HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-23-1991 REGULAR MEETING - December 23,
A regular meeting of the City Council of the Ci'
on Monday, December 23, 1991, in the Council Ch;
Civic Center.
Snyder.
ROLL CALL
1991
:y of Dublin was held
~mbers of the Dublin
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m., by Mayor
PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor
Snyder.
ABSENT: NOne.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (610-20)
Second Year Webelos Scout Ryan McLean, from Pack 546 led the Council,
Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
Ryan stated he enjoys going hiking, and every year they make pine
derby cars and race them for fun.
Visit From Santa
Santa Claus arrived at the meeting and passed out candy canes to the
City Council and Staff.
Mayor Snyder advised that Santa was present as part of the Dublin San
Ramon Lions Club program extended to special kids with hearing
impairments. Santa signed for them.
CUSTOMER SERVICE AWARD FOR JANUARY (150-90)
City Manager Ambrose presented the January Customer Service Award to
Raquel Bowen, Finance Technician II.
Mr. Ambrose advised that Rocky was nominated by her peers for
demonstrating exemplary customer service skills.
Rocky was presented with a restaurant gift certificate and a coffee
mug displaying the City's customer service motto.
REPORT FROM MAYOR SNYDER REGARDING CLEAN SWEEP AWARD (150-80)
Mayor Snyder advised that this award, which was awarded by the Tri-
Valley Herald last year to Dave Burton, would be made at the January
13th City Council meeting. Roger Grossman was unable to attend this
evening.
* * *
CM - VOL 10 - 458
Regular Meeting December 23, 1991
DRFA Gift Drive (585-40)
Cm. Moffatt stated that last week, .the Dougherty Regional Fire
Authority put ~out an SOS to get some presents to present to Arroyo
Vista residents and others who did not have the ability to make
Christmas as bright and happy as normal. They asked Mayor Snyder to
make a few telephone calls and they were then almost inundated with
gifts. DRFA indicated they had a few more gifts that could be
utilized and wanted to know if anyone knew of any needy families.
Anyone who knoWs a needy family can contact DRFA.
Tri-Valley Joint Council Meeting (140-80)
Cm. Jeffery stated she would like to add an item to the agenda to
discuss the position of the Tri-Valley Joint Council to the Regional
Governance process.
On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, the Council agreed to add the item for discussion under other
business.
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, the Council took the following actions:
Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 9, 1991;
Accepted improvements constructed under Contract 91-08, Shannon Center
Vinyl Floor Replacement and authorized $10,062.70 final payment to
Gene's Flooring and Interiors (600-30);
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 131 - 91
APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH REGIONAL AMBULANCE FOR INSTALLATION OF AN
EMERGENCY VEHICLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRE-EMPTION DEVICE,
SOUTHBOUND CLARK AVENUE @ DUBLIN BOULEVARD (600-30)
and aUthorized a $1,000 additional appropriation from new revenue to
the Signals and Lighting budget;
Accepted improvements constructed under Contract 91-04, Shannon Center
Exterior Painting (600-30), authorized $753 final payment to D. C.
Vient and authorized a $45.50 budget transfer from the Contingent
Reserve;
Authorized the Mayor to send a letter to Mary King, President of the
Alameda County Board of Supervisors, expressing concerns and
requesting a process where meaningful dialog and discussion can occur
regarding the proposed East County Area Plan (420-50);
'CM - VOL 10 - 459
Regular Meeting December 23, 1991
Authorized Staff to negotiate a Change Order for additional equipment
for the Nielsen School Play Area (600-30);
Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $492,270.63 (300-40);
Reviewed and accepted the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Audit Report, and June
Finance Report and authorized all necessary year end budget changeS
(310-30) .
ST. PATRICK'S DAY PARADE ROUTE (950-40)
Recreation Director Lowart presented alternate parade routes as a
result of Council direction at the December 9, 1991 City Council
meeting.
