Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-24-1986 Adopted CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING - November 24, 1986 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, November 24, 1986 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Mayor Peter Snyder. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt, Vonheeder and Mayor Snyder. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle- giance to the flag. PROCLAMATION RE HOLIDAY PROJECT DAY Mayor Snyder read a proclamation honoring the volunteer effort that supplies holiday gifts and visits persons confined to hospitals, psychiatric institutions, nursing homes, prisons, shelters for battered wives and children and homes for the indigent and shut-in. December 20, 1986 was declared as "The Holiday Project Day" in the City of Dublin. PROCLAMATION HONORING RICK EVERETT FOR CIVIC ACCOMPLISHMENT Mayor Snyder read a proclamation regarding the donation of time and labor to design and install new decals on all police vehicles at no cost to the City. Mr. Rick Everett spent many hours of his personal time and Public recognition was given for this charitable act and civic accomplishment. The proclamation and a framed color photograph of Mr. Everett standing beside a police vehicle were presented to Mr. Everett. CERTIFICATION OF NOVEMBER 4, 1986 ELECTION RESULTS The City has received the Certification of Election results dated November 20, 1986, from the County Registrar of Voters. The Board~of Supervisors will officially approve the Certification at its meeting of November 25, 1986. Out of 8,310 registered voters, a total of 4,778 votes were cast for the office of Member, City Council. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXxx CM-5-243 Regular Meeting November 24, 1986 Pete Paul Georgean Brian Donald Hegarty Moffatt Vonheeder Raley Babbitt Total Votes 3,078 2,727 2,385 1,971 1,716 52580 184 158 141 121 124 52590 221 193 178 233 135 52591 285 268 234 242 184 52600 192 157 138 76 110 52610 193 189 150 160 123 52611 223 207 175 188 110 52620 253 216 167 124 151 52630 233 208 172 115 110 52631 240 203 181 102 116 52640 169 146 150 93 82 52641 260 228 198 138 123 52649 219 162 164 132 108 52650 24 29 23 12 16 52651 240 208 200 119 109 Absentee Ballots 142 155 114 116 115 On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Mayor Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 131 - 86 RECITING THE FACT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION CONSOLIDATED WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 4, 1986, DECLARING THE RESULTS THEREOF AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS ARE PROVIDED BY LAW ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE TO NEWLY ELECTED COUNCILMEMBERS Richard Ambrose, City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to the newly elected Councilmembers Hegarty, Moffatt and Vonheeder. Framed Certificates of Election were presented to each of the three Councilmembers. INSTALLATION OF OFFICERS After the Municipal Election in 1984, the City Council did not establish a method for the selection of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore, but agreed it would rely on State Law after the next election. Since the law is not clear regarding the method for selecting a Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore when a City consolidates its Municipal Election with the General Election, the Assistant City Attorney prepared an opinion addressing this issue. Cm. Moffatt made a motion that the status quo be maintained with Pete Snyder as Mayor and Pete Hegarty as Vice Mayor. The motion died due to lack of a second. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CM-5-244 Regular Meeting November 24, 1986 Cm. Moffatt indicated he wished to talk about policies. Cm. Vonheeder indicated that the Council had before them, a draft she had prepared which made reference to, among other things, the definition of the term reorganization. She suggested that a special meeting be called to address the reorganization, as it would allow for a special ceremony to invite family and friends. It would also conveniently separate the ceremony from routine Council business and would not allow the ceremony to overshadow other regular business. Cm. Moffatt indicated he would like to see annual reaffirmations of the various commissions and committees. He did not feel the reorganization should take place at a special meeting. He also felt that a ballot vote rather than a voice vote would be preferable. City Attorney Nave indicated that a ballot vote would be in violation of the Brown Act. The vote must be public .flZ./_~/,b ~'1 ~10,~;~$~/I~~ 'F~/I?'?"