Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-13-1985 Adopted CC Minna-~ f o REGULAR MEETING - May 13, 1985 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, May 13, 1985 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7'34 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 alleg- iance to the flag. SENIOR CITIZEN'S MONTH PROCLAMATION Mayor Snyder read a proclamation declaring May, 1985 as Senior Citizen's Month in the City of Dublin and presented the proclamation to a Dublin Senior Citizen, Alice Pitchford. PRESENTATION BY BART REPRESENTATIVES Robert Allen and Howard Goode reviewed BART planning in the area and stated that Dublin is the hub of the Express Bus Program. BART is now in the midst of a transition period for their bus system, and at a critical juncture for their rail system. In 1980, 82% of the voters in Dublin indicated their support for rail as opposed to bus service only. Cm. Moffatt questioned the time line for BART's implementation of the various stages being proposed. Mr. Goode explained that they are just coming out of Stage I, as Dublin comes on line with its bus system. The next phase is for the construction of park & ride lots some time next year. Cm. Moffatt indicated he had heard rumors that BART was going to let go of their Dublin park & ride site. Mr. Goode stated this was incorrect. Cm. Jeffery questioned funding amounts vs revenues associated with the Dublin portion of the express bus. Mr. Goode indicated it was not possible to break Dublin's figures out of the totals. Cm. Jeffery questioned if there was any possibility that the Dublin park & ride lot would be ready when the express bus system is streamlined. One stop in Dublin will cause a very definite parking need at that location. Dublin's citizens are very frustrated because they have paid so much money for BART, with no rail to show for the money. ¢M-4-85 Regular Meeting May 13, 1985 Cm. Jeffery ~suggested that Mr. Allen attend Dublin City Council meetings every 3 or ~ months to keep Dublin informed. Cm. Hegarty questioned BART representatives related to additional parking lot uses, above the lot. It was felt that it would be reasonable to consider using part of the site in this manner. Cm. Vonheeder indicated an interest in stacking the parking lot to maximize the land useage. FLEA MARKET SIGNS MURRAY SCHOOL DISTRICT Mr. Bill Hansel, President Elecv of the Murray Schoo~ DistriCt PTA, addressed the Council and was upset with the fact that they were unable ~o post their signs advertising their annual flea market in public right-of'ways, as had been their practice for several years. Mr. Norb Hudak also addressed the Council on this issue. Mayor Snyder indicated that signing has been at the forefront of everything going on in this community since 1982. There have been many opportunities for public input, and as a result of this input, a stronger policy was accepted. Even prior to incorporation, Alameda County adopted a stronger policy of prohibiting signs in the public right-of-way. It was explained that the City had installed banner poles on San Ramon Road, specifically for this type of use. City Attorney Nave explained some of the legal aspects that contributed to the decision to prohibit signs in the public right-of-way. Planning Director Tong explained processing differences between signs that the Planning Commission is currently studying related to businesses as opposed to political or advertising signs. Cm. Moffatt stated that if someone puts a garage sale sign up on a stop sign and an accident occurs, the person who put the sign up could be held partially liable, as well as the City. The Council suggested that Mr. Hansel and Mr..Hudak pick up a copy of the City's sign posting ordinance, as well as the banner policy. They should request banner time early, however, as it has proved to be a very popular means of advertising. RAVENSWOOD-EXCAVATION Mr~ Keith Warden, rep~."esenting Friends of the Vineyards addressed the Council and indicated excavation has begun at the former winery estate. Mr. Warden invited anyone interested to come out to the dig. It started today and will be ongoing, mainly on weekends. 0M-4-86 Regular Meeting May 13, 1985 CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 22, 1985; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $400,189.53; Approved the City Treasurer's Investment Report for Period Ending April 30, 1985; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 31 - 85 FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS TRACT 4988 City Manager Ambrose indicated a correction to the anticipated costs of the Comprehensive Traffic Engineering Study from $4,500 to $6,000. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the Mayor to execute an amendment and directed Staff to request a time extension from the State Office of Traffic Safety related to the City's Comprehensive Traffic Engineering Study; Cm. Moffatt questioned if the City actually needed an enforcement inspector or another working inspector. City Manager Ambrose reported that construc- tion activity has increased so much that the City's Building Inspector is spending all of his time just keeping up with the building load. The classification of Enforcement Inspector is being added to the contractor's list. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved an Amendment to the Agreement for Building Law Enforcement Services with Taugher & Associates, Inc., and authorized the Mayor to execute the Agreement; REQUEST FOR SOUNDWALL - ALONG ALCOSTA'BOULEVARD & KIMBALL AVENUE The City has received a letter from Mr. Donald R. Shanks, 7681 Ashford Way in Dublin, requesting that the City replace the rear yard fencing of those residents who live on Ashford Way and back up to Alcosta Boulevard and Kimball Avenue. There are approximately 14 homes that are affected. The entire public right-of-way, including the sidewalk and all improvements in this area, is within the City of San Ramon. The fence itself is on private property within the City of Dublin. 0M-4-87 Regular Meeting May 13, 1985 The City constructed the Village Parkway wall for not only aesthetic reasons, but also for public safety reasons since the dilapidated fencing was falling across a City sidewalk. This is not the case on Ashford Way in that the sidewalk is in the jurisdiction of San Ramon and maintained by San Ramon. In addition, much of the fencing in question abuts directly against the Seven Eleven and service station properties. The Council felt that a cqpy of the letter should be sent to the City of San Ramon. Consensus of the Council was to direct the City Manager to prepare a letter to Mr. Shanks indicating the City's reasons for denying his request for a soundwall, with a copy being sent to the City of San Ramon. REQUEST FROM PLANNING COMMISSION RE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE On April 15, 1985, the Planning Commission requested the City Council to consider a property maintenance ordinance to address community aesthetics. The Planning Commission was particularly concerned with unkept lawns and front.yards. Cm. Jeffery felt the best way is to take a positive rather than negative approach to this situation by encouraging people to take care of their homes and yards. The City shouid advertize the home loan fix-up program. Cm. Jeffery stated she is opposed to adopting an ordinance. Cm. Vonheeder stated she did not want to be placed, or have Staff placed in a position of having to act as judge. If a safety problem exists, there are ways to handle these types of situations. Cm. Hegarty stated he has observed many areas that are a disgrace to Dublin. Many people have asked him "can't you do anything about this?" Cm. Hegarty stated he would like to see some encouragement given. The Council felt the upcoming City Newsletter would be a good avenue for encouraging people to take pride in the appearance of their property. PUBLIC HEARING STAGECOACH ROAD-REGULATION OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Mr. Dale Schuett, 7~08 Stagecoach Road, delivered a petition signed by residents of Stagecoach Road to the City Offices. The petition requests that the City close Stagecoach Road at its previous northern termination until certain conditions were met. This petition stems from excessive speeding Problems which are being experienced by existing residents along Stagecoach Road. CM-~-88 Regular Meeting May 13, 1985 The residents also requested that until the conditions are met, that signs referring to the Amador Lakes project be removed and "not a through street" or "no outlet" signs be posted at the southernmost extension of Stagecoach Road. The inability of the City Police Department to enforce traffic regulations on Stagecoach Road stems from the following problems: 1) The public improvements associated with old Stagecoach Road have never been accepted as public improvements, due to soil problems and deficiencies which residents of old Stagecoach Road have experienced after the construction of thei~r homes. The City Engineer has indicated that the City should not accept these improvements until these soil problems and deficiencies are resolved by the original developer of the homes along Stagecoach Road. 2) The newer portion of Stagecoach Road which is presently under con- struction has not been completed. The City cannot accept the newer portion of Stagecoach Road unvil all of the public improvements associated with Tract ~719 and Amador Lakes are completed. In order to make these findings, the City must hold a public hearing to receive testimony and determine whether the California Vehicle Code provisions can be applied to Stagecoach