Ms. Lowart advised that a meeting was held with representatives from
the Police, Public Works and Recreation Departments, as well as the
Dublin-San Ramon Lions Club. Two routes were considered. Route A
would utilize Dublin High School parking lot as the staging area. The
parade would proceed south on Village Parkway, west on Dublin
Boulevard and north on Amador Plaza Road where it would disband.
Concerns with this route were that the DHS parking lot is too small to
accommodate the number of entries in the parade and two main east-west
arterials in town would be shut down. An alternative of proceeding
west on AVB instead of Dublin Boulevard was discussed, but it was felt
that this alternative would provide for too short of a parade route.
Ms. Lowart advised that Route B was recommended. This route would
utilize Amador Plaza Road as the staging area for the parade which
woUld proceed east on Amador Valley Boulevard, south on Village
Parkway, west on Dublin Boulevard, north on Golden Gate Drive (the
street leading into Toys R Us) where it would disband. This route was
favored by those in attendance as it allows for an adequate staging
area and smooth traffic fl°w. In addition, Regional Street would
remain open leaving access to the adjacent shopping areas.
Cm. Burton qUestioned who was there to review Route B.
Ms. Lowart advised that there were representatives present from Public
Works and Police, plus a representative from the Lions Club. They
made an informal poll and checked with the Chamber of Commerce
regarding the business aspect. This route will not be on Regional
Street at all.
Cm. Burton questioned which side of Village Parkway the parade will be
on.
Ms. Lowart advised that it will go on the west side.
cm. Moffatt stated he felt this was a great idea and he had no
problems with it.
**********************************************************************
CM - VOL 10 - 460
Regular Meeting December 23, 1991
Bill Burnham stated they concurred on the new route. It satisfies
everyone and everyone seems to be happy with the new route.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous
vote, the Council approved parade route B and authorized Staff to
issue the parade permit.
HISTORICAL STUDY GROUP (910-40)
Recreation Director Lowart advised that a study group made up of
representatives from the Amador-Livermore Valley Historical Society
(ALVHS), Dublin Historical Preservation Association (DHPA), Dublin
Cemetery, Inc. (DCI), Dublin Fine Arts Foundation (DFA), and
representatives of the City Council (Cm. Burton and Cm. Moffatt) have
'met and are now seeking direction from the City Council related to
ownership and preservation options of the Heritage Center.
Ms. Lowart advised that Murray School is owned and operated by the
Dublin Historical Preservation Association, however the proPerty is
leased from the Dublin Cemetery, Inc. The Amador-Livermore Valley
Historical Society owns St. Raymond's Church as well as the property
immediately adjacent. The Dublin Cemetery is owned and operated by
Dublin Cemetery, Inc. All three groups are non-profit organizations
run by separate boards of directors.
The ALVHS has proposed that the City purchase the Old St. Raymond'si
Church building and property for $10,700. They have recently painted
the church and done roof repairs totaling $10,000 and purchased a
sewer permit for $700.
DHPA has proposed that the City accept the Old Murray School as a
gift, with conditions: 1) DHPA would be allowed to lease the building
in order to operate historical programs and store historical
artifacts; 2) DHPA would hope for continued support from the City to
fund future projects and programs; 3) ownership would revert back to
DHPA in the event that the City could no longer maintain the building;
and 4) DHPA would'serve in an advisory capacity as the "historical
arm" of the City. Representatives from DHPA have indicated that these
conditions are negotiable and serve as a starting point for further
discussions.
DCI has proposed that the City take over the cemetery; however, the
membership has not yet ratified the proposal. The proposed conditions
for City takeover include: 1) restricted fee title; 2) guarantee of
perpetual care; 3) qualified mortuary to handle burials; 4) no
gatherings on grounds except guided tours and funerals; and 5) no
alcohol on grounds. DCI has also indicated that these conditions are
subject to further negotiation.
Ms. Lowart summarized that if the Council is interested in pursuing
acquisition of the Heritage Center, Staff should be instructed to
prepare a fiscal analysis of the ongoing operational costs, as well as
CM - VOL 10 - 461
Regular Meeting December 23, 1991
the structural repair costs required to maintain the facilities as
public facilities.
