HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.1 Approve 09-14-1987 Minutes _.REGULAR_MEEThNG - ,September -14., 1987. - -....--,-
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on
Monday, September 14, 1987 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The
meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Mayor Linda Jeffery.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Moffatt, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor
Jeffery.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle-
giance to the flag.
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council took the following actions:
Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 24, 1987;
Approved the City Treasurer' s Investment Report for Period Ending August 31,
1987;
Approved the Pro-Forma Financial Report for Period Ending July 31, 1987;
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 67 - 87
SETTING GOALS FOR
MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM
Authorized the Mayor to execute a Public Works Maintenance Agreement with MCE
Corporation;
Accepted improvements under Contract 87-4, Annual Sidewalk Repair Program as
being complete; authorized additional appropriation in the amount of
$12, 369.07; authorized retention payment to Ambo Engineering ($3, 973.25) ;
Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $587,122. 89;
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 68 - 87
ESTABLISHING A SALARY PLAN
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERSONNEL RULES
and authorized a budget transfer from the Contingent Reserve to appropriate
operating accounts;
CM-6-275
Regular Meeting September 14, 1987
-------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO.
• • '.i v..2..1 .M.�C X�..,.v..s+Si:.ir1ry t.:4,.: .iL.�[.'1t.:krw...lbw.St.t;:......,.-lro.11'.ar_.h/.I4..v ..S.3/J1hw«+._vr..v..._...a ..tiY.r A.. ....a..,. .✓�..J'S t 1 <
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 69 - 87
ADOPTING A BENEFIT PLAN
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERSONNEL RULES
and
RESOLUTION NO. 70 - 87
FIXING EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION
UNDER THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT
AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 78-84
and authorized ,.a budget transfer from the Contingent Reserve to various
benefit accounts;
Retained Cardoza-Dilallo-Harrington to provide Dolan Park Phase II Landscape
Architectural Services; authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement;
Authorized Staff to solicit bids for a data processing system computer.
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING
SCARLETT COURT @ CURTISS DODGE, LOADING ZONE & NO PARKING ZONE
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Staff advised that this item was continued from the City Council meeting of
August 24, 1987, at the request of the owners of the Valley Boat House.
Curtiss Dodge has requested that the City establish a loading zone along the
curb in front of their property in order to provide a place for transport
trucks to unload automobiles being delivered to the dealership. Parking is
currently prohibited on both sides of Scarlett Court from Dougherty Road to a
point approximately 60 ' south of the driveway of the Valley Boat House. On-
street parking is allowed for the approximately 80 ' remaining between this
no-parking zone and the driveway of Curtiss Dodge. When cars are parked
along this curb, the transports are forced to double park, creating a
hazardous situation for motorists traveling along Scarlett Court. Curtiss
Dodge has also requested that approximately 30' of curb southeasterly of
their driveway be designated a no parking zone because of sight distance
problems for vehicles exiting the driveway.
The Traffic Safety Committee has reviewed this request and determined that
the loading zone and no parking zone are warranted.
John Corallo, co-owner of Valley Boat House indicated he had a problem with
the elimination of parking spaces. What they would like to see is a
designated parking zone area which would limit the time to one hour, or
whatever length of time may be appropriate. This would leave the space open
for customer parking on a rotating basis.
CM-6-276
Regular Meeting September 14, 1987
.... ....4.._.._i...... ..si„>,,.......,,. ._....... ..... ...._. .:.... ...... �. ..:a..}S..JFl1. .3a:i:..a.d.,,.r:a..r:.o..,..�`.,.....«..tll.::.........as...��...G..s... _,.._... ,... ... W.A�..:.a...... .•
Shirley Corallo stated she wished to clarify that they do have 4 customer
parking spaces on their premises. These 4 spaces are often times used by
customers of other businesses, however. Ms. Corallo suggested placing the
loading strip on the south end of the Curtiss Dodge driveway. She further
stated that they had discussed this informally with Curtiss Dodge and they
were in agreement.
Mayor Jeffery questioned if Curtiss Dodge had approved this change in
writing. Ms. Corallo indicated that .they had expected representatives of
Curtiss Dodge to be present at the meeting to discuss this.
City Engineer Lee Thompson indicated that the draft ordinance would need to
be revised to incorporate this change.
Because of confusion related to reading the map that was presented, Cm.
Hegarty requested that a blow-up of the area be made available at the next
meeting.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
Mayor Jeffery continued the public hearing to the next Council meeting.
