HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-23-1984REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 23, 1984
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on
Monday, April 23, 1984 in the meeting room of the San Miguel Room of Howard
Johnson's Motor Lodge. The meeting was called to order at 7:42 p.m. by Mayor
Peter Snyder.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarny, Jeffery, Moffatt, Vonheeder and Mayor
Snyder.
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the
following were approved: Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 9, 1984;
Warrant Register in the amount of $332,142.32.
CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION
Harry Demmel criticized the Council's prior meeting and the way in which the
Mayor and Vice Mayor were selected. Mr. Demmel stated he hoped the Council
would come up with a more democratic means of making these selections.
Mayor Snyder stated he felt there was no problem with the process that was
used and felt citizen's were pleased that no "backroom" decisions were made,
but rather that everything was handled "up front" in a public meeting.
VACANCY ON TRI-VALLEY COMMUNITY TELEVISION CORPORATION
The City has received a letter from Lee Horner the staff representative to
the Tri-Valley Community Television Corporation. Former Councilmember Dave
Burton resigned as a member of the Board of Directors of the Tri-Valley
Community Television Corporation. In accordance with that organization's
bylaws, each city in the valley is entitled to one representative on the
Board of Directors.
Staff was asked to check the bylaws as they relate to Dublin residency
requirement.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
Staff was directed to advertisement the vacancy on the Board of Directors of
the Tri-Valley Community Television Corporation.
CM-3-83
REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1984
COUNTY PARAMEDIC PROGRAM
On August 8, 1983 at their regular City Council meeting the Dublin City
Council adopted Resolution 39-83 consenting to the inclusion of the City of
Dublin in the formation of the County Service Area for Paramedic Emegency
Medical Service.
The County has been proceeding with the establishment of this District. The
County has developed service level options for cities participating in this
program. They have requested that the City advise them in writing of the
service model chosen, no later than April 27, 1984.
The specific details of the service were discussed and revised by local Fire
Chiefs, City Managers, and elected officials of the affected cities. The
initial program proposed by the County provided for two paramedics with each
ambulance. Some of the cities involved in the program felt that the
paramedic service would impact the provision of fire services and requested
that three staff persons be available with each ambulance unit. Therefore,
the County has established two service level options for cities
participating in the paramedic program.
The Program will also alter the City's future costs associated with
ambulance dry-runs. At the present time the City is billed directly for
these costs. During the first six months of 1983-84 the cost to the City
was approximately $180.00 per month. The formation of the assessment
district will eliminate this cost to the City. The funding will be derived
frown the assessment district.
Service Level Options
The first option is based on the original concept of a two person paramedic
model. Also included would be the basic assessment to fund the Countywide
system costs associated with the Paramedic Program. The projected assess-
ment for this type of service would by approximately $5.73 per assessment
unit per year.
The County has offered the option of having an ambulance staff with two
paramedics and one EMT-I Driver. The additional cost of this type of
service would be an additional assesment of $2.38 per assessment unit per
year. If this option is selected the total assessment for paramedic
services would be approximately $8.11 per year. This represents a 41.5
percent increase over the cost of the first option.
Chief Phil Phillips of the Dublin San Ramon Services Distric Fire
Department, has indicated that historically there has not been a problem
with ambulance service impacting fire service in this area. Therefore, itis
not recommended that the paramedics provide an additional staff person on
the ambulance unit. Chief Phillips has indicated that DSRSD will monitor
paramedic services once the program is initiated, and will report to the
City Council if the program review shows a need for the higher level of
staffing. The Council would then have the option of reviewing the data and
determining whether an additional assessment is desirable at that time.
REGULAR MEETING
CM-3-84
APRIL 23, 1984
Chief Phillips was present at the City Council meeting and indicated that
Dublin could look forward to a very high level of service.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote,
the Council directed Staff to advise the County Administrator that the City
of Dublin requests the two person private paramedic model. In addition, our
response will indicate that the City of Dublin would like an assurance that
a paramedic unit will be stationed within the Dublin City limits.
BARRATT SAN JOSE, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING - PUBLIC HEARING
On March 12, 1984, the City Council adopted a resolution approving the
Barratt San Jose Planned Development Rezoning and introduced an Ordinance
amending the Zoning Ordinance.
The Planned Development rezoning involves 40 residential condominiums and 44
residential townhouses at Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road. The PD re-
zoning includes a condition (General Provision #2) that requires the acquisi-
tion of the City property before any permits can be issued or physical work
started.