Cm. Jeffery stated her interpretation of the original goal of this
group was to promote the historical area and to be involved with
different things in Dublin. She did not recall that direction was
given to the committee to get into any negotiations that would cost
the City any money. She stated she was not prepared to discuss the
issues presented relative to negotiating, but rather the issues
originally assigned.
Cm. Burton felt the issue that came before the Council was to promote.
This word was changed from promote to preserve. For years, everyone
has been concerned about preserving the historical significance. This
is the first time all 3 groups have agreed to anything.
Cm. Jeffery stated this was not the point. The goal was to assist the
historical groups to get going so people would know about them.
Cm. Howard stated she felt the goal was to get them together so we
could put money in to help them.
Mayor Snyder stated that in accordance with the Staff Report' at the
conclusion of the initial meeting, the study group members concurred
that the Heritage Center could best be served by combining the assets
of each group under one owner with the City of Dublin being identified
as the logical choice. He agreed with Cm. Jeffery that this wasn'.t
the Council's direction to this study group.
Cm. Moffatt pointed out that one of the Council's highest goals was to
become more involved in the history of Dublin and to maintain the
development and preservation of the historical elements in Dublin.
The concept of putting it on the Goals & Objectives list did not
necessarily mean that we would be spending money. This is a situation
of whether we preserve history or destroy it.
Cm. Jeffery stated she did not disagree, but this is not the point.
She questioned where the authority came from for the group to start
negotiating the properties.
Cm. Moffatt stated this is not what happened. Dialogue came'forward
and now it is up to the Council. In everything, you need a starting
point. The committee was fact finding.
Cm. Burton reiterated the fact that this is the first time the 3
groups have agreed. They look to the City as a possible solution.
decisions have yet been made. All they are asking is for Staff to
look at what the properties will coSt.
No
Mayor Snyder stated he felt the committee has the cart before the
horse. What they are looking at is how to get the City to purchase
the properties. This was not the goal originally. Mayor Snyder read
from the October 3rd meeting minutes relative to statements made by
Cm. Moffatt. He questioned how a member of the Council could be out
CM - VOL 10 - 46Z
Regular Meeting December 23, 1991
negotiating for the rest of the Council when the rest of the Council
doesn't know what's going on. Obviously, the intent was to have the
City purchase the property.
Cm. Burton stated the group is doing the best it can to bring this to
the City Council for some kind of a decision.
Mayor Snyder referred to a comment made by Georgean Vonheeder in the
September 4th minutes related to creating a non-profit corporation
that would look for funding once a year if it is able. He expressed
concern with the church facility and felt it should belong to some
private corporation.
Cm. Jeffery felt that Ms. Vonheeder's comments were something that the
group could go back and look into.
Cm. Jeffery made a motion which was seconded by Cm. Howard for the
group to go back.and stick to the point of promotion and also look at
Ms. Vonheeder's comments to see what could be worked out.
Cm. Moffatt stated that it became very obvious that the historical
society as a whole is having a hard time. The only way any city can
maintain any continuity is for the city to take over control since
they are always being asked for finance them. Many people came to
this conclusion. He and Cm. Burton were very careful to,, note that
these were only discussions and would have to go before the entire
City Council for any further action. They are not negotiating.
Mayor Snyder then questioned if their minutes had any level of
accuracy.
Cm. Burton made a substitute motion which was seconded by Cm. Moffatt
to instruct Staff to prepare a fiscal analysis of the properties.
Cm. Howard stated she would like to see both done at the same time.
She would like to see what the costs would be and therefore, would
like to combine both motions.
Cm. Jeffery asked Staff what the costs and time constraints would be
on a feasibility study.
Mr. Ambrose advised that Mr. Taugher could take a look to determine
what type of work would need to be done. We would then have to get
some costs regarding repairs. In addition, Public Works would need to
look at the annual operations maintenance. He stated he could not say
how long it would take.
Cm. JefferY felt the Council needed to look at what would have to be
put off in order to do this. She was concerned regarding Staff's
workload.