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING
UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICTS
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Staff advised that this ordinance, which was introduced at the Council
meeting of August 24, 1987, provides a procedure and means for establishing
underground utility districts within the City. The ordinance delineates the
noticing procedures and requirements for district formation and the
responsibilities of the utility companies and property owners. It also
provides a means for the City to underground private service if the property
owner fails to do so, with the costs to become a lien on the property.
No comments were made by members of the public.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote,
the Council waived the reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 41 - 87
RELATING TO
UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICTS
* * * *
CM-6-277
Regular Meeting September 14, 1987
PUBLIC HEARING
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Staff advised that this ordinance, which- was introduced at the City Council
meeting of August 24, 1987, sets forth regulations governing use of property
and construction of improvements within flood hazard areas, as they are
determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Flood
Insurance Program. The Building Official is designated as Floodplain
Administrator and is appointed by this ordinance to grant or deny development
permits within areas of special flood hazard. r
No comments were made by members of the public.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. !
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council waived the reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 42 - 87
RELATING TO FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING
NORTHWEST CORNER DUBLIN BOULEVARD/CLARK AVENUE, EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Staff advised that the City is attempting to acquire an 8' wide strip of
right-of-way from the California State Automobile Association for the
widening of Dublin Boulevard at Clark Avenue. The work is proposed to be
done as soon as the right-of-way can be acquired.
The City obtained an appraisal performed by Gary Van Arsdale and Associates,
and has offered CSAA $7, 700 for the property, consistent with this appraisal.
CSAA responded that a decision cannot be made until their next Board of
Directors meeting in October, and also proposed a purchase price of $19, 200.
While an agreement may yet be reached with CSAA, Staff requested that the
Council adopt the Resolution of Public Interest and Necessity so that this
option will be available should it become necessary. This action will allow
the City Attorney to proceed to obtain possession of the right-of-way through
the court so that construction may proceed while negotiations continue.
Cm. Moffatt questioned if the road is brought to where it is suggested, how
close the curb would be to the existing building. He questioned if it will
create a dangerous situation.
City Engineer Thompson reported that we are proposing moving the road about
8' and there will still be about 18'-20' to the building.
CM-6-278
Regular Meeting September 14, 1987
.r,.m.w6:WViYiVa`L.Axwlii:9.:tt'i�ft%.Ask.+VtsxtWU.-acki'.ltll,LVx•.sur4:xvw:s;:vwruiwFwru.rurea+a:.uaY^. "—°°-a.•w'n.uAaWU.aawaavwwaaw,uvaauwY+nr�tu+uwc.uwt+.s-t.uassty�<1u1aY:r�idu::[�^Y.:era:r.:ILIAC.L'rr.:.tL"au'u;+a'szc:'."f+'.rWu. ,... m
George Schilling, representing CSAA, addressed the Council. - He advised that
the dollar amount is not a terrific factor, but rather that they are . . . ''
concerned about the building. If 8' is taken off ,the front of the building,
they would be non-conforming. He questioned if they would have to honor the
required setback at sometime in the future.
Mr. Schilling advised that it is unnecessary for the City to talk
condemnation proceedings to them. He requested that the Council allow them
to continue negotiating until the 'end of October. By starting condemnation
proceedings, the City will be spending its money unnecessarily.
City Attorney Nave advised that CSAA will have until the end of October
anyway. The City just wants to have possession of the land; we are not
talking foreclosing negotiations.
Cm. Vonheeder questioned if the City could grant CSAA a forever variance.
Staff advised that it was possible that the set-backs would still be in
compliance, but Staff will look into this.
City Attorney Nave indicated that the set-back issue would not be a major
problem.
Cm. Hegarty questioned if the land is currently under easements.
Mr. Schilling advised that PG&E has a prescriptive easement over the land
now, which it has used for a number of years.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
Cm. Moffatt questioned if the City plans to proceed within the next 1 or 2
weeks.
City Engineer Thompson advised that Staff is requesting authorization to go
to bid on this project this evening, with a later agenda item.
City Attorney Nave explained that the Council has within its power as much
time as it wants to negotiate.
Cm. Snyder questioned the position of those members of the City Council who
may be CSAA members. City Attorney Nave advised that there is no conflict.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 71 - 87
DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN LAND AND
DIRECTING THE FILING OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS
* * * *
CM-6-279
Regular Meeting September 14, 1987
PUBLIC ,HEARING
RAFANELLI & NAHAS, REQUEST FOR
VARIANCE TO SECTION 22.12 (c) OF ORDINANCE NO. 02-84
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Staff advised that Section 22.12 (c) of Ordinance No. 02-84 prescribes
requirements for placing fill. Specifically, continuous inspection by a
special inspector is required during the preparation of a site and during the
placement of any fill which will be used to support any structure.