On March 23, 1984, Barratt requested that the second reading of the ordinance
be continued to the April 23, 1984 City Council meeting. Barratt stated that
the purpose of the continuance was to allow time to formulate an offer to
purchase City property along San Ramon Road. On March 26, 1984, the City
Council continued the matter.
On April 19, 1984 Barratt met with Staff and discussed the purchase of City
property. Based on discussions with Staff regarding area required, Barratt
stated they will submit a formal written proposal to the City in the near
future.
While the sale of the City property is required prior to development, it can
occur after adoption of the ordinance. The sale of City property would be
brought back to the City Council for final action.
Cm. Vonheeder questioned Provision 1.G. stating her recollection from the
Planning Commission was that the minimum square footage was to be 700 sq. ft.
rather than 650 sq. ft.
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
Nate Meeks, Barratt representative stated the discussion regarding the square
footage was that the units would be between 650 and 750 square feet with an
average of 700 square feet.
Mr. Meeks respectfully requested adoption of the ordinance.
John Alexander addressed the Council and had comments with regard to the
Planning Commission discussion related to the square footage.
CM-3-85
REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1984
Dick Hopkins, Calle Verde Road, expressed concerns related to building
condominiums in an area where twice in 2 years there has been flooding. One
of the units is in the direct flow of the flood waters.
Brian Raley stated he had Objections to an entrance into the project from San
Ramon Road. This will create too many openings between Amador Valley
Boulevard and Silvergate Drive.
Stan Harrop, Calle Verde Road, expressed concern that the City Council was
about to approve some experimental housing. Mr. Harrop presented the Council
with a newspaper clipping indicating all is not well with similar projects.
Cm. Moffatt ask Mr. Harrop what he would like to see on this site. Mr.
Harrop responded that he did not have the answer, but did not want to see
these mini barracks there.
John Corallo felt there were other areas that this type of development could
occur that would not infringe upon those people who live nearby.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
Cm. Hegarty addressed some of the concerns expressed by residents, i.e.
ingress/egress onto San Ramon Road; size of units that had been increased
from 500 to 700 square feet; the long discussions on zoning and the decision
on whether to go for commercial office space or multi-family residential.
Cm. Moffatt and Mayor Snyder asked the City Engineer to address the concern
related to flooding. City Engineer Thompson indicated that the flooding
problem could be resolved with proper engineering.
Mayor Snyder reiterated the fact that all of the concerns voiced had been
dealt with by various very knowledgeable people in their particular fields.
The City had consulted with a number of individuals and firms for advice.
The Council clarified the fact that the site development review process will
come back before the Council for final approval.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the
Council waived the reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 08 - 84
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE REZONING OF THE REAL PROPERTY
WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN (BARRATT SAN JOSE)
DUBLIN BOULEVARD TRAFFIC STUDY - PUBLIC HEARING
The Dublin Boulevard traffic study has been undertaken, at the direction of
the City Council, as part of the 1983-84 capital budget to de[ermine
deficiencies and remedies for the existing Dublin Boulevard improvements, as
they are now configured with relation to traffic safety and capacity.
CM-3-86
REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1984
On March 26, a study session was noticed and held on this subject to acquaint
the fronting property owners and general public as to the outcome and
recommendations of the study.
A Negative Declaration has been written on this item because of the
recommendation for some minor widenings into private property for turn lanes
and some elimination of direct access to businesses along the street. It is
felt that the increase in safety and capacity afforded by these recommended
improvements more than mitigates these negative concerns.
A summary of recommended improvements were:
1)
Traffic signals and Lighting
A) Add signals at Clark Avenue and at Dublin Court.
B) Modify existing signals to allow for additional lanes and
intersection configurations.
C) Interconnect all signals for traffic progression.
D) Install street lighting in the medians.
2)
Stripe for 6 lanes between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway. This
will include pavement widening at Crown Chevrolet to the existing
adopted improvement line.
3)
Medians
A) Close median breaks just east of Amador Plaza and between Dublin
Court and Dougherty Road.
B) Install protected left turn medians with the two new signal
installations.
C) Install median between Sierra Court and Dublin Court to restrict
access at the most easterly Dublin Sports Grounds driveway.
D) Relocate the median between Donlon Way and San Ramon Road and
relocate the northerly bike path behind the sidewalk.
4)
Widen the pavement for right-turn lanes westbound at San Ramon Road,
both directions at Regional Street, southbound on Dougherty Road
approaching Dublin Boulevard and westbound at Village Parkway.
5)
Widen the pavement and provide sidewalks in those areas not already
widened to the adopted 100 foot right-of-way.
6)
Revise traffic striping in those areas indicated on the strip map to
achieve the recommended study lanes.