~ Cm. Moffatt read from Ordinance. No./5-82, which he indicated says that commissioners may serve 5 years~. ~J Cm. Hegarty indicated that it was his understanding that commissioners serve at the pleasure of the appointing Councilmember. Ordinance No. 12-84 amended Ordinance No. 5-82. Because of a possible misunderstanding of the way the Council perceives the appointments to the Planning Commission and the Park & Recreation Commission to work, the Council agreed to table this discussion until all pertinent documentation could be provided. When questioned, City Attorney Nave advised that the Council could delay a reorganization until January if they wish and then reaffirm appointments on an annual basis each January. Mayor Snyder questioned if Councilmembers would be able to comment on another Councilmembers appointment to a commission or committee. Cm. Jeffery felt that this annual review would give a Councilmember the opportunity to make a change should they so desire. Consensus of the Council was to direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution which would allow the Council to annually confirm and consider their appointments to commissions and committee assignments. It was clarified that these reviews would be at the prerogative of the appointing Councilmember. City Attorney Nave agreed to have this prepared within 30 days. Cm. Vonheeder felt the Mayor and Vice Mayor should serve 2 year terms as this amount of time is needed for them to establish themselves. Cm. Moffatt felt that after 1 year, consideration should be given to the performance of the individual serving. There is a lot of talent on the Council and after serving for 1 year, an individual should be, able to step xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CM-5-245 Regular Meeting November 24, 1986 down and let another serve. A policy is needed and many cities have a rotation that works quite well, and gives everyone a chance. Cm. Jeffery felt that a 2 year span gives a much better message to everyone. There is a learning curve involved in order to become effective in a new position. Cm. Hegarty indicated he felt a review should be done after 1 year. It would simply be a review and the same person could continue. He felt the item should be placed on the Consent Calendar, and it can always be removed if necessary for discussion. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council established a policy whereby a bi-annual election of Mayor and Vice Mayor will occur, following election, with annual reconfirmations. Cm. Vonheeder stated she wished to declare nominations open and nominated Cm. Jeffery for the office of Mayor. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council declared nominations closed and elected Cm. Jeffery to serve as Mayor for a 2 year period. Peter Snyder indicated he wished to take one last minute of executive priviledge before turning over the gavel to Mayor Jeffery and read a prepared statement. He stated that it had been a great experience to serve the residents of this community and it wouldn't have been half as rewarding without the outstanding staff that has been assembled. He did admit that he wanted to put Dublin on the map regionally and felt that we do have the respect of the organizations and agencies that we are associated with. It has not been his goal to create a dynasty. He further stated that with intended acrimony, he felt the Council, including himself had failed in the exercise of interpersonal relationships. He then stated he very graciously handed the gavel to Mayor Jeffery. Mayor Jeffery stated that the entire Council are very good friends, in addition to working as a team on the Council. It is a very difficult time and she felt they could all feel for Mr. Snyder in passing over responsi- bilities that he has taken with so much heart in the past years. She praised Mr. Snyder and advised him that he has had an honor being the first Mayor of Dublin and that he had done an exemplary job. She really appreciated all that he had dOne to keep the Council together and on the right track. Cm. Hegarty stated that as an individual, Mr. Snyder has worked very hard for this City and felt that not enough can be said for what Pete Snyder has done for this community. Cm. Snyder stated he wished to declare nominations open and nominated Cm. Vonheeder for the office of Vice Mayor. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council declared nominations closed and elected Cm. Vonheeder to serve as Vice Mayor for a 2 year period. Cm. Hegarty indicated he had no prepared statement related to his service as Vice Mayor but there is a tremendous difference between the responsibilities of Mayor and Vice Mayor. He filled in very few times for Mayor Snyder. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CM-5-246 Regular Meeting November 24, 1986 Mayor Jeffery told Cm. Hegarty that he, like former Mayor Snyder, was the only one thus far to hold the office of Vice Mayor and he had done a very good job. Cm. Vonheeder expressed her feelings that she was so glad this process was over. This Council has a trememdous amount of respect for each other and a very special working relationship of which they have become aware, particularly in light of working with other cities and seeing how other Council's work. This made the reorganization an exceptionally difficult process. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 10, 1986; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 132 - 86 ACCEPTING FOR THE PUBLIC AN EASEMENT DEED FOR BUS STOP PURPOSES (Great Western Savings - Dublin Boulevard) Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 133 - 86 Adopted FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS TRACT 5003 RESOLUTION NO. 134 - 86 Adopted AUTHORIZING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE TO VIACOM CABLEVISION OF EAST BAY, INC. RESOLUTION NO. 135 - 86 APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE COMMUNITY PARKLANDS ACT OF 1986 FOR DOLAN PARK, PHASE II Directed Staff to request a formal proposal from LAVTA for paratransit services; Accepted the June 30, 1986 Financial Audit and Management Letter and the budget changes reflected therein; Accepted improvements as being complete in accordance with the approved plans, specifications and modifications for Contract 86-3 Annual Sidewalk Repair Program; authorized retention payment of $4,062.78 to P&W&S&W; authorized $7,200 budget transfer to Sidewalk Replacement Pgm and $5,900 budget transfer to Arroyo Vista Sidewalk Pgm from Reserve; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CM-5-247 Regular Meeting November 24, 1986 Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 136 - 86 PROVIDING FOR AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES ON WARRANTS AND CHECKS (Add Phillip Molina) - Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $374,254.78 Cm. Vonheeder requested that the item related to the printing of the community calendar be removed for discussion. She questioned how Staff would be advertising this bid. Staff advised that it will do a combination of notifying local printers and a newspaper ad. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to solicit bids for the printing of a Community Calendar. PUBLIC'HEARING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DENYING PA 86-081 HOWARD JOHNSON SIGN VARIANCE APPLICATION Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that Mr. Kym Secrist of Secrist Sign Company, representing Motor Lodge~Associates, is applying for a Variance for a directional sign at Howard Johnson Hotel, 6680 Regional Street. The Variance application is to allow a sign that exceeds the maximum permitted area for a directional sign. The Zoning Ordinance permits "signs displayed fora direction, warning or safety of the public . . . with 8 square feet maximum per sign . . . " The Zoning Ordinance permits only one freestanding sign per parcel and "no variance may be granted from the number of freestanding signs allowed". The Applicant is proposing to modify the existing double-faced freestanding sign at the front of the property. With modifications, the proposed sign would have 40 square feet of area. As part of the project signage, the Applicant aFplied for a Conditional Use Permit for a 28 foot tall freestanding sign at the rear of the property facing~ 1-580. The Planning Commission, on .September 15, 1986, approved the sign with a condition that the existing freestanding sign be removed. The Planning commission noted that they were opposed to having two freestanding signs on the same property. After the Planning Commission action on the Conditional Use Permit, the Applicant applied for a Variance to allow the existing sign copy facing Regional Street to remain as a 40 square foot directional sign. On October 14, 1986, the Zoning Administrator denied the Variance application with findings that: 1) the application was for a second freestanding sign, not a directional sign; 2) the proposed sign area was five times larger than the'maximum~permitted area for a directional sign; and 3) the mandatory findings of fact could not be made to warrant granting the Variance. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CM-5-248 Regular Meeting November 24, 1986 The Applicant appealed to the Planning Commission and on November 3, 1986, the Planning Commission also denied the Variance. Staff recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission action and deny the Variance without prejudice to allow consideration of a new Variance request within the next year. Cm. Vonheeder questioned whether any provisions had been made in the Sign Ordinance for businesses that have 2 frontages. Planning Director Tong reported that the sign committee considered those projects along 1-580 and the decision was to allow for a CUP for signage, but limit it to one freestanding sign per parcel. No provision was made for more than one freestanding sign. Cm. Moffatt questioned if Howard Johnsons is one, two or three businesses. Mr. Tong stated that it is considered one parcel, although there may be more than one business. The restaurant is a separate business from the hotel. Kym Secrist felt that the issue of 2 frontages is an important one. The Clarks approached him regarding changing the north sign. This sign separates the entrance to the hotel from the Willow Tree Restaurant. He felt the only way Howard Johnson's will be able to compete is to put in a large sign near the freeway. However, if they must remove the sign on Regional Street, they feel they must apply for a Variance. They are willing to change this sign if necessary. Cm. Hegarty clarified that when they found out that in order to have the 1- 580 sign, they would need to remove the other sign, they indicated that they intended to apply for a variance. They cannot afford to lose one sign. Cm. Hegarty questioned who owns the foliage. Mr. Clark responded that the foliage consists of large mature trees and if they were trimmed to make the sign visible, aesthetics would suffer. With regard to the double sided sign, Cm. Moffatt questioned if a CUP rather than a Varience could be applied for. Mr. Tong stated that the Ordinance does not provide for a CUP for 2 signs. If this is what the Council wants, it should direct the Planning Commission to amend the Sign Ordinance. Since there are 2 businesses, a question was asked if they could use 2 signs, 