh, supports
[1:15:59] protecting our residents information from being used for
[1:16:04] surveillance and targeting
[1:16:27] comments. Um, yeah. Um, I'm gonna wanna
[1:16:31] wordsmith that . Um, I'm generally supportive of, um,
[1:16:36] of your proposed changes. Definitely all in
[1:16:40] on your changes to 5.13. Um, we definitely need to
[1:16:44] add, regardless of immigration status to that one. Um, I would brought, I would like to hear
[1:16:48] staff's thoughts on 1.3 before I'm fully supportive of that, um,
[1:16:53] only because that could, um,
[1:16:57] I just wanna make sure that there's no, um, unintended consequences to that one, um, because
[1:17:02] of funding being used for, um, people who may not be,
[1:17:06] um, documented. So I wanna hear staff's take on that one. Um, but I do,
[1:17:11] I, I would like to see us add, um, add a,
[1:17:15] uh, five point, um, one six, I guess,
[1:17:19] um, with wording that
[1:17:24] supports legislation that, uh, limits
[1:17:28] the transfer of federal or state assets, um, to organizations that would use
[1:17:32] them for, um, for-profit prisons of any kind
[1:17:43] vice. And yeah, for eight seven, I'm generally supportive of your, um, your,
[1:17:47] your thought process.
[1:17:52] yeah. Uh, I am, I think first of all, I think this is really
[1:17:56] well done. A lot of good work. It's very comprehensive. And
[1:18:00] I will say I'm also supportive of first of all,
[1:18:05] uh, adding a 5.16 limiting transfer of assets. I'm, I'm,
[1:18:09] I like that a lot. Um, I also like,
[1:18:13] uh, your new eight point, whatever it's going to be.
[1:18:18] um, I think that's necessary. I think we need to clarify, um,
[1:18:22] uh, targeting surveillance. We just need to define that
[1:18:26] a little bit more. And I would be supportive of, uh,
[1:18:31] the minor addition to five 13 at this point.
[1:18:36] so I'm good with those so far. But I'd like to see what we can do with, with
[1:18:40] your new section eight and, uh, you know, how, uh,
[1:18:44] five 16 might look like to,
[1:18:51] yeah. Um,
[1:18:58] uh, it, it, I'm digesting this for, for a moment. Uh,
[1:19:02] so, uh, so for the addition to item eight,
[1:19:06] um, I think I'm, I'm pretty good with that. I would like
[1:19:10] to also learn about how, how does that come back? How
[1:19:14] does that, does that not come back at us in the situation
[1:19:18] of a crime, right? If, where we need to use surveillance and target somebody
[1:19:23] to observe them, um, in a crime situation. So,
[1:19:27] uh, so is is, let me lemme ask a general question. Administrative
[1:19:32] question is tonight or right now, are we, are we asked to deliberate this
[1:19:36] and then make a relu, uh, approve or decline a resolution? Or can
[1:19:40] we make a motion to defer for further research? Because these items are very heavy
[1:19:47] tonight. The, it's to receive the report and to adopt the resolution approving the
[1:19:51] platform. So if you, you would need to yeah.
[1:19:55] make a motion to defer to another meeting to bring the edits back.
[1:19:59] uh, can I ask you a quick question on that, please? Yeah. Um, jordan, what would be the consequences of us deferring
[1:20:04] this? The legislation is legislative calendar is, is off and running.
[1:20:08] um, deferring it to another meeting would be, um,
[1:20:13] we, we would still be under the existing legislative platform. Correct. Um,
[1:20:17] so the changes that you have proposed that came from townsend and
[1:20:21] our other tri-valley partners, um, would not be in effect. So
[1:20:25] the bills that they are specifically, um, meant to engage
[1:20:30] on, you would not be able to engage on fully until we adopt the, um,
[1:20:34] resolution. Is that correct? Yeah, we would not be able to, staff would not be able to support
[1:20:38] and or oppose any legislation without, uh, without that language
[1:20:42] in there if it was, you know, specific around that bill, but anything from the previous
[1:20:46] platform would roll over. Okay. I wouldn't be supportive of deferring at this point.
[1:20:50] jordan, are we, are we in violation of any compliance if we defer it for
[1:20:55] further research? Uh, no. No. There'd be, no, you could,
[1:20:59] you can as count as the vice mayor josie mentioned, we
[1:21:03] would just utilize the 25 platform until the 26 platform is adopted.
[1:21:07] so if there's any legislation that either dublin and or the tri-valley coalition
[1:21:11] would like to take action on, we would not, that was not currently
[1:21:15] covered in the 25, uh, platform, we wouldn't be able to do without bringing it
[1:21:19] back to you for special consideration. Okay. See, I I, where
[1:21:23] my, where I'm headed with this is we have unanswered questions
[1:21:28] and we have specialists and consultants who can answer these questions
[1:21:32] for us. So we deliberate this in a silo this evening and we pass a resolution
[1:21:37] without having the full breadth of answers, I feel is,
[1:21:41] is impartial. So it it, like he just said,
[1:21:45] there's no cost to deferring this or prefer making a motion to defer
[1:21:49] for subsequent review because we can, and there's no financial penalty
[1:21:54] to this nor legislative or compliance penalty to this. Um,
[1:21:58] so what's the rush, I guess is my question? Is there, is there one? Did
[1:22:02] I, did I miss something? Jordan? There's, we,
[1:22:06] there's not necessarily, uh, I mean, the rush is that the legisla, the legislature
[1:22:10] is working currently on proposing bills. And we like to be, we
[1:22:14] like to make sure we're at the front of that and that we're having conversations early and that we're, um,
[1:22:19] speaking to these offices. We're unable to do that from our capacity without
[1:22:23] this document. Um, unless again, it's something that falls within, within the
[1:22:27] 2025 platform. Are any of the items, items presented by our
[1:22:31] council member cadre or modification, or the questions that were asked by vice
[1:22:36] mayor items that are up for the debate and legislation at
[1:22:40] this moment for this week? That would be a question for townsend. So unfortunately we
[1:22:44] don't have an answer for this week specifically. Um, you know, if we, if something were to
[1:22:48] come back to the next meeting, you know, that would, again, that
[1:22:52] would be the sooner the better, of course, getting anything approved because
[1:22:56] it just allows us to act faster. Okay. So missing talent, townsend right
[1:23:00] now is a pillar that we really need them here yes. To ask all these
[1:23:04] questions. Unfortunately, she's stuck right. Currently at another meeting, and hopefully she'll be able to join and answer
[1:23:09] any questions before the deliberation is done. Okay. Uh, can
[1:23:14] I just wanna address something that john said? Um, yeah,
[1:23:19] hang on a second. So what I wanna understand is, um, and this is more
[1:23:23] procedural too, so is there anything in this document,
[1:23:27] aside from what we've talked about tonight, that you have a need
[1:23:31] for further discussion? No. Okay. So from a procedural standpoint,
[1:23:36] um, this may sound too simplistic, but I wanna understand if we were to adopt something
[1:23:41] subject to, uh, you know, what it is now and then
[1:23:45] have further amendments, is that, uh, uh, a
[1:23:50] procedural possibility? Uh, if we came back in another week and said,
[1:23:54] okay, we're, we're gonna look at these other items here and,
[1:23:58] uh, digest 'em and, and come up with, with add addendums
[1:24:02] or additions to this document. What I'm saying here
[1:24:06] is this provides us with a means. There might be something that's very essential in this
[1:24:11] tonight that that's coming up. Right. Uh, and that you're
[1:24:15] gonna need those tools. You, we we're gonna need that. Right? So I just wanna make sure
[1:24:19] that, uh, you know, from a procedural standpoint, we have a little flexibility. Yeah.