Village II of the Alamo Creek project was graded in 1986, and the necessary
final grading inspection report dated February 12, 1987, was provided. Some
regrading of Village II occurred in June of 1987. One of the conditions of
approval of the building permits which were issued on July 21, ' 1987, was to
provide inspection reports for the grading prior to foundation inspection.
A detailed list of inspection dates and occurrences was provided to the
Council. The Building Official reported that he felt the Council could find
that granting the variance would be consistent with the purpose of the
ordinance and that it will not lessen the protection to the people of the
City of Dublin or the property situated therein.
Cm. Hegarty questioned if the Building Official was notified when this was
regraded the second .time.
Mr. Taugher indicated that they were aware, but did not think that they got
official .notices. The project superintendent should have notified the soils
engineer.
Cm. Hegarty clarified that it was basically by accident that the City found
out about this regrading.
Mr. Taugher responded that this was correct.
No comments were made by members of the public on this item.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
Cm. Hegarty indicated that he was sorry that Mr. Nahas wasn't present at the
meeting. His people made an error and something should be said to them to
let them know that this is not taken lightly. Perhaps the Ordinance should
be called up and reviewed.
Mr. Nahas arrived at the meeting at this point in time.
Cm. Hegarty continued that he felt it was unfortunate that this situation
went as far as it did. In the future, other developers who hear about this
should understand exactly what the Ordinance says about inspection. When
conditions are placed on a project, all conditions should be met.
CM-6-280
Regular Meeting September 14, 1987
a' ...J o�l I.'• , :. r.•.
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote,
the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 72 - 87
GRANTING A VARIANCE TO SECTION 22.11(c)
OF ORDINANCE NO. 2-84
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING
RAINBOW INVESTMENT COMPANY REZONE REQUEST, AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Rainbow Investment Company submitted a request to rezone a 1. 3 + acre
partially developed property from a C-0, Administrative Office District to a
C-1, Retail Business District. The Zoning Regulations for the C-1 District
generally permit more intensive land uses than the Zoning Regulations for the
existing C-0 District.
Although this property lies outside the formal boundary of the Dublin
Downtown Specific Plan Area, the site's proximity to the Plan Area would
appear to mandate that land uses ultimately allowed on the site, and the
development criteria established for such uses, be regulated to assure that
they will be consistent with the goals and objectives established by the
Plan. The property's proximity to existing residential uses also appears to
warrant that special consideration be taken in the establishment of land use
and development criteria applied to the site through the rezoning process.
The Planning Commission' s action on August 17, 1987 reflected Staff' s
position that a straight application of the C-1, Retail Business District
land use and development criteria may not be appropriate. The Commission' s
action reflected Staff' s concern that the use of the C-1 District standards
may not provide a level of sensitivity for land use guidelines reflective of
its site specific characteristics.
The Planning Commission recommended that a modified C-1, Retail Business
District be applied to the site through the application of a site-specific
PD, Planned Development Zoning District. The Commission additionally
recommended that the PD District applied to the site establish site specific
development criteria concerning such things as setback requirements, building
height and coverage restrictions and landscaping standards.
Cm. Snyder stated he did not understand the need to go through the Planned
Development process .
Planning Director Tong explained that the existing zoning is restricted to
office uses and the applicant wants the ability to bring in other retail uses
in addition to office space. The Planning Commission concurs with the
intent, but there are other uses that would be allowed by a straight C-1
District that Staff feels might not be appropriate for the site. The
applicant has indicated that they wish to consider additions to the existing
building on the site.
CM-6-281
Regular Meeting September 14, 1987
... :.. .; -.✓'n. .' .: ;:.J.'r\.:. ... r..l,. .r.. .. ,.. ..i. .. +. . l..:t:....,.,.u, ...L:r:,c!:...ra?,HS:r:':4'r„;Y.IW,.Kr5. e;w;„a;."a7+r:�' .Y.,i...aG,:?n.I>t.i;.f�r1Y,. .. :S. r 3
Cm. Hegarty questioned if this would give the applicant the ability to come
in with another proposal. Mr. Tong advised that, depending on the requested
use, they would go before either the Planning Commission or the City Council.
Cm. Hegarty felt that if the Council approves the Negative Declaration now,
the City really doesn't know what they are proposing and what impacts it
might have. Mr. Tong advised that if they come in with something extra-
ordinary, we could review it further.