Mayor Snyder stated if there were a non-profit corporation
established, they could on an annual basis apply to the City and ask
for money at some level to fill out their budget. Mr. Taugher did an
CM - VOL 10 - 463
Regular Meeting De~ember Z3, 1991
analysis of the church years ago. A foundation was put under it some
years ago.
Mr. Ambrose advised that the analysis would look at it as a public
facility. If Staff should look at it from both types of ownership,
Staff would need that direction.
Cm. Burton felt the City should see what the costs are. With regard
to getting a non-profit organization, he questioned very much whether
the Dublin Cemetery, Inc., would do this. These 3 organizations have
not had a very good working relationship over the last few years. It
is important to recognize that the church is probably the oldest
wooden church in California. This is an opportunity to preserve it.
Cm. Jeffery clarified that the Council is only talking about the
process.
Someone called for the question on the substitute motion. On motion
of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote, the
Council instructed Staff to prepare a fiscal analysis of the
properties. Cm. Jeffery and Mayor Snyder voted against this motion.
Cm. Jeffery felt the group should go back and look at the ways the
history of Dublin can be promoted.
Someone called for the question on the original motion. On motion of
Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by majority vote, the Council
directed the committee to go back and work on the points related to
promotion of the Heritage Center. Georgean Vonheeder's.comments
should be reviewed in the minutes. Cm. Burton and Cm. Moffatt voted
against this motion.
Marie Cronin, President of DHPA stated the remarks in the minutes
could have been prefaced with, "If the City could acquire the
facilities..." It was an "if" concept. With regard to the umbrella
non-profit corporation, the idea is good, but whether they could pull
it off would have to be worked on. Many of them are members of all 3
organizations. It is doubtful that the Amador-Livermore Valley
Historical Society would give their church to another foundation.
Everything was done with a very positive and open feeling. There was
no intention to force it down anyone's throat. This is not an easy
thing to solve. They had hoped that for the City's tenth birthday
that this could have been at least realized in concept. Dublin
Reflections second printing is hot off the press. This is partly due
to the advance by the City of about $2,500. The book will also be
tied into the City's birthday celebration.
Ms. Lowart clarified that the direction of the Council was to continue
with the study group to identify alternate methods to promote the
historical center and to look into long term and short term financial
impacts.
CM - VOL 10 - 464
Regular Meeting December 23, 1991
EXTENSTON OF ~IORTZ~.ATZON PERZOD FOR SZGNS
ZDENTZFZED ON THE NONCONFOI~ZNG SZGN SU~Y LTST (400-30)
Senior Planner O'Halloran presented the Staff Report and advised that
on October 28th, the Council decided to allow for an extension of the
amortization period for the existing nonconforming signs identified by
.the Nonconforming Sign Summary List. This decision was a result of
the recommendation by City Staff and the City Attorney that the length
of an extension be based on the current market value of signs rather
than an across-the-board extension date.
Ms. O'Halloran explained the 3 options discussed in the Staff Report.
Option #1 would utilize the existing Sign Ordinance; Option #2 would
grant an across-the-bOard extension period; and Option ~3 would extend
the amortization period based on the current market value. Regardless
of which option the Council selects, the'enforcement procedures
established in the Sign Ordinance would not be changed and would
involve nuisance abatement proceedings upon expiration of theexisting
or any newly granted extension period.
Ms. O'Halloran advised that Staff recommended Option #1.
Cm. Burton questioned if all signs must be in compliance by July of
1992.
Ms. O'Halloran stated she thought the date was July 26, 1992.
Cm. Burton questioned why the 42 signs haven't tried to comply and why
it had taken so long.
Ms. O'Halloran advised that the individual sign owners need to make
applications. Staff has not contacted each one to find out exactly
why they haven't.
Cm. Burton advised that signs are something that make all businessmen
nervous.
Cm. Burton reviewed that 42 could apply for SDRs, 1 for a CUP, and 2
for Variance. Then only 2 would be illegal. He questioned if Staff
was asking for a change in the Ordinance for just 2 people.