[1:24:23] we can, if there's no issues with what we see here,
[1:24:27] we move forward with something like this and we come back with these five items
[1:24:32] or so. And seriously get into this because I think there's some really good items here.
[1:24:38] you want to make a comment? I, I just wanted to ask the question. Um, your question
[1:24:42] to him said, is there any urgency or are there any bills moving based on the,
[1:24:46] the amendments that we are asking for staff's report, but I'm more concerned with passing
[1:24:51] what staff presented to us. Um, and I, I wanted to make sure you weren't losing sight of
[1:24:55] that, that there's, there's a lot of new things in here that are not in the
[1:24:59] 2025 legislative platform. And I wanna make sure that we are moving on that
[1:25:03] quickly because the reason they're in here is 'cause there are bills moving on those issues like
[1:25:07] sb 63 and tho those other issues that are, that are moving forward. And so I don't wanna
[1:25:12] delay the recommendations that we're getting from staff that we are all,
[1:25:16] I think I, we haven't heard from everybody's full position, but, but most of us were quite receptive
[1:25:21] when that came forward from us. So I just wanna make sure that we haven't lost sight of that, that those
[1:25:25] changes we're talking about to our ledge platform are not just the things, you know, what
[1:25:29] we wanna pass and I did not just the things that we're adding. Yes. And, um,
[1:25:33] so I wanted to make sure that that was fully understood. And that's kind of what I said, right, , that's
[1:25:37] what I was
[1:25:42] very clear in terms of our alleged package. And if, if you don't know what I'm referring
[1:25:46] to, feel free to turn on the news or be the newspaper. I mean, it, it's, it's a
[1:25:50] very tragic situation what's happening. Yeah. I, and I, uh, I,
[1:25:54] so first of all, I'll address the yes, I understand the baseline that we have, so I'm
[1:25:59] okay with it, uh, because we can, it sounds like we can come up for a special
[1:26:03] review again to make modifications. Okay, fine. Uh,
[1:26:07] look, I'm not, I'm, I'm not ambi to what's happening in the world right now.
[1:26:12] okay. But what I also am, uh, very strongly, uh,
[1:26:16] considering is that what is a constitutionality of what's being requested.
[1:26:21] so I, I don't have time to do review that unless I go and chat gpt
[1:26:25] right now. But we apparently have a city norm that I can't be really on my
[1:26:29] computer looking at things. So I, I want the time to review and understand
[1:26:34] the constitutionally or the request that's being presented. That's all. And
[1:26:38] I'm not saying yes or no, I'm just, you gotta gimme some time because that, that's a very heavy lift
[1:26:42] item. Yeah. That's being presented. Um, I'm, I'm sure attorney
[1:26:46] can weigh in, uh, given this very similar language has been approved
[1:26:51] by other cities, local cities.
[1:26:56] yeah. I, I'm not concerned about the constitutionality of, of such a statement being
[1:27:00] included in your legislative platform. Um, I think there has been legislation
[1:27:04] that has said similar, has included similar phrasing, and I haven't heard about
[1:27:08] any constitutional challenges. Uh, if I could just add la uh,
[1:27:13] last year we had a similar conversation, um, and
[1:27:17] we had some language proposed related to immigration status.
[1:27:22] and the direction then was to go back and review it with, uh,
[1:27:26] townsend, which we did. And given the climate at the time, um, townsend
[1:27:30] didn't feel comfortable with that language. And we talked about how the climate has changed. And
[1:27:34] so I'd like to ask jordan to speak about any conversations he's had
[1:27:39] with townsend about that change in the climate. Yeah. So
[1:27:43] I referenced it a little bit earlier, but when we had last year when
[1:27:47] we had talked about that language, townsend was concerned about using that language again,
[1:27:51] due to the unknown surrounding the federal administration coming in
[1:27:55] and what that would mean for grant funding, for federal funding, et
[1:27:59] cetera. Um, they do not currently share the same concerns
[1:28:03] that they had just from what they've been able to see. Um, and they, they
[1:28:07] do not believe that adding any language similar to what we,
[1:28:11] what was requested last year, that adding that language would be a, a, a concern
[1:28:16] this year. So they were in favor of us adding that
[1:28:20] language if it did come back up within discussion,
[1:28:30] working with all of our tri-valley cities. And
[1:28:35] I had some time with other mayors, uh, last week
[1:28:39] when we went to washington dc for legislative,
[1:28:43] uh, advocacy trip and also mayor's conference. I kind
[1:28:48] of sense some of the, the languages we, we just,
[1:28:52] um, talked about may not appear in other cities,
[1:28:57] um, platform, if that's a sense. If johnson
[1:29:01] has to act for all of our
[1:29:06] cities, if we have language different from other cities language,
[1:29:11] what would be the consequence? So the, I guess
[1:29:15] that would really depend. Um, it's the interpretation of, you know, of the language, right? So if,
[1:29:19] if certain cities, and I don't, I don't specifically know what, you know, livermore or
[1:29:23] danville has in their legislative platform, but if they have language that's
[1:29:27] maybe more broad, they'll be able to interpret it one way and
[1:29:32] then their staff will be able to interpret it one way and then react. Um, you know, our lang
[1:29:36] you know, our language is currently written the way it is, and it allows staff to,
[1:29:40] to act that way. So, I mean, really it's,
[1:29:45] it's, it just kind of boils down to does it fit with kind of what the
[1:29:49] tvc collectively is working on? That's what we really think about when we work on things regionally.