Ellen Glockner, representing the applicant, indicated she was happy with
Staff's recommendation. The building is more geared toward retail. They
plan to 'do extensive landscaping and feel the site can be greatly enhanced,
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
Cm. Snyder questioned when a determination would be made regarding the
intersection traffic impact. Mr. Tong stated that the applicants have
indicated that they will be coming in with a development proposal sometime in
the near future. At that time, Staff will be able to determine what the
actual contribution will be.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 73 - 87
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
CONCERNING PA 87-076 RAINBOW INVESTMENT COMPANY
REZONING APPLICATION
and
RESOLUTION NO. 74 - 87
ADOPTING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR
A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONCERNING PA 87-076
RAINBOW INVESTMENT COMPANY REZONING APPLICATION
and waived the reading and introduced the Ordinance amending the Zoning
Ordinance.
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING
DUBLIN KAWASAKI CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL
Mayor, Jeffery opened the public hearing.
On August 17, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying
Dublin Kawasaki ' s Conditional Use Permit request to allow outside storage and
display of new and used motorcycles in the parking lot of the site containing
a multi-tenant commercial building located at 6743 Dublin Boulevard.
On August 19, 1987, Staff received a letter from the Applicant appealing the
Planning Commission' s decision to the City Council . Since the Applicant did
not provide the grounds for the appeal, Staff requested additional
information. On September 1, 1987, the Applicant submitted a letter
CM-6-282
Regular Meeting September 14, 1987
. I.• r .. •.:.1 .....v..;.. .td..; :to ::•:yuns..w.:a•5.a:.! .uw✓L.Fe:dL+r-l..v[L ...r..aT.Ca =•4..Wr..t4rut:33u1....•14.[.x..:.,.. en4 ..a 4Y. ..N.L..< ,. r
explaining that the appeal is based upon the grounds that "the original
application was misunderstood by the Planning Staff and denied without due
consideration by the Planning Commission" . The Applicant advised Staff that
".the issue is parking rather than display" . The Applicant further advised
that he was using the parking lot to store inventory during business hours
and for customer parking, not to display merchandise.
Staff advised that it does not matter whether the activity is called storage,
display or parking. What matters is that all merchandise for sale by
businesses in a C-2 District must 'occur from inside an enclosed building
unless the Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit allowing
outside activities. Motorcycles for sale by this business should be located
inside the building and not in the parking lot. .
Staff expressed concern that the City could be held liable if this request is
approved and some form of personal injury or property damage occurs as a
result of allowing the motorcycles to be stored or displayed in the proposed
location.
Doug Meyer, President of Dublin Kawasaki addressed the Council and advised
that he is not the same individual as the previous applicant. He was not
aware at the time he bought the business of these restrictions. He is a
licensed vehicle dealer. When the business was first located here, there
were no permit requirements. It is impossible to run a vehicle business and
not have some parked outside. He indicated he did not understand why this is
now such an issue, in that he will be moving in a couple of months. He did
not feel that any direct complaints have been made about his vehicles. Since
this situation will cease within approximately 60 days when he moves his
business to a new location, Mr. Meyer requested direction regarding some way
to work out the problem. Mr. Meyer apologized for taking up the Council ' s
time with what he felt should be an insignificant matter.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
Cm. Moffatt questioned if the parking lot area is paid for as part of the
lease.
Mr. Tong advised that this is a common area to be used by all tenants. The
area was originally approved as a pedestrian walkway.
Cm. Snyder stated that on a busy day, it is impossible to find a parking
space in the Murco Center and often people need to park a distance away from
the business they wish to frequent. With regard to Mr. Meyer' s comment
related to no permit being required years ago, Cm. Snyder advised that in
1968 an ordinance was enacted by Alameda County and there have been no
changes subsequent to that time. It is unfortunate that Mr. Lindsey did not
advise Mr. Meyer regarding past problems.
Cm. Hegarty stated that in reviewing files from Alameda County, Conditional
Use Permits were required. Yet, people always seem shocked and ask "why all
of a sudden" . The issues of display, parking, etc. , are all combined. Very
clearly, this would -be granting a special priviledge. It is not right for
the Council to simply turn their heads on this situation when the ordinance
clearly states that this cannot be done.
CM-6-283
Regular Meeting September 14, 1987
Cm. Moffatt felt the Council should support Staff's recommendation to deny
the request, but allow Mr. Meyers 60 days to clean up his act '.