16 sq. ft., instead of 8 sq. ft. Mr. Tong explained that this would not be consistent with the way the Ordinance is written. It provides for one sign per parcel rather than one sign for each business. Cm. Moffatt questioned if "Lodging" signs could be placed on Dublin Boulevard at San Ramon Road or Dublin Boulevard at Regional Street. Johnson Clark reported that last year they did not need a highway sign, but this year they do. They have cut out about 1/3 of the vegetation around the motel. They requested that the Council 1) call the entry sign a directional sign and grant a variance or 2) allow 2 freestanding signs because of the 2 frontages. They would like a temporary variance to go ahead with the highway sign. Their business has suffered a serious erosion due to 5 new hotels locating across the way. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CM-5-249 Regular Meeting November 24, 1986 Louise Clark, co-managing partner requested that the City put in directional signs that say "Lodging", at a couple of locations. Johnson Clark indicated that Pleasanton allows 2 freestanding signs, subject to approval of the Planning Commission. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Snyder had questions related to the findings that must be made to grant a variance, and questioned if this couldn't be considered a special condition. Mr. Tong clarified that yes, the findings would need to be made, and it is a unique situation. Cm. Snyder questioned if the only way around this would be to amend the Sign Ordinance, and if so, the timing involved. Mr. Tong responded that he felt 2 months would be a reasonable time to get any changes back to the Council. Mr. Tong explained that this specific condition of approval was that their other freestanding sign be removed. We could go back and modify the conditions relative to unique situations. Cm. Snyder indicated he would be willing to initiate a process for a change in the ordinance to allow them to single face their present sign. Cm. Hegarty felt he would be more inclined to go along with bringing their Regional Street sign into conformance and the City to install lodging signs. We just adopted the sign ordinance after many many months of work. Cm. Hegarty felt that if a company's services and reputation are good, they will be able to withstand competition. He did not feel that their business relied solely on a sign. Cm. Vonheeder indicated that she had been involved and worked on both sides of the sign ordinance. She did not feel that this gives a special priviledge. Cm. Moffatt felt that a certain amount of obligation is owed to the businesses in town in order to allow them to compete with other businesses. If a change is needed, the Council should look at a change. He felt that this was one of perhaps 10 points that was overlooked when the sign ordinance was developed. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed that this item be sent back to the Planning Commission for review and modification of the Sign Ordinance. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to review the installation of directional signs and that this item be brought back to the Council at the next meeting. City Attorney Nave indicated that a vote was required on the appeal. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to continue this appeal for 60 days. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CM-5-250 Regular Meeting November 24, 1986 REPORT FROM LIAISON COMMITTEE REGARDING DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT STUDY At its meeting of November 10, 1986, the City Council directed its Liaison Committee with San Ramon t© meet with San Ramon and clarify the San Ramon City Council's recommendations regarding the ultimate disposition of the Dublin San Ramon Services District. The Liaison Committee representatives agreed that there, were three basic alternatives which the City Council should consider. I. Dissolution of the Dublin San Ramon'Services District as recommended in the Dublin/San Ramon Committee report presented to the Dublin City Council in July 1986, and adopted by the Dublin City Council. Dissolution of the District would involve a proceeding with the Local Agency Formation Commission and would be contingent upon the unanimous consent of the Board of Directors of the Dublin San Ramon Services District or a successful election among 'District voters approving the Dissolution. II. Concurrence with the City of San Ramon's recommendations regarding the disposition of the Dublin San Ramon Services District. The San Ramon proposal basically provides for the assumption of the DSRSD park and fire responsibilities, and certain sewer responsibilities. Any further consideration of the assumption of sewer and water planning, operation, and maintenance responsibilities would be deferred until June 30, 1993. Lease agreements would be prepared between the District and each City for park and pool facilities within each respective City. Effective January 1, 1987, the City would have total responsibility for maintanence, facility scheduling, setting of user fees, and capital improvements in the parks. The term of the lease agreement would be long term i.e. 99 years. A Joint Powers Authority (JPA) would be formed between the City of Dublin, City of San Ramon, and the Dublin San Ramon Services District to assume responsibility