[1:29:53] um, does it fit really within our framework? And then we start to look at like, the nuance things to
[1:29:57] make sure we're comfortable signing onto a five city letter,
[1:30:03] I would say too, and, and thinking more about this, you know, the, uh, the
[1:30:07] two items that council member cadre, um, is,
[1:30:11] is looking at at 1.3 and five point 13, uh,
[1:30:16] already say everyone, so they
[1:30:20] already capture everyone. So I think what the council member's getting at,
[1:30:24] um, without putting words in your mouth, is a point of emphasis here on, uh,
[1:30:28] uh, given what's happening around us.
[1:30:33] sorry, I just wanted to correct myself. I, I left off the words, um,
[1:30:38] for immigration enforcement cooperation for the tar. The last part
[1:30:42] of that, and I don't know if that was your question, I'm sorry. How would you say that? Um, it
[1:30:46] was, um, supports protecting our residents information from being
[1:30:50] used for surveillance and targeting, targeting for
[1:30:54] immigration enforcement? Oh, for eight point, whatever. I apologize for
[1:30:58] leaving that piece out. Thank you. That makes a big difference for me because my concern,
[1:31:03] so I've got, I I've couple of concerns. I I am a hundred percent on
[1:31:07] board with you and I will, will champion your point of view on 5.13.
[1:31:12] absolutely. A hundred percent. Um, 1.3 is a little bit
[1:31:16] different only in that it, um, it talks about all government sponsored
[1:31:21] benefits and funded programs. Um, it does say assures every
[1:31:25] person the right to equal treatment a hundred percent. But then
[1:31:29] it goes on to say, and access to all government sponsored benefits and funded
[1:31:33] programs. Um, I don't know that that's the position that the council wants to
[1:31:37] take when we're talking about supporting state legislation that
[1:31:42] funds whatever the benefit programs are
[1:31:48] or using state taxpayer funding to support,
[1:31:53] um, potentially people who are undocumented. Um,
[1:31:57] I think that that's a little bit more nuanced. I think that there are some, um, programs
[1:32:01] where I would be absolutely, um, in favor of that, and there would be some
[1:32:05] programs that would give me slight pause on that. So I, I'm
[1:32:10] a little uncomfortable with adding it to that section. Um,
[1:32:16] but I'm a hundred percent with you on 5.13. I think it absolutely
[1:32:20] should be there for the emphasis that, um, safety, welfare and dignity of all persons,
[1:32:25] um, absolutely regardless of their, uh, immigration status.
[1:32:29] and I think it mostly covers what you had the point you're trying to make that,
[1:32:35] that on a health and welfare basis, it does not
[1:32:39] matter what somebody's status is. We, we support legislation that,
[1:32:43] uh, provides a public safety net, um, on the
[1:32:47] 8.7, protecting our residents, um, information from being used for
[1:32:51] surveillance and targeting for immigration enforcement. Adding those words makes all the difference because
[1:32:56] I was concerned with, um, the unintended, unintended consequences perhaps to
[1:33:00] our, um, lprs. But, um, with those words added, I am, um,
[1:33:05] I'm with you a hundred percent, so I appreciate that. Alright. Um, and I
[1:33:09] hope you, you're also on board with the, uh, uh, sale or transfer
[1:33:13] properties for how, for-profit s how did, how did that wording go? I'm sorry, my, my, his or mine? Yours?
[1:33:17] mine, um, uh, it would be, uh, five point, I think it's five 16.5
[1:33:22] point 16, yeah. Which would say, um, so it's under the supports. So it
[1:33:26] would be the, the item would start with the words limits, but it's basically saying we support legislation
[1:33:31] that limits the transfer of federal or state assets to organizations
[1:33:35] that would use them for for-profit prisons.
[1:33:40] okay. Thank you.
[1:33:46] do you want to limit it to just assets or just limit
[1:33:51] for-profit?
[1:33:56] I worded it that way because that is very specifically a dublin issue.
[1:34:00] I mean, I think that, um, I don't know that we would wanna weigh in as a city
[1:34:04] on, um, uh, we wouldn't
[1:34:08] take a position really on unless it affects us. Um,
[1:34:12] and I think that transfer is what is gonna affect us. And so that's why
[1:34:16] I, I worded it that way. I mean, I think it would also is fairly clear that we support legisl.
[1:34:21] I mean, we don't, we're not in favor for-profit prisons, but, um, as far as
[1:34:25] the bills that we would weigh in, I don't think we would take a position on something that was not really
[1:34:30] yeah. In our area. So that's why I worded it that way. But I'm, I'm open to, um, other suggestions, but
[1:34:34] I, I think that that gives a clear nexus to dublin and what we're
[1:34:38] doing. I think we should that's a good, good
[1:34:42] comment. Like focus on things related to our doublings
[1:34:47] position. So mayor and council members do, uh, we might not have agreement
[1:34:51] on 1.3, but do we have enough agreement to move forward with
[1:34:56] 5.13, uh, the new eight and,
[1:35:01] uh, the new five point 16?
[1:35:06] I'm, I'm okay with that. If that's the will of the council, I can go along with that.
[1:35:10] I wanted to also, I introduce this other idea to give us all flexibility.
[1:35:15] as I said, I wanna make sure that we get what we need out the door. But if
[1:35:20] it's the will of the council, I'm fine. I also want, I'm, uh, uh, listening
[1:35:24] to another council member who has a very reasonable ask.