Cm. Hegarty and Cm. Snyder both indicated that the question at hand is
whether or not to allow the outside activities. Mr. Meyers has been there
for 3 years. The actual question is outdoor display, not the other issues
and other factors.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 75 - 87
DENYING AN APPEAL OF PA 87-098 DUBLIN KAWASAKI
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO ALLOW
THE OUTSIDE STORAGE AND DISPLAY OF MOTORCYCLES AT 6743 DUBLIN BOULEVARD
Mr. Meyers questioned what about a new vehicle that is licensed and is being
driven by an employee. Mayor Jeffery suggested that Mr. Meyers make an
appointment and discuss his questions with Mr. Tong.
PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 7-82
CREATING & ESTABLISHING POSITION OF CITY MANAGER
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Staff advised that the City presently operates under an ordinance which was
adopted in March, 1982 establishing the position of City Manager. This
ordinance fulfills the requirements of a Council/Manager form of government
with the exception of a provision which requires the City Manager to obtain
the approval of the City Council prior to the appointment or removal of all
Officers and Department Heads of the City, with the exception of the City
Attorney.
In actual practice, over the last 5 1/2 years, the City Manager has typically
recommended for appointment only one candidate for each Department Head
position, which the City Council has confirmed. In a highly competitive
recruiting environment, the delays and uncertainties associated with the
appointment of Department Head candidates which result from requiring Council
approval may place the City at a disadvantage in being able to secure the
services of those individuals that it wishes to hire.
Cm. Hegarty questioned if this ordinance does not pass, what happens to the
next item.
City Manager Ambrose advised that Staff would need to revise the personnel
rules.
No members of the public commented on this item.
CM-6-284
Regular Meeting September 14, 1987
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
Cm. Moffatt felt that this is a very important ordinance and requested that
it be tabled for a month.
Cm. Hegarty did not feel that there was anything urgent about the ordinance
and questioned if Cm. Moffatt would agree to tabling it until the next
meeting.
Cm. Moffatt made a motion which was seconded by Cm. Hegarty to table
discussion of this ordinance until the next Council meeting. This motion was
defeated due to NO votes cast by Cm. Snyder, Cm. Vonheeder and Mayor Jeffery.
Cm. Hegarty felt that the City has hired the most competent people around,
with the approval of the City Council. He did not feel that there was any
problem with the current ordinance with regard to timing, or that the Council
should relinquish the control.
Mr. Ambrose stated that timing could become a major factor with regard to the
upcoming recruitment for a Public Works Director/City Engineer. Mr. Ambrose
further stated that a job offer for this level position could be a very
important decision for an applicant and typically they would not be able to
make a decision in just a few minutes time. Our current process of recruit-
ing takes several months to complete.
Mayor Jeffery did not feel that the Council would be giving up any control
because the Council has authority over the City Manager.
Cm. Hegarty made reference to the financial problems experienced not too long
ago by the City of San Jose. Cm. Hegarty also questioned what makes the City
Attorney position different. Staff responded that the Government Code spells
out the necessary treatment of this position. The City Attorney is not under
the legal administrative authority of the City Manager.
Cm. Vonheeder felt that when Dublin first incorporated and formed a Council/
Manager form of government, initially a compromise was worked out and the
current ordinance had validity while Dublin was still feeling its way. Now,
however, she felt that this would be a vote of confidence and we would be
streamlining the flowchart so that the City Manager has the ability to
negotiate for the position in a way that is competitive. Most other
organizations give the hiring and firing authority to different people. She
did not feel it to be a critical issue now.
Cm. Moffatt felt that the system works okay now and stated he would need to
understand more fully what the Council ' s responsibilities would be before he
could agree to this change. The Council is responsible for the City, and
must answer to the people.
Cm. Vonheeder felt that most of the residents are unaware that we operate in
a manner such that even the League of CA Cities cannot label or identify the
exact system under which we operate.
Cm. Moffatt felt that what works for one agency might not necessarily work
for someone else. Just because the League sees this as a good system doesn't
CM-6-285
Regular Meeting September 14, 1987
mean we have to go along. Cm. Moffatt clarified that he was not sure exactly
what this change would mean.
Mayor Jeffery stated she did not feel that the Council would be relinquishing
one iota of control. It is not fair to ask a Department Head to serve 2
masters.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote, the
Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance amending Ordinance No.
7-82 creating and establishing the position of City Manager. Cm. Hegarty and
Cm. Moffatt voted against this motion.