Mr. Ambrose advised that they need to go through the process. They
could be approved.
Ms. O'Halloran stated that the 2 signs are located on frontages that
are not their own.
Cm. Moffatt asked if these 2 signs would require removal.
Ms. O'Halloran advised that they have signage ,on other tenant's space.
Mayor Snyder stated you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make
it drink. The City is simply trying to get everyone to comply. Staff
CM - VOL 10 - 465
Regular Meeting December 23, 1991
will address letters to these companies and advise them what will be
required to get their signs into conformance.
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, the Council directed Staff to utilize the existing Sign
Ordinance provisions for compliance of the nonconforming signs.
Mayor Snyder indicated that the Council would like to have monthly
reports on how the process is going. These reports can be placed on
the Consent Calendar.
REVIEW .OF PROPOSED GARBAGE RATE ADJUSTMENT & SERVICE OPTIONS (810-30)
Assistant City Manager Rankin presented the Staff Report and advised
that the City had received 2 reports from the Joint Refuse Rate Review
Committee. The first report focuses on management and operations of
the City's garbage collection company (Oakland Scavenger Company OSC),
and makes recommendations for improvements. The second report
analyzes the company's request for a rate adjustment. The proposal
includes reducing rates for Dublin residential service.
Mr. Rankin explained that the Company's original request projected an
increase of 13%. The findings of the detailed rate review suggest
that Dublin can institute a rate reduction affecting most customers.
This decrease is contingent upon City Council concurrence of a
recommendation by the JRRRC to reduce the amount of profit from what
is being requested by the Company. The amount will varydepending on
the level and type of service.
Mr. Rankin advised that if a rate decrease is implemented, the City
will experience a decrease in Franchise Fee Revenue estimated at
$3,490 annually.
Mr. Rankin indicated that the focus of the Staff Report was to
identify policy issues and request direction from Council. Staff will
then use the information to prepare documents for consideration at a
public hearing at the January 13, 1992 City Council meeting. State
Law requires that a publicly noticed hearing occur prior to
implementation of fees by the City.
Under Management Audit Issues, Mr. Rankin discussed the collection
crew size and semi-automated service.
Cm. Jeffery questioned if the fee listed for the 2 clean ups per year
was per month.
Cm. Burton stated he thought the Council agreed to require everyone to
have garbage pickup service several months ago.
Mr. Rankin indicated that this would be discussed under the rate
portion of the report.
CM - VOL 10 - 466
Regular Meeting December 23, 1991
Under Rate Review, Mr. Rankin then discussed: 1) proposed methodology
of distributing the balancing account; 2) proposed reduction to the
Company's return on equity; 3) consideration of the number of special
cleanups to be included in the rates; 4) proposed residential service
and rate adjustments; and 5) proposed adjustments to commercial and
large container rates.
In summary, Mr. Rankin advised that unless the Council directed
otherwise, Staff would proceed as follows:
1) The Management~Audit will be received and filed. Staff will
continue to participate on the JRRRC to review the issues designated
for further study. Staff will request that LiVermore Dublin Disposal
provide additional information on the use of all two man crews in our
community.
2) Staff will prepare the necessary rate resolutions for' consideration
at the January 13, 1992 City Council meeting, based upon the proposed
schedules presented. Also, appropriate notices regarding the hearing
will be published as required by State Law.
3) Staff will prepare amendments to the Solid Waste Ordinance and
Franchise Agreement necessary to implement mandatory garbage service.
4) Staff will work with the Company to institute the Super Recycler
rate following formal action to establish a rate at the. January 13th
public hearing.
Cm. Moffatt asked if the rebate money from Measure D would reduce the
rates.
Mr. Rankin stated that it~must be used for resource recovery or
recycling. Once the money has been received, staff will come back
with some recommended ways of. using the money. Yes, the money may be
used if we use it to offset the recycling fee.