Road between Amador Valley Boulevard and the northern City limit. Staff felt that both of the required findings could be met and recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution which provides for traffic enforcement on Stagecoach Road. If the City Council adopts the resolution, the Police can enforce a 25 mph prima facie speed limit on the older portion of Stagecoach Road because it is considered as a residential district as defined by the California Vehicle Code. The newer portion of Stagecoach Road would have a speed limit of 55 mph because it cannot be considered a residential district as defined by the California Vehicle Code and therefore, the 25 mph prima facie speed limit could not apply. However, Section 22362 of the California Vehicle Code does provide that the City could enforce a 25 mph speed limit in a construction zone. Since work is still being done with respect to the improvements within Tract ~719 and Amador Lakes, 25 mph construction zone signs could be posted at a distance of ~00' from either end of the construction zone and that speed limit could be enforced by the Police Department. The construction zone cannot consist of the entire project, but only that portion which actual work is being done on public improvements. In both cases, the Police woUld only be able to enfOrce the speed limit by pacing vehicles. Staff recommended that the City Council authorize the City Traffic Engineer to conduct a speed survey on Stagecoach Road in order that radar could be used by the Police in the future. cM-~-89 Regular Meeting May 13, 1985 Staff did not recommend that the City close off the newer portio~n of Stagecoach Road until all the public improvements and repairs within the two projects are completed. Closing Stagecoach Road off would create a greater inconvenience to provide emergency services to the Amador Lakes development and would also necessitate Dublin residents within the Amador Lakes projects to travel into San Ramon in order to access shopping, libraries and other services within~the City of Dublin. Cm. Moffatt questioned who owns the older portion of Stagecoach Road. City Engineer Thompson explained that the Developer is responsible until the City accepts the improvements, at which time it is dedicated to the public. Because of the unresolved soil problems, the City has not accepted this dedication. Ms. Donna Hodson, a homeowner on Stagecoach Road questioned whose responsibility it was to inform new homeowners of these existing problems. Mr. Thompson explained that all the original buyers were aware of the problems and as properties were resold, it was up to the sellers to inform potential new buyers. The Developer is still responsible also, and it was hoped that the soils problems & street dedication situation could be resolved when the newer portion of Stagecoach Road is ready for public acceptance. John Richard who lives in the end house on old Stagecoach Road indicated he was the RME for Landstock, Inc., on this project. The soil came from Kaiser. Mr. Richard stated that the homeowners were originally informed that they must get their landscaping in immediately. Since many of the units were originally rentals, and still are, the problems being encountered are with those units. Mr. Richard indicated he doesn't care if the street is ever dedicated, but something must be done about the speeding. If necessary~ he will put up a sign, or even a fence across the road. Dale Schuett questioned the legality of the City opening the new portion of Stagecoach Road and stated perhaps the residents could close the road themselves. Another suggestion was that the City place a stop sign where the old portion ~meets the new portion. Frank Lee stated his major concern was the safety of his children and felt a stop sign was a good idea. John Marker also expressed concern regarding the safety of his 2 small children. Mark Rafanelli, Developer of Amador Lakes indicated they are moving as quickly as poSsible with the improvements. Mr. Rafanelli expressed co~cern regarding placing a stop sign in an illogical location, but indicated they would support anything that the City Staff presented. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Mayor Snyder felt problems hinge around the dedication of t~e thoroughfare. He questioned whether the City could get a release from the propert~~ owners to hold the City harmless. cM.-.a-90 Regular Meeting May 13, 1985 City Attorney Nave did not feel this would be practical, but indicated he would check into t~is possibility, as the issue must be faced soon. Cm. Moffatt questioned whether the original Stagecoach Road was supposed to have a frontage road. On motion of Cm.