* * *
PUBLIC HEARING
PERSONNEL ORDINANCE & PERSONNEL SYSTEM RULES
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
In 1984, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 7-84, which established a
personnel system. This ordinance was based on model legislation developed
by the League of California Cities. The ordinance was modified from the
model legislation to be consistent with Ordinance No. 7-82 "Creating and
Establishing the Position of City Manager" .
The proposed Personnel Ordinance will be consistent with the City Manager
proposed ordinance which rescinds Ordinance No. 7-82. The League of
California Cities has also published a 1987 edition of its suggested
ordinance. The proposed ordinance is based substantially on the language
contained in the recommended document and further input from the Assistant
City Attorney.
A detailed list of the differences contained in the proposed ordinance was
presented and discussed. Staff also prepared a draft set of revised
Personnel Rules, and presented a list of the changes.
Staff pointed out that Section 4 (e) exempts Management employees from the
Personnel Rules. Individuals serving in these positions are "at-will"
employees who serve at the pleasure of the City Manager. As such, they are
exempt from the personnel rules and may be dismissed with or without cause.
However, those incumbents presently in these Management positions as of
September 1, 1987, will continue to be covered by the same rules in effect
at the time they were appointed. Once the incumbent .leaves the position,
the position will be considered an "at-will" position.
A draft resolution was prepared which formally denotes each position. The
use of a resolution avoids the requirement to obtain an amendment to an
ordinance if the organization changes and a new management position is
created. The resolution can be processed in a more timely manner and allow
the recruitment process to begin.
The draft resolution also identifies leave benefits for the designated
employees. All other positions eligible for leave benefits are subject to
Personnel Rules governing members of the competitive service.
CM-6-286
Regular Meeting September 14, 1987
Cm. Hegarty asked for clarification regarding the changed overtime provision
related to weeks in which a holiday occurs.
Cm. Moffatt questioned if the personnel rules were general rules or common
definitions. He felt that if the rules are not clearly defined, then they
could be used as a double edged sword. City Attorney Nave indicated that the
definitions are determined mainly by case law.
Mayor Jeffery suggested clarifying. by inserting wording stating the
definitions are as defined by case law or Websters Dictionary.
City Attorney Nave indicated that on Page 11 of the Ordinance, Section 7
should be amended to read "Causes for Action" : : . . . causes as defined by law
and/or common understanding: %
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote,
the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance repealing
Ordinance No. 7-84 establishing a personnel system. Cm. Hegarty abstained.
* * * *
RECESS
A short recess was called. All Councilmembers were present when the meeting
was reconvened.
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS) AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
The City currently provides employees with membership in the Public Employees
Retirement System. Employees are not covered by Social Security unless they
have sufficient .service credit from another employer.
The Social Security System provides benefits to the survivor of a covered
individual in the event of a death. The Basic PERS program only provides a
lump sum payment which consists of a refund of the members contributions plus
an additional amount equal to one months salary for each year of service, up
to a maximum of six months salary.
Staff recommended that the Council consider offering a benefit level which
ranges from 13. 7% to 18. 6$ less than the similar benefit provided to
individuals covered by Social Security.
PERS law requires that an election be conducted among current employees of
the agency, to choose whether they desire to have the coverage. If an
employee elects not to be covered, they will not be required to pay the $2
per month employee contribution. Any new employees hired after the
November 21, 1987 effective date, however, will be required to participate.
PERS considers the program to be basic catastrophic coverage and it is common
among PERS contracts which are not covered by Social Security.
CM-6-287
Regular Meeting September 14, 1987
Cm. Moffatt questioned if this was in lieu of or in addition to Social
Security. City Manager Ambrose stated that employees of the City are not
currently covered under the Social Security System.
Cm. Moffatt asked if an employee could sign up for Social Security if they
wanted and questioned what the financial impact would be.
Mr. Ambrose advised that this it is not desirable to participate in both PERS
and Social Security because the employer must contribute, as well as the
employee.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 76 - 87
INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN
THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
approved the agreement authorizing 1959 Survivor Benefit Pool and authorized
the Mayor to execute the agreement; waived the reading and INTRODUCED an
ordinance amending the agreement between the City of Dublin and the PERS to
include the 1959 Survivor's Benefit; continued the second reading to the
meeting of October 12, 1987; and authorized Staff to proceed with the
election requirements.
PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THROUGH AND LOCAL TRUCK ROUTES
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
This ordinance enables the City to establish certain City streets as through
and local truck routes. Streets so designated will become part of the City' s
Traffic Code and "Truck Route" signs may then be posted. Street designations
are not being made at this time.