[1:35:29] and, uh, I didn't see any harm in it, but look, I'll go with the flow
[1:35:33] here if, if that's what he is, what we're doing here, but I respect
[1:35:37] his positions, uh, because there is a lot in this thing. There's
[1:35:41] absolutely a lot. Yeah, I, I kind of understand that. And
[1:35:45] I also want to check with thompson before we pass something
[1:35:50] additionally. So I would like to propose we pass whether we already
[1:35:54] have the staff recommended today, so you can move on with your work
[1:35:59] for additional amendments. Um, things we have constant
[1:36:03] in the call, or we have, uh, time to discuss with them before we,
[1:36:07] we approve additional amen amendments. You welcome. Thank you. Um,
[1:36:11] is there anything, john, in, in the, um,
[1:36:15] proposed amendments that you feel that you could get through tonight?
[1:36:20] uh, there's some really good stuff. Yeah. Right. And I was just wondering, is there
[1:36:24] anything in there that you feel that we could throw in here that we can just, uh,
[1:36:30] um, move forward with and then come back to some, you know, whatever's
[1:36:34] left over, whatever it's, yeah. So thank you for that. And I,
[1:36:38] I really appreciate dialogue and thank you for the considerations, everybody. Uh, I'm okay
[1:36:42] with actually everything other than 1.3. Oh, I, I,
[1:36:46] I just need, I just need more time on that because
[1:36:50] that's really tough for me. Um, it's,
[1:36:55] um, 5.1 second one, one second. Yes. Yeah.
[1:36:59] um, if we're all good question, I'm with that. I'd love to make a motion.
[1:37:04] wait for a second. I didn't understand. What did you say? Like, uh, which one? You,
[1:37:08] uh, it's the one, the item, uh, is it 1.3? Uh, council member
[1:37:12] cadre, uh, which states that, um, something about programs and regardless
[1:37:16] of immigration status, uh, forget,
[1:37:21] uh, which one it was? Uh, 1 3, 1 0.3. So you, you already made
[1:37:25] the change to 1.3, right? Mayor? No, uh, the, the three items
[1:37:29] that council member marada is saying that he agrees with are, um,
[1:37:33] changes to 5.13, 8.8,
[1:37:38] is it? Or 8.7 0.7, yeah. And five point 16. Yep. So
[1:37:42] we'll be, um, modifying five point 13 to add,
[1:37:46] uh, language. And then we have two new, um,
[1:37:51] uh, support positions mm-hmm . And now the, not 1.3.
[1:37:56] yeah, I think, correct. Yeah, that's, that's fine. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah.
[1:38:00] perfect. I make a motion, um, sorry to
[1:38:04] go back, um, to the very beginning, uh, to receive
[1:38:08] and adopt. Uh, sorry. Where are we?
[1:38:13] I am so sorry. Uh, I had it queued up, um,
[1:38:18] to, to adopt a resolution approving the 2026 city of dublin
[1:38:22] legislative platform, uh, with, uh, 1, 2, 3
[1:38:26] amendments. Uh, the first one being 5.13, adding, uh,
[1:38:31] comma, regardless of immigration status, uh, adding, uh, five
[1:38:35] point 16 limits the transfer of federal and state assets for for-profit
[1:38:40] prisons. And adding an item in section eight,
[1:38:44] uh, which would be supports protecting our residents information from being
[1:38:48] used for surveillance and targeting for immigration enforcement. And
[1:38:52] I will second that motion. Okay. So all in favor say
[1:38:56] aye. Aye. Aye. So the motion passes unanimously,
[1:39:02] so did not
[1:39:07] remember that.
[1:39:11] let's move on to agenda item 8.2, proposed amendments
[1:39:16] to the city's noise regulations.
[1:39:43] good evening, city council mayor, uh, jennifer,
[1:39:47] bias planning manager here to talk a little bit about proposed amendments
[1:39:51] to the city's noise ordinance. And we're pulling up the presentation
[1:39:55] here, and a little bit of background
[1:40:00] of why we're here tonight to talk to you about this at your december 2nd meeting, city
[1:40:04] council approved outdoor live entertainment in the downtown.
[1:40:09] at that meeting, council raised concerns regarding the
[1:40:13] existing noise ordinance and some subjectivity, uh, around
[1:40:17] that area. And regulations. Counsel directed us to return with
[1:40:21] this report. That's what we're here tonight to show, talk about what we discovered.
[1:40:26] and, um, in addition in, at that meeting, uh,
[1:40:30] counsel also directed us to, um, adjust the complaint
[1:40:34] process for making complaints on noise to make it simpler. And just
[1:40:38] wanted to report back to you that we have added noise as a
[1:40:42] issue if you're going in to fix it dublin, so you can, uh, provide
[1:40:46] a complaint if you have a noise related issue. And then you also requested
[1:40:51] that staff come back in a year's time to check in on the status of any kind of
[1:40:55] complaints we received regarding, uh, the changes to
[1:41:00] outdoor live entertainment, um, in the downtown area. So we expect
[1:41:04] we'll be back, um, probably december of 2026 with that report.
[1:41:08] and just a little refresher of background, um, the existing noise
[1:41:13] ordinance for the city does prohibit noise that's loud and
[1:41:17] necessary, unnatural, unusual or habitual.
[1:41:21] the enforcement is based on a reasonable person standard, and a reasonable
[1:41:26] person standard is judged by whether an average person
[1:41:30] can find an unreasonable, loud, or disturbing
[1:41:35] under the circumstances. So with that,
[1:41:39] based on after the december 2nd meeting, staff went back and
[1:41:44] reviewed the surrounding cities for some comparison on how other jurisdictions,
[1:41:49] uh, regulate noise. We looked at livermore, pleasanton, san ramon, danville,
[1:41:54] and walnut creek. Then we found that, um, there's two ways
[1:41:58] typical to regulate. One is an activity based regulation,
[1:42:02] which san ramon, livermore, danville, walnut creek, all have.
[1:42:06] and then there's another way that is, uh, decimal based, where you have a more technical,
[1:42:11] uh, decimal based, uh, set on an activity or a
[1:42:15] land use. Um, the activity based approach, again,
[1:42:19] provides that, uh, balance with flexibility and enforceability.
[1:42:24] um, and it is really based on community needs.
[1:42:29] so, for example, one thing that you might find in an activity based
[1:42:33] approach is lawn equipment, um, being used.
[1:42:37] and they might establish hours that activity can go on or be
[1:42:42] prohibited, and days of the week where those activities might go on and be prohibited.