for the provision of fire services to the City of Dublin and to those properties within the Dublin San Ramon Services District and the City of San Ramon. The JPA would be formed on March 1, 1987 and would assume complete operational responsibility for the Fire function July 1, 1987. Between March and July, the JPA would approve any budget transfers related to the fire function and would probably select a new fire chief to replace the current District Fire Chief, who will be retiring. Sewer and water services would continue to be provided by DSRSD at least until June 30, 1993 with the exception of: the deferral of further studies or recommendations regarding complete assumption of sewer and water services by the Cities from the DSRSD until June 30, 1993 is based on the assumption that the TWA (Tri Valley Wastewater Agency) will complete its work to provide for the long term sewage capacity needs of the valley by that date. III. A third alternative provides for the assumption of park and fire services by the Cities only after the Cities were legally...~.~s~sured that all property taxes presently collected by the District would be distributed to the Cities. Decisions regarding sewer and water would be deferred with no date certain. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX CM-5-251 Regular Meeting November 24, 1986 If the District and San Ramon agreed, this alternative would work as follows. A. The Cities of Dublin and San Ramon would immediately begin drafting a two member JPA to provide fire services. B. Simultaneously, the District would request the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County and Contra Costa County to negotiate the distribution of property taxes on the District's behalf. If the Counties agreed to pass through the entire property tax to the Cities, the transfer of the title to the parks to the Cities and the transfer of fire service would occur. If one or both of the Counties chose not to distribute all property taxes presently received by DSRSD, the Cities could seek a judical determination by filing a Declaratory Relief Action for the purpose of clarifying the law. The City Attorney's Office has indicated that these actions have precedent and could be resolved in three (3) to six (6) months. If the Cities receive a favorable determination by the Court, the transfer of fire and parks would occur; if not, the San Ramon proposal could be implemented. · This alternative was viewed as being preferable to San Ramon's proposal due to: 1. The Cities would incur no costs until income to provide parks and fire services was guaranteed. ~ · 2. The Cities should not assume the obligation of parks and be required to subsidize the parks, while there is still yet the~.possibility that Dublin and San Ramon might not be able to agree to terms in forming a Fire JPA. The Fire JPA must be formed as a first step. 3. The Cities may incur substantial costs in implementing San Ramon's proposal in addition to the associated costs required in assuring that property taxes will not be lost by the Cities. 4. The time frame in the San Ramon proposal is too short and unrealistic with respect to implementation. 5. The Cities cannot agree to deferring sewer and water services to June 30, 1993, because legally neither City can bind the action of future City Councils. Therefore, this alternative defers consideration of the sewer and water service with no specific date. Cm. Snyder felt that the cleaner we can make the break, the better off each City would be. The City Attorney could start the process for a single program rather than an interim process. We must not lose sight of the fact that we don't want to jeopardize revenues for either City. Mayor Jef~ery felt we should start now and.aim for July. Cm. Vonheeder questioned what would happen if DSRSD goes out and spends all the money. Staff responded that the money must be budgeted in advance so we would know where the money is allocated. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CM-5-252 Regular Meeting November 24, 1986 Cm. Snyder indicated that he has the utmost faith in the District with regard to their handling the funds. Cm. Vonheeder felt we should structure in such a way that we have the responsibility of maintaining parks right away. She also questioned the recruitment process for a new Fire Chief. Three Board Members are up for election next November. City Manager Ambrose felt that San Ramon's proposal has some flaws. The fire issue needs to be worked out first. Agreement on the parts of the District and San Ramon would be required on the revised proposal. Cm. Hegarty felt that since all three bodies are elected officials, they all want to see that the residents are serviced in the best possible way. He felt that it would be most efficient if the District were dissolved. The workers should be assured that they will have their jobs. Some of the top management positions will be the only ones that are no longer necessary. Cm. Moffatt felt that Dublin agrees in principle, but the approach is different. John Meakin, Mayor of San Ramon offered his congratulations to Mayor Jeffery and Vice Mayor Vonheeder. Mayor Meakin indicated that he, Vice MayOr Schinnerer and Cm. Bennett had read Dublin's proposal and agreed that there should be some legal assurances that revenues will not be jeopardized. He felt the Cities should