7)
Remove the traffic island at the northeast corner of Village Parkway and
Dublin Boulevard.
8)
Although not a part of the traffic study, i't is proposed to landscape
the medians and sidewalk areas.
Cm. Vonheeder questioned if anyone had contacted DSRSD with regard to
removing some of the street parking near the Sports Grounds.
CM-3-87
REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1984
City Engineer Thompson responded that no recommendations for removing
additional street parking was being discussed.
Cm. Vonheeder felt someone should encourage the District to look at
possibility of somehow increasing the number of parking spaces.
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
Harry Demmel, from the Silvergate area, had questions regarding Sports
Grounds access.
Bob Wolverton, Crown Chevrolet did not feel that 6 lanes would resolve the
traffic problem.
Cm. Jeffery questioned the timing effect on signals. Chris Kinzel explained
the minimum/maximum timing process.
Rich Robbins, Shamrock Ford, felt that a portion of Dublin Boulevard being 4
lanes, then opening up into 6 lanes would be inappropriate. He felt the
entire boulevard should be 6 lanes with the elimination of street parking.
George Zika, Peppertree Road asked that the Council please not forget
commuters when discussing the possible elimination of street parking.
Kathy Hines, representing property owners at 6767 Dublin Boulevard objected
to closing off left turn lanes. She felt that the lanes which now exist
prove to be conducive to people shopping in Dublin rather than just quickly
passing through.
Additional access points onto 1-580 were discussed.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty~ and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 40 - 84
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR PA 84-019
DUBLIN BOULEVARD TRAFFIC STUDY
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the
Council accepted the traffic study and directed Staff to include recommended
traffic improvements into the 5 Year Capital Improvement Program for future
consideration.
BLANCARTE REZONING - PUBLIC HEARING
Mark Blancarte, representing Retail Property Development, is proposing to
rezone an approximately 40,000 sq ft parcel located at the southwest corner
of Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street from H-1 (Highway Frontage) to C-1
CM-3-88
REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1984
(Retail Business). The purpose of the rezoning is to facilitate the
development of a small retail building which is presently not permitted under
the H-1 zoning classification.
The general intent of the H-1 District is to provide areas limited to
highway-oriented businesses. The C-1 District is intended to provide areas
for comparison retail shopping and office uses.
The surrounding uses are retail or office in nature and are zoned C-1. The
proposed General Plan designates the property for retail and office uses.
The major issue associated with the rezoning request relates to the Dublin
Boulevard Traffic Study, which calls for an additional 12 feet of street
frontage for a right turn lane. The applicant was aware that the necessary
dedication and improvements to this vehicular lane could become a condition
of appr. oval during the Site Development Review process.
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
No public ~comments were made.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 41 - 84
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CONCERNING PA 84-009 - BLANCARTE REZONING
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 42 - 84
APPROVING A REZONING CONCERNING PA 84-009
BLANCARTE REZONING
and waived the reading and i.ntroduced an ordinance amending the zoning
ordinance to permit the rezoning of real property within the City of Dublin.
ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR ABATEMENT OF ZONING VIOLATIONS
This ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council on
April 9, 1984. There were no comments from the public.
Section 8-106.3 of the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance as adopted by the City
of Dublin provides that the District Attorney, on order of the Board of
Supervisors shall institute proceedings for abatement of violations of the
zoning ordinance.
CM-3-89
REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1984
Section 8-106.4 through 8-106.8 add provisions which allow recovering all
costs of abatement from property owner. These provisions are authorized by
Section 38773 of the Government Code, which authorizes the legislative body
to abate any nuisance and by ordinance make the expense of abatement a lien
against the property, and a personal obligation against the property owner.
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing~.
No public comments 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 adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 09 - 84
AMENDING ARTICLE 9 of PART 1 of CHAPTER 2 of TITLE 8
AND RELATING TO ZONING ENFORCEMENT
CONSOLIDATION OF CITY MUNICIPAL ELECTION
WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION
The City Attorney presented an ordinance consolidating the City Municipal
Election with the Statewide General Election.
The City Attorney explained that this ordinance is subject to approval by the
Board of Supervisors of Alameda County and would become effective 30 days
after such approval.
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
No public comments were made.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the
Council waived the reading and introduced an ordinance consolidating the City
Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election.
RECESS
A short recess was called. Ail Councilmembers were present when the meeting
reconvened.
CM-3-90
REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1984
PLEASANTON/DUBLIN TRANSIT STUDY - FINAL REPORT
The City has received the Pleasanton/Dublin Transit Study Final Report for
review.