With regard to Cm. Jeffery's question, Mr. Rankin adVised that the
residential cleanups are $ .30 per month per household. The issue is
whether the City Council feels that 4 special cleanups per year is an
appropriate number.
Cm. Burton advised that it costs $1.00 per square foot to take loads
to the dump. He recently took a load to the dump and it cost him $50,
which was quite a shock.
Mr. Rankin advised that Staff will work with the company more closely
in order that we can determine what the actual costs are on the
special cleanups.
Mr. Rankin advised that Staff, at this time, is recommending a $6.30
uniform can rate. With regard to a senior citizen rate which the
Council asked Staff to review, the problem is keeping track. The
company can offer a super recycler rate which would be a 20 gallon can
CM - VOL 10 - 467
Regular Meeting December 23, 1991
at a rate of $6.65, which would mean about a 19% reduction from the
current rate. This amount includes the recycling fee.
Mayor Snyder stated with regard to mandatory garbage service, the
Council directed Staff to pursue this and bring back an Ordinance for
Council discussion at a meeting in January. The majority of customers
are one and two can customers, and the one can rate would be decreased
about 8% and the 2 can decreased about 4%. A similar decrease is
being considered on the Handy Hauler rates. The JRRRC is recommending
in the future rate application that money be included to fund the work
of the JRRRC. $250,000 was estimated for costs of cities to look at
some of the technical issues. This would be spread over the 14
jurisdictions. It currently comes from the City's General Fund.
Cm. Jeffery requested that Staff define mini can.
Mr. Rankin advised that it would be 20 gallons and this size can is
available at Orchard Supply Hardware.
Cm. Moffatt asked if the waste stream falls in the water, does this
mean there would be an increase in the rates for reduced use. He
asked if this had been discussed.
Mr. Rankin indicated that the whole issue is we are working toward
reducing by 25%,and 50% and we need to look at what happens to the
overhead cOsts. They looked at ways that the current system could be
more cost efficient. The commercial areas hurt. waste in that when
there is less commercial garbage, there is less revenue. The total
revenue could be adjusted by 4.7% and then look at it again next year.
If the revenue doesn't come in, it will be our responsibility to make
up the difference. We assume that 5% of the current customers will
switch to the mini can service. A most conservative view is being
taken at this time.
Dave MacDonald, ExecutiVe Vice President of~Oakland Scavenger Company
stated City Staff did a good job in the presentation of a very complex
rate application this year. With regard to the drop from 17% to 10%
on return on equipment, they do not feel that this reflects where the
economy actually is. They do not feel this is appropriate and they
are protesting it with the rate revenue committee. He felt that it
will be much more acceptable for the City of Dublin to break it down
costs by jurisdictions.
On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, the council directed Staff to prepare the necessary documents
for consideratiOn at the January 13, 1992 City Council meeting.
Cm. Burton complimented Staff for doing a good job on the report.
CM - VOL 10 - 468
Regular Meeting December 23, 1991
DUBLIN BOULEV~D EXTENSION &SSESSMENT D~STR~CT 91-1 (360-40)
Public Works Director Thompson advised that the Dublin Boulevard
Extension project assessment district will allow properties that will
benefit from improvementS to be assessed a portion of the costs based
on the benefit to those parcels. Miscellaneous costs such as legal,
engineering and bond discounts will be included in the assessments.
The costs that are not directly benefiting properties in the District
will be contributed by the City through a loan from BART, with the
exception that these costs will be recovered through offsite fees
and/or future assessment districts which include properties that
benefit from the improvements. Money is budgeted in the present CIP
to pay for the City's contribution to the District.
Mr. Thompson advised that Staff recommended that an outside consultant
determine the assessment cost spread because of the proposed new
parcels in the District. John Heindel specializes in assessment
district engineering and has previously performed a study for the City
regarding the cost spread for Dublin Boulevard costs, as well as the
1-580 interchange costs. Mr. Heindel's charges are proposed to be on
a time and material basis, not to exceed $10,000. These costs will be
charged against the assessment district.