No members of the public spoke on this item.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote,
the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance establishing
through and local truck routes.
CM-6-288
Regular Meeting September 14, 1987
PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Staff advised that this ordinance provides a procedure for establishing
right-of-way lines for the purpose of future street widening, extension, or
creation, space for utilities, fire and police emergency access, etc.
Establishment of any other right-of-way lines must be initiated by the
procedure outlined in the ordinance. This provides that the right-of-way
lines may be initiated by petition of property owner, resolution of City
Council, or resolution of Planning Commission. - Hearings are held at the
Planning Commission and City Council levels, with prescribed noticing
requirements.
No members of the public spoke on this item.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote,
the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance establishing
right-of-way lines.
* * * *
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES - EASTERN AREA INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY
On May 18, 1987 a meeting was held as a result of the need to determine major
transportation improvements required as Dublin' s easterly extended planning
area develops. This meeting included members of the City Council, a member
of the County Board of Supervisors, property owners, and Staff members from
the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton and the County of Alameda.
A subcommittee was formed, consisting of Dublin' s City Engineer, Pleasanton' s
Public Works Director, an Alameda County staff member and a property owner
from each side of I-580. The purpose of the subcommittee was to seek out and
recommend an engineering consultant to compile - existing transportation
studies and perceived needs for Dublin's expansion to the east and to explore
the possibilities of funding these improvements.
The subcommittee recommended the hiring of Mr. John Heindel of San Jose, who
owns a small engineering consulting firm and who has no ties with any of the
agencies or property owners involved in the area. This recommendation was
accepted based on the funding for the study coming from private property
owners, one-half from each side of I-580.
A copy of the contract was presented for Council review. Staff advised that
Ted Fairfield has deposited $10, 000 from the Lin family and Joe Elliott, City
of Pleasanton has committed an appropriation of $10, 000 from NPID members.
CM-6-289
Regular Meeting September 14, 1987
Cm. Hegarty questioned if these two groups were the only ones who offered to
pay. City Engineer Thompson advised that all of the money was volunteered.
Ted Fairfield advised that there have been statements of support from other
property owners. This will be a vehicle which causes all parties to get the
issues on the table and maybe cause Alameda County to face the issue of what
their participation will be.
Cm. Moffatt questioned who the consultant would work for. Staff advised that
the contract will be with the City of Dublin.
The question was raised as to what would happen to the other $5, 000
committed. Staff advised that it will be used for engineering prints,
outside contractors, etc. City Engineer Thompson advised that they didn't
want to keep nickel and diming it, so they put in this cushion.
Cm. Hegarty advised that what will hopefully come out of this will be a
recommendation that can then be discussed.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, .
the Council approved the agreement and authorized the Mayor to execute the
agreement following receipt of funds from the City of Pleasanton.
* * * *
SELECTION OF UNDERWRITER AND BOND COUNSEL
REFINANCING OF CIVIC CENTER CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION
The City Council previously authorized Staff to solicit requests for
proposals for underwriting services associated with the refinancing of the
Civic Center Certificate of Participation issue.
Staff reviewed proposals from 6 underwriting/investment banking firms to
function as underwriters for the refinancing transaction. Based on the
content of the written responses, the City Manager and Finance Director
selected 3 firms to interview. After reviewing the proposals, Staff felt
that Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc. (RPR) could provide quality underwriting
services to the City at a competitive cost. RPR's discount rate ranges from
1.40% to 1.50%, depending on whether the issue is insured or uninsured. RPR
was able to demonstrate considerable experience in working with cities in
making effective presentations to Rating Agencies. An effective presenta-
tion can positively affect the City's rating and ultimately result in
substantial savings to the City.
After discussing the performance of Bond Counsel with other cities, Staff
recommended that the City Council engage the services of Jones Hall Hill &
White as special legal counsel for the refinancing of the original
Certificate of Participation issue, as they have considerable experience in
Municipal Financing and have an excellent reputation. Their fee is based on
a sliding scale, depending on the size of the issue. If the City were to
refinance the original Certificates and not incorporate new funds into the
issue, their fee would be approximately $42, 500.
CM-6-290
Regular Meeting September 14, 1987
With the exception of small incidental expenses," no fees will be incurred by
the City until after the sale of the certificates take place.
Because the recent market changes have been in large 'swings with regard to
interest rates, there is an ongoing need to review the conditions so that
the refinancing transaction is timed to occur when the amount. to be saved
well exceeds the costs of the refinancing transaction. - The agreements with
the underwriter and bond counsel give the City the right to go to market
when market conditions are most favorable to the City.