[1:42:47] also, historically, uh, in our research, um, dublin's complaints have
[1:42:51] been fairly limited. Um, we did go back and pull the data
[1:42:55] 12 years. We've had about 35 complaints, all of which have been resolved,
[1:42:59] um, under our current ordinance. Um, but the common themes that
[1:43:04] we saw in some of those complaints were related to concerns, again,
[1:43:08] related to typical lawn equipment, leaf blowers, and late
[1:43:12] night parties, um, that might disturb residential neighborhoods.
[1:43:20] uh, based on what we found and kind of, uh, looking at some of our
[1:43:24] surrounding communities and how they look at activities and the direction, uh,
[1:43:28] we received, we went back and staff is, uh, looking at
[1:43:32] and wanting to discuss tonight some changes to our noise ordinance.
[1:43:36] those would be adding in some activity based regulations,
[1:43:41] um, based on the lawn, uh, excuse me, landscape equipment,
[1:43:45] like leaf blowers. And we'd be looking at adding days as well as hour
[1:43:49] restrictions for those types of activities, as well as, again, amplified
[1:43:54] music and noise, looking at days and activities. So for example,
[1:43:58] or what we're suggesting staff is recommending, we would limit
[1:44:02] landscape equipment use monday through friday, 7:00 am
[1:44:07] to 8:00 pm and that's when you can use your equipment. Um,
[1:44:11] also, um, you could use it saturday through sunday, 8:00 am to
[1:44:15] 10:00 pm we've had a little bit of discussion around, uh, 10:00 pm on
[1:44:19] sunday. Uh, might be a little late, uh, so could hear some discussion
[1:44:24] around maybe that, um, hour on a sunday, again, amplified noise
[1:44:28] and parties, uh, we would be suggesting, uh, days
[1:44:32] sunday through thursday, 10 to 10:00 am to 8:00 pm
[1:44:37] as well as fridays and saturdays 10:00 am to 10:00 pm.
[1:44:48] so, uh, tonight I'm here again, bringing back this report to you,
[1:44:53] um, to seek your direction and regards to the proposed changes
[1:44:57] that I just presented. Um, the next steps for staff would be going
[1:45:01] back and then rolling up our sleeves and making those changes based on tonight's
[1:45:05] discussion and your direction, um, and then bringing that back in a form of an ordinance.
[1:45:10] with that, I'm available for any question. Thank you so much,
[1:45:14] jennifer. Any questions? Um, and I
[1:45:19] know we'll get into this discussion, get into the weeds here, but, oh, that's a pun, huh?
[1:45:23] get in the weeds. Nevermind. Um, so you made, you made a,
[1:45:27] a point about the, the, uh, leaf blowers
[1:45:31] or the, the landscape equipments on saturday night. Who's doing
[1:45:36] that stuff at 10:00 am 10:00 pm at night? I mean, what, what's, what's going on there? I didn't,
[1:45:40] that's a question. I wanna know where you came up with that number. You know, it, it varies. It varies
[1:45:44] based on community needs and basis, you know, um,
[1:45:49] I occasionally will work late in the evenings, in the summertime, so, you know,
[1:45:53] again, am I out there at 10 o'clock at night? Probably not. But, um, this is
[1:45:57] just a, again, a basic basis to start the discussion mm-hmm. Um, of what
[1:46:01] might be reasonable, um, and see what, where we would wanna head
[1:46:05] with. Do we wanna have, um, hours, do we wanna talk about
[1:46:10] activities? Right? How do we wanna look at addressing some of the concerns
[1:46:14] of the communities that we see? Thank you. Appreciate it.
[1:46:19] thank you. I appreciate it. I have one question. Um, I think you alluded to it, but I'm not sure
[1:46:23] this, the staff report actually, um, laid out very explicitly. Um, is
[1:46:27] the intention here, um, that we're only talking about these things in residential areas,
[1:46:32] um, as opposed to citywide? They would
[1:46:36] be citywide, but yes, our suggestion would be for these two items with the
[1:46:40] suggested changes that they would be limited to reside residential activities.
[1:46:44] yeah, the nors ordinance obviously would be citywide, but the, but these changes would
[1:46:48] specifically, um, at residences. Right. Okay. Thank you. That's my only
[1:46:52] question. Questions got two
[1:46:57] questions. Um, I guess how, for a context, uh, how big
[1:47:01] of a problem is this within our city? Uh, how many complaints do we typically get
[1:47:05] in a year, for instance? Yeah, again,
[1:47:10] we don't receive very many noise complaints. Uh, we do
[1:47:14] have, um, I have the, the kind of breakdown for the last 12 years.
[1:47:18] um, but I think I said 35 in my presentation since 2012,
[1:47:23] uh, was the count. Seems like the last 2024 and
[1:47:27] 2025, the numbers have gone up from maybe like six
[1:47:32] 10 to maybe 13. Right? So there, there's a little bit of an uptick,
[1:47:36] um, in the last few years, but nor normal
[1:47:41] data that we were able to provide is maybe three to four a
[1:47:45] year. And then, uh, second question was just around
[1:47:49] enforcement. What, what does that typically look like? I mean, who's, who's enforcing, uh,
[1:47:53] this code? Yeah, the good question. Um, our
[1:47:57] code enforcement staff would be responsible, uh, for, um, addressing
[1:48:01] or receiving any complaint and then any kind of follow up that would be needed
[1:48:06] if the complaint to address the complaint.
[1:48:12] uh, go ahead. Okay. Thank you. Uh, good evening, ms. Baos.
[1:48:16] uh, so I'm actually looking at table two and, um, it's hard
[1:48:20] for me to support this considering you have nothing about rolling your trash bins
[1:48:24] into your driveway at three o'clock in the morning. I think we need something about that.
[1:48:29] I'm joking. All right. Real question , which is, um,
[1:48:34] I, uh, so there are, there are plenty of folks who contract their
[1:48:39] landscaping work, uh, and therefore, uh, the, their,
[1:48:44] it may be written their contract that they can start, you know, sun up or work
[1:48:48] until sundown. How will we, as part of the enforcement
[1:48:52] process or next steps, educate either the contractors
[1:48:56] or homeowners so that they know what the times the limitations are that'll be put on,
[1:49:00] on noise, uh, in the, in the residences?
[1:49:04] uh, good question. I think, um, part of this process is
[1:49:08] once we get, um, some information around the direction we want to go,
[1:49:13] we'll be developing the process for any kind of outreach that would be needed to let
[1:49:17] residents, or let, again, commercial operators know that these are the rules.