Various Resolutions and documents were prepared by Robert Brunsell,
who has been appointed Assessment District Counsel. Mr-,~ Thompson
passed out a revised Exhibit 8, Resolution of Intention, The next
step will be in early January to have the Engineer prepare a
Preliminary Engineer's Report, and then schedule a pUblic hearing to
hear protests. .
Robert Brunsell, with the Law Firm of Sturgis, Ness, Brunsell & Sperry
introduced himself and explained that all the resOlutions are largelY
technical and mostly boilerplate. He pointed out that it is important
to remember that all these steps are preliminary in nature. A public
hearing is required by law on the report and all property owners must
be notified.
Cm. Moffatt advised that he was not clear as to what John Heindel's
job will be.
Mr. Brunsell explained that while he read over the report, it was
beyond their jurisdiction to change it in any way. As a sPecialist,
the Engineer should arrive at a proposal to fairly divide the coSts to
each parcel relative to their benefit. He prepares maps and cost
estimates.
Mr. Thompson stated that Staff felt it was best to use an outside
consultant to determine how the splits get done. Mr. Heindel is
familiar with the work, and has some background working with the City
of Dublin.
Cm. Burton questioned why Scarlett Court properties had not been
included.
CM VOL 10 -'469
Regular Meeting December 23, 1991
Mr. Thompson advised that the City tried to get an assessment district
going a few years ago, but couldn't get enough signatures. Mr. Moore
is now trying to just do the north part.
Cm. Burton questioned if it wouldn't be to their advantage to now be
in it.
Mr. Thompson advised that there was a problem With the Cadillac
Dealership. Their building goes right through the middle and we would
have to condemn their building and it wouldn't be worth it. Unless
they receive a benefit, you really can't charge them. At some time in
the future, people might want to use'the back parts of their
properties. If the extended planning area comes in some properties
might be needed to access this with additional lanes.
Mr. Ambrose discussed the time constraints to get the road built.
There was also discussion related to.other properties and the rules
related to an assessment district.
On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 132 - 91
ACCEPTING PETITION FOR
DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT91-1
AND DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO FILE PETITIONAND CERTIFICATE
and
RESOLUTION NO. 133 - 91
APPROVING BOUNDARY MAP FOR
DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 91-1
AND DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO FILE BOUNDARY MAP WITH COUNTY RECORDER
and
RESOLUTION NO. 134 - 91
APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 91-1
AND APPOINTING JOHN HEINDEL AS ENGINEER OF WORK
and
RESOLUTION NO. 135 - 91
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER IMPROVEMENT IN
DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 91-1
CM - VOL 10 - 470
Regular Meeting December 23, 1991
TEN YEAR CITYHOOD CELEBRATION (950-40)
Recreation Director Lowart advised that a subcommittee was formed and
has met over the past several months to develop preliminary plans for
the ten year celebration. The plans include a dinner on Saturday.
evening, February 1, 1992 at the Civic center, with a theme "Evening
at the Civic". A limited number of tickets will be available with a
suggested price of $37.50. The preliminary budget for this event is
$8,900, which will be offset with revenue, of approximately $6,000.
The Dublin Fine Arts Foundation is planning a reception to dedicate
the tile wall in the plaza of the Dublin Civic Center. Commemorative
tiles have been sold to members of the community as part of an ongoing
fund-raising effort. The reception is tentatively scheduled for
Friday, January 31, 1992. The preliminary budget for, this reception
is $2,000.
Ms. Lowart stated that a Fourth of July family picnic is in the
preliminary planning stages to be held at the Dublin Sports Grounds.
Local service clubs will be invited to participate in this event.
Additional information will be presented to the Council in the future.
Ms. Lowart advised that plans are well underway for the St. Patrick's
Day Celebration. Merchants will be encouraged tohave promotions
rolling back prices to 1982, or offering 10% discounts on merchandise.
Cm. Burton stated he had a problem with the $37.50 price when we are
using our own building.
Ms. Lowart advised that using a hotel would include dinner, but not
entertainment, plus we want to take advantage of our beautiful
facility.