start the provision of parks services on January 1st, if possible. We should work out an agreement with the District and get going immediately with a JPA so that next years budgeting process can begin. Another legal possibility is to request state legislation. He did nOt feel that dollars spent for legal, services would be that' great. Joe Covello congratulated Mayor Jeffery. He felt that possibly the Council was getting hung up on the mechanics as he thought that was the only difference between alternative 2 and 3. He stated he offered no apologies with regard to the level of service provided by the District. Employees of the District feel very insecure as this study has been going on for more than 2 years. The District needs to get on with recruiting a Fire Chief. An opportunity is being presented for both Cities to have input into their budget before it is cast in cement. There are a number of ways that we can be protected if we need protection. A contract would do this. The mechanics of waiting put a burden on the District and the citizens. It takes a lot less time to put together an agreement if lawyers aren't involved. Cm. Snyder felt that there was an obvious misunderstanding on the part of Mr. Covello. Once DSRSD is no longer in the picture, we want to make sure that no one else has claim to the revenues. We do not want a 99 year contract. City Manager Ambrose questioned if the District had made any other plans to contract for maintenance. He also questioned the possibility of appointing the Assistant Fire Chief as Acting Fire Chief. Cm. Hegarty felt a meeting of the entire DSRSD Board and San Ramon and Dublin Councils should be scheduled to hash out the issues. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CM-5-253 Regular Meeting November 24, 1986 Cm. Vonheeder stated that we have a lot of parks that desperately need improvements. Parks are a service that cost money and which don't generate revenue. If it is necessary to get 15 people together to move on, then lets do it. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed that the Dublin Liaison Committee should meet with the San Ramon Liaison Committee as soon as possible to try to resolve the situation and if it cannot be resolved, then the 3 entire groups should meet. LIBRARY SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR SUNDAY HOURS As part of the adoption of the Fiscal Year 1986-87 Budget, the City Council allocated an additional $20,300 for the addition of four hours of Library Service on Sunday. This funding would enable the Dublin Library to operate from lpm to 5pm on Sunday. In a letter dated October 25, 1986, the County Librarian indicated that the cost of funding Sunday Library Service had increased to $27,717. The increased amount is due to an additional Staff hour required + an extra day of janitorial service which was not originally included. Ginnie CooPer indicated that the increase is considerable and she apologized for the incorrect figures given last spring. At this point, they are in agreement with the union and are ready to proceed toward opening the Library on Sundays. Cm. Hegarty indicated he was not pleased with the 30% jump in costs and felt that ramifications could occur. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 137 - 86 APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA FOR ADDITIONAL LIBRARY SERVICES REPORT FROM PLANNING DIRECTOR BART ~PARK & RIDE PROJECT Planning Director Tong reported that BART is proposing a Dublin Park & Ride Project in Dublin and Pleasanton. The proposed project has 706 parking spaces on approximately 7.25 acres at the end of Golden Gate Drive in Dublin, and 715 parking spaces in Pleasanton. The project also includes bus transfer facilities and a pedestrian bridge across 1-580. BART proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration for the Dublin Park & Ride Project. BART will accept written comments on the Negative Declaration until December 5, 1986, and will also accept public comments at meetings on December 16th and 18th. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CM-5-254 Regular Meeting November 24, 1986 Staff reviewed both the Tentative/Preliminary Project plans and the Negative Declaration and commented on Dublin General Plan Policies regarding BART and project mitigation measures related to land use, traffic and design. Cm. Snyder felt that the concept of an open bridge is unacceptable. Planning Director Tong indicated that this is addressed, but Dublin could request stronger language. Staff reported that Mr. Vic Sood will submit written comments. BART would like to begin implementing this next year. There is an agreement in principle. A suggestion was made to have LAVTA request that a meeting be held in Dublin. Following discussion, by consensus of the Council, Staff was directed to send appropriate comments to BART. OTHER BUSINESS Grant City Manager Ambrose reported that the Traffic Signal Maintenance grant for which the City had applied has been approved. The City will be receiving $10,800 for retiming signals along. Dublin Boulevard. CLOSED SESSION At 10:56 p.m. the Council recessed to a closed executive session to discuss Eminent Domain action, City of Dublin vs. County of Alameda, 100,000 gallons of sewage capacity. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CM-5-255 Regular Meeting November 24, 1986