[1:49:21] um, and that, that's, um, that's how we would address that.
[1:49:26] okay. Thank you. Thank you very, very much, jennifer.
[1:49:30] so, um, I, I just have some, um, other
[1:49:34] comments I heard from residents. Um, there's two things I heard about
[1:49:38] their lo complaint. One is the, uh, school
[1:49:42] district somehow, um, they said they have a,
[1:49:47] a place, we heard of that, but it's not, I don't think it's
[1:49:52] a noise from this, uh, leaf blower or noise from these
[1:49:56] parties. It's more like operations, like trucks, those kind of
[1:50:00] noise. Do we have any regulation to,
[1:50:04] uh, regulate those kind of noise? Um, with
[1:50:08] these changes, we're not suggesting regulating commercial noises or
[1:50:13] activities that are, you know, generate noise with commercial or industrial
[1:50:17] uses. Again, that hasn't been an area that we've seen a lot of complaints around.
[1:50:22] we will still have our existing noise in effect. So if somebody
[1:50:26] is concerned and complaining about that, our code enforcement officers
[1:50:30] will still address those complaints. These changes would
[1:50:35] just simply make it that if the complaint was this activity that we've
[1:50:39] specified, we now have a day and a time limit around
[1:50:43] that. It would become, um, less subjective and more
[1:50:47] direct. Like, hey, you are enrolling your trash cans, you're blowing your lawn at 3:00 am.
[1:50:52] uh, that's outside of the time that that's allowed, and then they would need to address
[1:50:56] and not do that activity anymore. Okay. Does that help explain, so for the,
[1:51:00] for the commercial noise, what's our current regulation?
[1:51:05] it's just based on a reasonable standard. Um,
[1:51:10] based on like a, do we have, like you said, president has a
[1:51:14] , uh, based, uh, what kind of food current
[1:51:19] our community, what the kind of standard we had. Yeah. We
[1:51:23] don't have a decimal based standard or an activity based standard
[1:51:28] that, um, would address any industrial commercial activities.
[1:51:33] so if somebody calls you, um, they would be, um,
[1:51:37] required to comply with the reasonable person. Standard reason,
[1:51:42] reasonable. I don't got this
[1:51:46] well, mayor, we talked, I, this is one of the reasons, uh, we went back and, and looked at this issue
[1:51:50] is because, um, when we were talking about the downtown, uh, live music,
[1:51:55] um, uh, the vice mayor brought up the fact that we have this very
[1:52:00] general subjective, uh, vague noise
[1:52:04] ordinance, right? And so, uh, so that's why we researched other ways
[1:52:08] of doing it. Um, and given the fact that we don't, we don't really experience
[1:52:12] complaints about commercial activities. I mean, you have one-offs. Um,
[1:52:17] what we chose to focus on was noise from residences, and those are the things that we've,
[1:52:22] we've heard about. Okay. Got, got it. Okay. Yeah, and
[1:52:26] another complaint I heard is about, I think it's a
[1:52:30] military bug calls, right? Like the mini military, the
[1:52:34] bugle calls. Yeah. Well, the system is, uh, going under maintenance right
[1:52:38] now, so I hate to tell you this, it's not gone away. It's going to come
[1:52:43] back. Uh, but the hope is that they'll have more control over, um,
[1:52:47] the volume and the frequency, but it, it's coming back and it will be in use.
[1:52:51] okay. Got it. Okay. Uh, thank you so much. That's
[1:52:55] all the questions we have. Are there public comments? I have no speaker
[1:52:59] slips on the side, mayor. Great. Okay. So any additional comments
[1:53:03] you wanna make? Yeah, thanks. Okay, go ahead. Um, first of all, thank you for,
[1:53:08] um, the outreach and the, the, um, the comparison from
[1:53:12] other cities. Um, I am in agreement that 10:00 am or 10:00 pm excuse me, on
[1:53:16] saturdays and sundays is maybe a little outside the, the, um, scope of what we would wanna
[1:53:20] do if we decided we wanted to go forward with this. Um, maybe just
[1:53:24] saturdays and sundays 8:00 am to 8:00 pm um, I was struck by your comment
[1:53:28] that you're only getting six to 80 a year, because I think that must all be coming to me . I
[1:53:32] think I'm getting that many per year. Um, so I appreciate that we're at least taking
[1:53:37] a look at this. Um,
[1:53:41] certainly there are other things that, um, people complain about the noise. Um,
[1:53:45] some of those things we don't have any control over. The bugle calls, for example, the city doesn't really
[1:53:49] have control over, um, you know, noise from the football stadiums band
[1:53:54] practice. Mm-hmm . You know, we have a second high school now that is right in the middle of a neighborhood. Um, now
[1:53:58] that I'm working at both high schools, they're, uh, band metronome at four
[1:54:02] o'clock in the afternoon. If I lived right next door to that would be, um, certainly,
[1:54:06] um, I'm not sure I would be considered a reasonable person in that circumstance. Um, but
[1:54:10] there are things that we can't really, that's not our property, that's not anything we can do about
[1:54:14] that. Um, but I think from the, the landscaping at the crack of dawn,
[1:54:19] um, I think we can certainly put that in there. I think to john's point, like how,
[1:54:23] how do we tell people about that? Um, we do code enforcement
[1:54:27] on a complaint basis. Correct? Correct. Um, so for example,
[1:54:31] we have, um, off the top of my head, I'm thinking, we have a ordinance that says you
[1:54:35] can't have a basketball hoop that's in the street that's at your curb. But we
[1:54:40] don't drive around to every, you know, we wait for people to, to their neighbors
[1:54:44] to say, these kids are playing basketball in my court. Code enforcement. You know,
[1:54:48] that's not okay. I would imagine this would be similar is the approach we would take. I
[1:54:52] mean, we would certainly wanna let everybody know that we've taken that, that we've done that, but, um,
[1:54:57] we would be taking complaints. Correct. Not driving around at,
[1:55:02] we wouldn't have code enforcement out there driving around at 6:00 am on a saturday checking to see if anybody's running a leaf
[1:55:06] blower. Correct. Our code enforcement program is, uh, monday through friday,
[1:55:10] eight to five. And, and if a complaint comes in outside of that, we address it, but
[1:55:14] we're not actively looking for violations on weekends. Okay. Follow up. Yeah.