Cm. Burton questioned how we would control who is invited.
Ms. Lowart advised that the event has been advertised in the calendar
and it will also be in the Recreation brochure. Attendance will
definitely have to be limited.
Cm. Moffatt asked if the 160 people who attend will be on a first come
first served basis.
Ms. Lowart responded yes, this is what the committee envisions.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous
vote, the Council approved the preliminary plans for the ten year
celebration.
1992 GOALS & OBJECTIVES STUDY SESSION (100-80)
City Manager Ambrose advised that during the month of February each
year, the Council schedules a study session to review the Goals &
Objectives of the previous year and to establish and prioritize future
CM - VOL 10 - 471
Regular Meeting December 23, 1991
Goals & Objectives. This provides Staff with adequate time to
incorporate the Council's direction in preparing the preliminary
budget.
By a Council consensus, the date of Tuesday, February 25, 1992 was
selected for the Goals & Objectives Study Session meeting, to begin at
7:30 p.m.
COMMENTS ON DOUGHERTY VALLEY GROWTH HANAGEMENT AND
SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (4Z0-50)
Planning Director Tong advised that the City of San Ramon has prepared
a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Dougherty Valley
Growth Management and Specific Plan which would allow between 7,000
and 11,000 dwelling.units and land uses that support residential areas
in the 6,000 acre Dougherty Valley area in unincorporated Contra Costa
County. The land is owned by Shapell Industries, Windemere Properties
and the U. S. Army.
Mr. Tong advised that Contra Costa CountYis processing a separate
land use development plan for the Dougherty Valley. The DEIR only
addresses the City of San Ramon's plan and does not address Contra
Costa County's plan. The City of San Ramon will accept written
comments until January 7, 1992.
Mr. Tong advised the Council that Staff had prepared a draft letter
listing several concerns and significant deficiencies in the DEIR with
regard to Traffic and Circulation, Population, Employment and Housing
and Public Services and Utilities.
Cm. Burton commended Staff for being able to decipher the plan and
find all the omissions and errors in their analysis.
Mr. Ambrose advised that San Ramon has no entitlement to the area at
this time. If there are some political changes in the County, we want
to make sure the City of Dublin responds in order to cover the City's
interests.
On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, the Council directed Staff to send the letter.
OTHER BUSINESS
Regional Governance Letter by Tri-Valley Joint Council (140-80)
Cm. Jeffery requested that the letter from Pleasanton City Manager
Acosta also be sent to the counties. We could suggest to the counties
that they develop a program with which they are comfortable, and also
invite them to the meetings. We should speak to the counties needs to
be part of the process.
CM - VOL 10 - 472
Regular Meeting December 23, 1991
Mr. Ambrose stated he thought it was made clear at the meeting that
the counties would be excluded from this initial process.
Cm. Jeffery suggested that we say the counties should do their
organization~work.
Cm. Moffatt stated he felt the counties have their minds made up and
it really has no bearing on the General Assembly of ABAG.
Cm. Jeffery pointed out that they can vote down anything.
Mayor Snyder indicated that we need to come back with a consensus that
all can agree on. They knew what was going to happen before the ABAG
meeting. If you shut them out of the process, you are asking for
problems down the line.
Cm. Burton felt there is a lot of momentum going for regional
government; it is now a buzzword.
Mr. Ambrose stated the counties want land use control within cities.
Cm. Burton stated he felt.that some type of regional government is
coming. We should try to work together with the counties as we will
have to compromise somewhere.
cm. Jeffery stated the county is going to be a part of the process
somehow and we should encourage them to do the same type of thing we
are doing.
On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by majority
vote, the Council agreed to add a statement to the draft letter
prepared by Pleasanton City Manager Acosta inviting counties to
participate in a similar process that the cities are doing. The
letter will be reviewed at the Tri-Valley Joint CoUncil meeting in
Dublin on Monday, December 30th. Cm. MOffatt voted against this
motion.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
~lebk
CM - VOL 10 - 473
Regular Meeting December 23, 1991