~ Hegarty, seconde¢~ by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 32 - 85 REGULATING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON STAGECOACH ROAD ~ PURSUANT TO SECTION 21107.5 OF THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the City Traffic Engineer to conduct a speed survey on Stagecoach Road. APPEAL OF PLANNING COM~'IISSION APPROVAL PAS~-OA..9, IMPERIAL FREEHOLDS CALIFORNIA, I~C. Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Imperial Freeholds applied for an extension of their parcel map to subdivide a 10 acre site on Dublin Boulevard into 3 lots and ultimately develop 3 office buildings with approximately t$0,000 square feet. The Planning Commission approved the extension with a condition requiring $69,000 toward a traffic signal at Dublin Boulevard @ Sierra Court. The issue involves pay- ment towards the traffic signal to lessen traffic impacts even if the project does not have.a direct connection to the intersection. Large projects such as this one have significant traffic impacts on the f~ity, not only in the immediate vicinity of the project, but t'hroughout various parts of the City. It ~is a f.airly common practice for cities to require a developer to install 'or make cash contributions for traffic signals to offset the impact of the development on the City. The amount of the contribution depends on the specific nature, size, location and impact of the project. Staff felt ~ $69,000 contribution was reasonable in relationship to a project encompassing:lSO,O00 sq ft atomg one of the major t~oroughfares of the City. Anthony Long, imperial Freeholds Branch Manager advised the Council that their concerns go beyond the cost of the signal. They are not opposed to the payment itself, but rather that th~ location of the signal w~ll have a detrimental effect on their property. The original proposal was that they would have signalization to their property. 'Cm. Hegarty questioned if the original specifications called for a signal at the entrance of their property. Mr. [~ong replied affirmative. Mr. Long asked that a median cut be allowed, thereby provi~i!ling motorists left turn access from th~ir property onto Dublin Boulevard. CM-6-91 Regular Meeting May 13, 1985 Mayor~Snyder~Closed the public hearing. The visibility aspects with regard to the crest of the bridge on Dub]in Boulevard was discussed. Discussion was held with regard to a left turn into as well as' out of the property o~to.Dublin Boulevard. Cm. Moffatt indicated he would like to table t~!e matter until an alternate route could be discussed. Mayor Snyder questioned Mr. Long regarding the property exchange with DSRSD. Mr. Long indicated that negotiation discussions with DSRSD ~.egarding property exchange were progressing nicely. Exchange agreements are moving forward. City Attorney Nave indicated a time line was needed for future review by the City Council in order to take appropriate action. Cm. Jeffery did not feel it appropriate'to delay a decision on this issue. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote, the Council agreed to continue this item for 120 da~s. Voting NO on this motion was Cm. Jeffery. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE RE LIMITED PARKING ZONE ON SIERRA LANE Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Viacom Cablevision has requested that a portion of the curb in front of their office be limited to 20 minutes parking. No public comments were made. Cm. Moffatt felt the entire area should be looked at with regard to large vehicles being parked on weekends. City Manager Ambrose advised Cm. Moffatt that the City Traffic Engineer has looked at this, and the City Attorney is drafting an ordinance which.will be coming before the Council in the future. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and on an urgency basis adopted ORDINANCE NO. 8 - 85 ESTABLISHING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS LIMITED PARKING ZONE ON SIERRA LANE CM-~-92 Regular Meeting May 13, 1985 / PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE RE NO PARKING ZONE FRONTING 7889 DUBLIN BOULEVARD Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Red curb at this location will aid cars turning right from westbound Dublin Boulevard onto Regional Street. No public comment~ were made. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and on an urgency basis adopted ORDINANCE NO. 9 - 85 ESTABLISHING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS NO PARKING ZONE ON DUBLIN BOULEVARD (Homestead Savings) PUBLIC HEARING PA84-076 KAUFMAN & BROAD ANNEXATION Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. The Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission has approved the Kaufman & Broad annexation to the City of Dublin. The annexation involves approximately 12 acres generally located west of Alegre Drive. City Council authorization is needed to complete the annexation. Dave Corliss, Kaufman & Broad, complimented the Planning Staff for their efforts on this, the City's first annexation attempt. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 33 - 85 ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN, PA 84-076, KAUFMAN & BROAD PUBLIC HEARING TOM HUENING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING & SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Tom Huening is applying for a Planned Development Rezoning and Site Development Review to construct a 4,485 sq ft building on the abandoned DSRSD well site located on the north side of Dublin Boulevard south of Sierra Court. An integral part of the application includes the rezoning of the CM-4-93 Regular Meeting May 13, 1985 parcel immediately to the east which is also owned by Mr. Huening-[ Both parcels are slated to be rezoned to a PD zoning district with C-2, General Commercial, uses. From a practical standpoint, the site is so small that future construction needed to be incorporated into an adjacent development. In this case, the new construction is to be incorporated into the existing commercial project to the east. Both parcels will share a common driveway and parking area and the design of the new structure is intended to match the existing structure as much as possible. The principal concern of Staff related to the design of the west elevation. This elevation will be the most visible to the public and yet is the back side of the building. Staff has suggested to the applicants that the building be set back 5' from the property line and landscaping be installed to soften the appearance of the wall. The applicants maintain that the site is so small they need to maximize their building coverage. The Planning Commission heard this application on April 15, 1985. Mr. Kent, an adjacent property owner, submitted a letter expressing concerns with respect to parking. Tom Huening, property owner addressed the Council and urged a favorable consideration. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 34 - 85 and ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA$5-020, A REQUEST BY TOM HUENING FOR A PD REZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ON THE ABANDONED DSRSD PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD SOUTH OF SIERRA COURT RESOLUTION NO. 35 - 85 APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONCERNING PA85-020, TOM HUENING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT waived the reading and introduced an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to permit the rezoning of real property within the City of Dublin and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 36 - 85 APPROVING THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PA$5-020, TOM HUENING'S REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A ~,~$5 SQ FT BUILDING ON THE ABANDONED DSRSD PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF SIERRA COURT CM-a-9a Regular Meeting May 13, 1985 DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS At its meeting of April 8, 1985, the City Council agreed to the concept of forming a blue ribbon ad hoc downtown improvement committee, whose purpose would be to assist in the development of a downtown plan. The City Council agreed that the committee would consist of 11 members and that each City Councilmember would appoint a member from the business community within the designated downtown area, and a member from the residential community. The eleventh member would be appointed by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce. The City Council agreed to officially make these appointments at its first meeting in May. The Chamber of Commerce has indicated that Mr. Jim Dougherty will represent the Dublin Chamber of Commerce on the downtown improvement committee. The Council made the following appointments: Business Residential Councilmember Jeffery Vice Mayor Hegarty Councilmember Moffatt Councilmember Vonheeder Mayor Snyder Will advise next meeting Arnold Durrer Dean Kollewe Tom McCormick Steve Heath Rick Camacho Joe Devane Bil!~ Burnham Richard Enea Carol Voss + Jim Daugherty as the Chamber of Commerce liaison representative. LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT (JEPA) At its meeting of February 25, 1985, the City Council approved in concept, the Transit Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA). Since that meeting, the City Council of Pleasanton approved the original agreement, and the City Council of Livermore has adopted an agreement with revisions. The City of Pleasanton anticipates that the agreement with the Livermore revisions wilt be considered at its meeting of May 21, 1985. Those revisions made by the Livermore City Council were reviewed and discussed. Mayor Snyder expressed concern as to why Livermore is treated differently with regard to its RIDEO program. Cm. Jeffery indicated that if the JEPA was not accepted at this meeting, it would have to go back to all the City Councils with.recommended changes. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council indicated its concurrence with the final Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, and to proceed with contracting for services. CM-~-95 Regular Meeting May 13, 1985 On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council appointed Cm. Jeffery and Mayor Snyder as the Council represen- tatives to the Board of the newly formed Authority. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council appointed Cm. Vonheeder to serve as alternate on this Board. RECOGNITION OF CITY VOLUNTEERS Several months ago, the City Council requested the City Manager and the Police Chief to develop a method upon which the City could honor those volunteers whO had given their time and their efforts to the City for no compensation. Assistant City Attorney Silver prepared an opinion which identified some of the limitations which the City has in recognizing its volunteers. Ms. Silver indicated that the City could give awards incidental to the volunteers duty or assignment. These awards could be in the form of an appreciation dinner and/or gift. Including members of the Planning Commission and Park & Recreation Commission, the City has a total of 25 volunteers. If the City Council was desirous of hosting an appreciation dinner for these volunteers and their spouses, including those Staff members who work directly with these volunteers, the guest count for a dinner would be approximately 70 persons. The cost of hosting such a dinner at the Shannon Community Center was discussed. Discussion also included costs of presenting gifts to the volunteers that was incidental to their duty assignment. Cm. Jeffery felt this was a good idea. Cm. Hegarty stated that since volunteer police officers get a minimal amount of money for their uniforms, his original intent was to purchase perhaps jackets for the reserves. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to the concept of having a dinner and giving the volunteers a gift. A sub-committee consisting of Cm. Hegarty and Cm. Moffatt was formed to work with Staff on this project. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/MURRAY SCHOOL BOARD MEETING The City Council and Murray School District Board of Trustees will be holding a joint meeting on Thursday, May 30, 1985 at 7:30 p.m., in the Board of Trustees meeting room. The Board of Trustees indicated its desire to discuss: Crossing Guards, School District grounds maintenance, use of empty School District facilities, Recreation & Kolb Park. ¢M-~-96 Regular Meeting May 13, 1985 The Council did not add any items to the agenda. OTHER BUSINESS Arroyo Vista With regard to Pleasanton's offer, Mayor Snyder felt the Council should indicate that Dublin is agreeable to taking over the ownership and control of Arroyo Vista. Cm. Jeffery felt the Council should delay a response until the City could obtain financial details, etc. The item should be agendized for future consideration. Cm. Moffatt felt we should accept ownership and control since the project is within the City of Dublin. Cm. Vonheeder indicated that the City has talked about taking over Arroyo Vista for quite some time, and regardless of any financial impacts, it really should be Dublin's responsibility to control the project. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to advise the City of Pleasanton that Dublin is willing to accept ownership and control of Arroyo Vista. Next Regular City Council Meeting, Tuesday, May 28, 1985 City Manager Ambrose advised that since the Memorial Day Holiday will be observed on Monday, May 27th, the regular meeting date of the Council, the meeting will be held the following evening. League of CA Cities Meeting Cm. Vonheeder indicated that the League will be having a General Membership meeting on Friday, May 31, 1985. Dublin Connection - Irish Runner Cm. Vonheeder asked for Council direction with regard to the recePtion that the City will be hosting for the Irish Marathon Runner on July 15th. Council consensus was that Cm. Vonheeder check with the Chamber regarding the possibility of sharing in their event rather than having a separate event. CM-~-97 Regular Meeting May 13, 1985 Gas Main Locations In light of the recent gas line related emergencies in various communities, Mayor Snyder questioned if Dublin's base maps indicate where gas mains are located as this is something of which the City should be cognizant. CLOSED SESSION At ii'BO p.m. the Council recessed to a closed executive session to discuss personnel matters. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12'30 a.m. The next regular meeting of the Dublin City Council will be on Tuesday, May 28, 1985 at 7'30 p.m. ATTEST' CM-~-98 Regular Meeting May 13, 1985