[1:55:18] based on the complaint. Yeah. Um, so I'm, I'm generally supportive of this. I think it, it,
[1:55:22] um, is a baby step towards addressing the, the things that
[1:55:27] affect people's quality of life. I think the, um, the amplified
[1:55:31] noise, I don't know whether we wanna put the word parties in there. I think we would wanna just
[1:55:35] leave it as amplified noise. Um, because I,
[1:55:39] I don't think we're trying to regulate people chatting in their backyards so much as we are them
[1:55:43] playing noise through their bluetooth speaker or whatever, um, that is keeping the neighbors
[1:55:47] awake. Um, and I think the rest of it can sort of fall under, um, reasonable person
[1:55:52] standard. But, you know, you gotta turn the music off, you gotta turn the, the
[1:55:56] amplified speeches off. Um, at whatever time we set in this, I think these
[1:56:00] are good suggestions. Um, I wouldn't want it to say, you can't, you have, your
[1:56:04] party has to end at 10:00 pm on a saturday night. Um, there might be, you know, graduation parties
[1:56:08] or whatever that people, you know, that doesn't happen all the time. Taking the,
[1:56:12] the word parties out and having the amplified noise. To
[1:56:16] me, that seems like a, a good balance between, um, you
[1:56:20] know, just turn the music off, keep doing what you're doing. Um, but the reasonable person
[1:56:25] standard continues to be, um, applicable if you live next door to somebody who
[1:56:29] has parties every week and is out there having, you know, 20 people in the yard playing
[1:56:33] in the pool or whatever until midnight every weekend. Um, so I'm supportive of this.
[1:56:37] I would love to see us change, um, the saturday, sunday, uh, leafblower or
[1:56:41] landscaping equipment, um, to an 8:00 pm and, or even 9:00 pm
[1:56:45] I don't know, in the summer, you know, maybe sundown as the end point.
[1:56:50] um, but the 7:00 am weekday, 8:00 am weekend, um, start
[1:56:54] time I think is perfect. And the, um, amplified noise, I think the time's. Right. So that would
[1:56:58] be my, um, my preference. Thank you.
[1:57:02] yeah. Any, go ahead, michael. Clarification. Um,
[1:57:06] so if we went back to the ordinance itself and, uh, 5 28, 0 20,
[1:57:12] uh, it's as regards to what you're trying to add to this
[1:57:17] amplified noise, where would you, I'm just curious as how you would, would that be, it's a,
[1:57:21] a separate section in there because it's, it's, it's got a lot going
[1:57:25] on in a and you would create a separate, uh,
[1:57:29] section within there, uh, to describe specifically amplified
[1:57:34] noise. That's my only question. Correct. Yeah. We would probably create with, with those times
[1:57:38] second separate section, maybe a little table or just a sentence of
[1:57:42] what, what the requirements would be. And we'll come back, we, we will come back with that
[1:57:46] ordinance and those changes, um, as we do, um,
[1:57:50] and, uh, present that information to you and what the actual language will
[1:57:54] be and where it'll be inserted. But yes, it'll be inserted in that section.
[1:57:59] thank you. Okay, thanks. Thank you, john. Uh, uh, ms. Bios just a
[1:58:03] recommendation if I may, for the next version that you'll be, uh, presenting to us,
[1:58:08] uh, and actually parlaying off of vice mayor's point here, which is
[1:58:12] the table two, if we add another column that said examples
[1:58:17] that would actually, I think, give a perspective to folks of, of what that means.
[1:58:22] that way in column a, you could generalize that state, make
[1:58:26] them more of a general statement, and then column c would be the examples here of,
[1:58:31] okay. That's all comments.
[1:58:36] not particularly adamant about this one. I mean, I, I, uh, I think some of the
[1:58:40] changes that you suggested seem reasonable, um, doesn't seem like
[1:58:44] a huge issue at the moment. Um, so I'm,
[1:58:48] I'm, I'm not particularly strong about it, but I, uh,
[1:58:53] I'm okay with what's being presented. So I agree with that.
[1:58:57] 8:00 pm during, yeah, the first one, sunday to sunday.
[1:59:02] um, second one, amplify the noise without parties. I think
[1:59:06] that's great. Um, so that would be our direction to you,
[1:59:10] right? Okay. Today, we just need direction and thank you so much. That's
[1:59:14] good work and looking forward to, um, next
[1:59:18] time when you come to bring the more detailed language there.
[1:59:23] all right, thank you very much. Thank you, jennifer.
[1:59:27] so, moving on to agenda item nine, city manager
[1:59:31] and the city council reports mayor and council members. Um, I,
[1:59:36] I, I wanna respond a little bit to the residents that came out from summer. Glen,
[1:59:40] appreciate their feedback on, um, you know, needing a pedestrian
[1:59:44] bridge there. I did communicate, um, with, uh, one
[1:59:48] of them and maybe she didn't see it before she came to the meeting, but that, that property is owned by
[1:59:53] zone seven. Um, having said that, I, I, city
[1:59:57] staff will go out there and take a look at the, at the lighting and see what's happening on the trail
[2:00:01] to see if there's anything that we can, we can do. We are responsible for portions of the,
[2:00:06] of the, um, adjacent trail. So, so we will do that. Um, four
[2:00:10] new pickleball courts are, uh, have been installed at wallace, so
[2:00:15] at least one of you is happy about that. Yeah, . And,
[2:00:19] um, you're gonna see information coming out about this very soon.
[2:00:23] um, it will be included in the summer activity guide, but we are planning a community
[2:00:27] party on july 4th, so don't plan anything for that day except to show up at dublin sports grounds.
[2:00:32] and it'll be a good old fashioned american, uh, party right near backyard.
[2:00:36] that's all. Thank you. So, john,
[2:00:40] you want to start? Okay. Uh, thank you mayor, uh, for myself, uh,
[2:00:44] attended ava board meeting, as well as their finance meeting as well. Nothing
[2:00:49] new to report there. Uh, also I did get the
[2:00:53] opportunity to go to sacramento for the league of california city's governance transparency,
[2:00:57] labor relations, uh, policy committee. Uh,
[2:01:02] I wanna let everybody know that, uh, it was ratified to have
[2:01:06] a artificial intelligence policy, uh, by the gtlr.
[2:01:10] so there will be one now that is officially from, uh, from that agency.