Because of this need to monitor the market and to be ready to move when
conditions warrant action, Staff recommended that the Council identify the
underwriting firm and bond counsel at this time. By doing this, the City
has the opportunity to expand the market window within which favorable
conditions may occur. This window is opened when the Council chooses the
underwriting firm and closes approximately 3 to 6 months thereafter.
Virginia Horler and Grant Hamill, representing RPR made a presentation to the
Council. Ms. Horler advised that they would be looking at refinancing as
well as new money, to cover the increased amount.
Chick Adams, representing Jones Hall Hill & White was introduced.
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 77 - 87
ENGAGING SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL AND UNDERWRITER
IN CONNECTION WITH REFUNDING
CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION PROCEEDINGS
and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreements with Rauscher Pierce
Refsnes, Inc. , and Jones Hall Hill & White.
* * * *
DUBLIN BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS
NORTHWEST FRONTAGE AT CLARK AVENUE
Staff advised that this project will implement a portion of those improve-
ments identified in the Dublin Boulevard Traffic Study. These improvements
include an 8' widening of Dublin Boulevard at Clark Avenue to allow for
emergency parking, space for bicycles and for an eastbound to westbound
u-turn.
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council authorized Staff to advertise Contract 87-8 for bids.
* * * *
CM-6-291
Regular Meeting September 14, 1987
qW
OTHER BUSINESS
League- of-.CA' '-- Voting -Delegates
City' Manager-Ambrose advised..that'.the-City_ needed_,to,notify`the...Le ague`',of CA
Cities-as to:.who'would be,.Dublin'.s `voting'delegate"and'voting alternate at -
the`upcoming -Conference. ` Past' practice "has':been :to" have. the .,Mayor ,and Vice -
Mayor .serve at" the ;delegate'..and-'alternate; respectively.---.Council "consensus
was to`:continue 'with this practice.
SB 709
City Manager Ambrose advised that he had received a telephone call late this
afternoon from Assemblyman Baker advising that there appeared to be some good
financial news to the City. SB 709 would provide for up to 10� versus the
current ' 6. 9C of .property tax _bail out,, funds to .come,,,to the..City.
The Governor still needs to sign"the"bill and -the County must exercise its
option to participate in the bill. ., It should represent about $33, 000/year in
additional property tax funds coming to the City.
We have not yet seen the bill.
Signage from Freeway
Cm. Vonheeder advised that since it does not appear that CalTrans is
interested in an off-ramp into Dublin off of I-680, perhaps more signage
would be appropriate. It' s somewhat confusing for those unfamiliar with
Dublin as to how to get from I-680 into Dublin. Also, it would be helpful to
have the population signs updated.
Staff advised that Public Works would look into this situation.
Dublin Boulevard/Village Parkway Intersection
Cm. Snyder requested that the Traffic Safety Committee review the possibility
of having two left turn lanes from eastbound Dublin Boulevard onto northbound
Village Parkway. This location backs up considerably, especially around the
lunch hour.
* * * *
Solid Waste Presentation
Mayor Jeffery asked Cm. Snyder if he was familiar with the video prepared by
ABAG related to a solid waste presentation, "Rude Awakening". Cm. Snyder
indicated he had not seen it, but felt that anything related to this subject
would be of value to citizens. A suggestion was made to air it on Channel
30.
* * * *
CM-6-292'
Regular Meeting September 14, 1987
RsWSVi�TICIE�idiY.fStiff/wWi11)lY. �dllfJdt+ft'i/W.viTYYfl3i+nLw4Jyii:ii3+9L:GLA:i'LSYKeYeL""�.a.-..a_er..LliM1iI1L49 �VU.MaN.!%'a'ua.0 r. . n +.ru.n.erry ...
I
Problem Solving Seminar A
Cm. Hegarty reported that he had received .a telephone call from Lee Elaine
Shoemaker regarding a problem solving seminar which was being conducted on
September 17th and on September 24th. She was interested in receiving input
from cities. Cm. Hegarty gave a telephone number where Ms. Shoemaker could
be reached for more information. It was pointed out that there was a
conflict with one of the dates as the next Tri-Valley Joint City Council
meeting was being held on September 24th. .
* * * *
CLOSED SESSION
At 10:55 p.m. , the Council recessed 'to a 'closed executive session to discuss
pending litigation, City of Dublin vs. Pet Prevent-A-Care, Inc.
* * *
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was
adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
* * * *
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
* * * *
CM-6-293
Regular Meeting September 14, 1987