[2:01:15] and then also I had the pleasure and honor to attend the, uh, ribbon cutting
[2:01:19] for the iron horse trail, which I actually learned quite a bit about the
[2:01:23] railway that we used to have, but no longer have, and a good commemoration to
[2:01:27] what we have now. So with that, that's all I have for now. Thank you,
[2:01:32] michael. Sure. Uh, I, uh, had a few things.
[2:01:37] had a haka meeting, uh, labor negotiations, uh,
[2:01:42] had a, uh, l finance and administration meeting. Nothing
[2:01:46] to really report on those. Um, what I really
[2:01:50] enjoyed with the accompaniment of, uh, council member marada was
[2:01:55] installing the new board of the chamber. That was fun. Uh, you
[2:01:59] felt very, uh, you know, empowered. No, it, it was, it was fun. Anyway,
[2:02:03] um, and, and a couple of ribbon cuttings, uh, the mendocino farms.
[2:02:08] I think a couple of us were there. Uh, very impressed. And guys, jim
[2:02:12] and, uh, I think, uh, oh yeah, iron
[2:02:16] horse trail. That was great. So we're, we, were all over the place. Yeah. Yeah,
[2:02:20] I'm good. Yeah. Um, council member. Yeah, I too had a pretty busy,
[2:02:25] uh, couple weeks. Um, so the league of california cities community services policy
[2:02:29] committee meeting, uh, the iron horse trail opening,
[2:02:33] uh, the east bay leadership council leadership series dinner. Uh, that
[2:02:37] event was fantastic. Um, yesterday we had the mendocino farms
[2:02:42] event, which was also great, uh, earlier, had
[2:02:46] an igate board meeting, and, um, happy to share that. I'm now the vice,
[2:02:50] uh, selected the vice chair, uh, of that board. Um,
[2:02:54] and the, uh, mlk fellowship breakfast and awards, uh, hosted
[2:02:59] by the three valleys community foundation, another really great event. Um,
[2:03:03] and finally the federal military community committee meeting. Um, so
[2:03:07] very busy, uh, couple weeks. Cool. Thanks. Thank
[2:03:11] you. Also, a busy few weeks. Um, the, uh, I was down at, uh, up in sacramento
[2:03:16] for the cal city's, um, public safety policy committee meeting.
[2:03:20] um, they are also doing a, um, e-bike task
[2:03:24] force for cal cities. And, um, public safety will have two or three members,
[2:03:28] um, from, um, public safety on the task force. Um,
[2:03:32] and I did put in for that. I don't know when we'll hear the deadline to, um, apply for, it was yesterday,
[2:03:37] so, um, we'll see. I'd love to be able to, um, have dublin's voice heard on the e-bike
[2:03:41] task force. It'll be statewide. Um, obviously, uh, the iron horse trail park,
[2:03:46] um, grand opening was amazing. And, um, as always, our historian, steve mene,
[2:03:50] um, is an amazing person to talk about all the history of the things that used to be.
[2:03:54] um, and once were, uh, I had have had two laughter, uh, committee meetings, um,
[2:03:59] and also, um, stop waste, uh, wanna alert folks that, um, stop
[2:04:03] waste board did pass, um, a new, um,
[2:04:07] revenue measure that will go on. Everybody's, all the jurisdictions
[2:04:11] within alameda county, their haulers. And it will be, um, 30 cents
[2:04:16] a month for residential. Um, and a little bit more
[2:04:20] for commercial to help recover, stop wastes, um, regulatory
[2:04:24] costs for helping to deliver, um, the programs that they deliver to all
[2:04:28] of alameda county. So a very tiny, um, increase on everybody's bills.
[2:04:33] and then, um, east bay leadership council dinner. Um, that dinner was, uh, truly
[2:04:37] amazing. Stacey abrams was the keynote speaker, and, um, it, I, I'm hoping that
[2:04:41] that was recorded somewhere for folks that didn't get a chance to go. 'cause it, it really was, uh, truly,
[2:04:45] um, an amazing evening. And that was it for me. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. Very busy
[2:04:50] week for, seems for a lot of people here. And
[2:04:54] I, I was seeing a lot of ribbon cutting as well. There's one ribbon
[2:04:58] cutting. I think it's a gym guys,
[2:05:02] gym guys was a good one too. Um, beyond this, um, iron
[2:05:06] horse nature park and open space ribbon cutting.
[2:05:11] and we were pretty proud, I think in the past four months, we
[2:05:16] have opened three parks. The what is ranch
[2:05:20] park, the nature park, and this iron horse,
[2:05:24] um, nature park and the community, like open space.
[2:05:28] so three parks in four months. Um, that's what our city
[2:05:32] have done. I'm so proud of that. And beyond that, for last
[2:05:37] week, the whole week I was in washington dc with all the other
[2:05:41] mayors from tri valley. So we had, um, legislative
[2:05:46] advocacy. We actually got to meet, um,
[2:05:51] meet a lot of people and we actually meet both senators
[2:05:56] from, from our california and with all the other mayors from,
[2:06:01] uh, other mayors from california. So that was a good meeting as well.
[2:06:05] and the, and the mayor's conference, there's a lot of good topics,
[2:06:09] safety. And then in one of the launch meeting, the
[2:06:13] mayor of, uh, minneapolis actually went to speak
[2:06:18] to us. That, that was like a highlight. But one quick thing I want
[2:06:22] to share with you is another mayor who's in suburb of minneapolis,
[2:06:26] also spoke in one of our sessions. Um, so
[2:06:30] we, we heard from them, you know, in real, real person, and
[2:06:35] they just confirmed whatever we have seen on tv, you know,
[2:06:39] the situation was pretty severe. Um, they confirmed with
[2:06:43] us. Sometimes you heard all the news from tv from, um, social media.
[2:06:47] you, you were still don't know, you know, if it's, um,
[2:06:52] just, uh, like in tv or, but it's real that
[2:06:56] that's the message I heard from both mayors from that area. Um,
[2:07:01] quite alarming. So, so that's my last week. It was a
[2:07:05] freezing cold, snowy storm. Like
[2:07:09] all the things happened on sunday and then rest of the week was
[2:07:14] cold, but weather was okay. Um, so with that said, thank
[2:07:18] you everybody for your great work and we'll adjourn the meeting at
[2:07:22] 9 0 8. Thanks for all doubting did, didn't
[2:07:26] I.