As indicated in the Executive Summary, this study identifies an operating
plan which would have the following characteristics:
1) BART bus express system would be streamlined
2) Paratransit services in the 3 valley communities would continue to be
provided in the same manner as they are presently provided
3) Livermore would retain its Rideo System
4) Pleasanton and Dublin would have a local bus system which would consist
of 4 routes and would provide local bus service to within 3 blocks of 85% of
the residents of the City. In addition, .these routes would also provide
connections to practically all activity centers within the community. The
exact route and route variations are more precisely described in Chapter 4
of the Final Report.
The Transportation Consulting Team has also determined that the local bus
service could be provided to the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton with no
direct cost to either City. The cost of the transit system would be
financed with Transportation Development Act funds and fairbox revenues.
The Final Report also recommends the formation of a Transit Authority that
would consist of the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton and the County
of Alameda. Several key issues which are relative to the formation of a
joint exercise of powers agreement and which require further discussion and
negotiation among the 3 Cities and the County include 1) the composition of
the Board of Directors; 2) the voting powers of the Board; 3) the staffing
of the Authority; 4) financing of start-up costs; 5) definition and controls
for t'he basic level of service; 6) fallback position if the joint exercise
of powers agreement is not formed. These issues are described in some
detail in Chapter 5 and in the sample joint exercise of powers agreement
(see Appendix A) and the sample Bylaws of the Transit Authority (see
Appendix B).
In order to implement the plan, the following activities are required:
1) finalize the joint exercise of powers agreement and adopt the bylaws
2) form an organizational committee of the joint exercise of powers
authority
3) retain an interim general manager
4) identify immediate and long-range staffing levels and hire as needed
5) initiate operational and marketing elements of the plan
6) acquire vehicles
Cm. Jeffery explained the logistics of how this proposal would work and
answered questions related to the program. Cm. Jeffery suggested modifying
to have 1 member from each City have 2 votes. Each City has the right of
veto on decisions related to their particular jurisdiction.
CM-3-91
REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1984
Cm. Jeffery explained that the cities have the option of using Livermore's
management or going outside. Livermore runs a very effective system.
Mayor Snyder asked Cm. Jeffery to explain Livermore's part in this venture.
Cm. Jeffery explained and stated that we would have the advantage of their
expertise, but yet would retain local control. The buses would belong to
Pleasanton and Dublin.
The Consultant has indicated that these activities could be completed and
service started by January, 1985 provided that the joint exercise of powers
authority is established by July 1, 1984 and that the participants agree to
the initial leasing of the vehicles.
Possible definitions for certain words and phrases in the report were
discussed.
Cm. Jeffery was asked to check with the members on the Committee regarding
clarification of definition of "affected jurisdiction" and the wording
related to "majority requirement".
George Zika, ?eppertree Road, .questioned why it was necessary that the
organizational committee of the joint exercise of powers authority
representative be a City Councilmember.
Cm. Jeffery clarified that it could be an elected person or a member of the
public.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the
Council 1) approved in principle the Pleasanton/Dublin Transit Study; 2)
directed the City Council's representative on the Transit Study Policy
Committee and the appropriate City Staff to work with representatives of the
other participating jurisdictions to put in final form the Joint Powers
Agreement and Bylaws and prepare an Implementation Plan and Schedule; and 3)
directed Staff to submit the Joint Powers Agreement, the Bylaws and the
Implementation Plan to the City Council for approval on or about July 1,
1984.
MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR TERMS OF OFFICE
The City Attorney presented a draft resolution establishing the term of
office for the Mayor and Vice Mayor.
Cm. Jeffery indicated the Council had discussed this issue, and she had a
problem with putting it in the form of a resolution. If the resolution were
adopted, however, Cm. Jeffery indicated she would like to see the phrase
added "with a 2 consecutive term limit".
Council consensus was that since the Council must reorganize after each
election anyway, there was no need for adoption of this type of a resolution.
REGULAR MEETING
CM-3-92
APRIL 23, 1984
APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
At its Special Meeting on April 17, 1984, the City Council requested a report
on the legal requirements pertaining to the appointment of Planning
Commissioners.
The City Attorney read the code stating that the method of appointment and
removal of Planning Commissioners was determined by local ordinance and the
City Council has the authority to make these appointments in any manner they
so desire. The City Attorney then read the current ordinance.
Cm. Jeffery felt the appointments should be made by each Councilmember and
that terms should coincide with the appointing Councilmember.
Ratification by a majority of the Council was discussed, as was rules related
to the removal of Planning Commissioners.
Cm. Vonheeder expressed concerns with having individual appointments as
opposed to appointments by group.
Council consensus was that appointment and removal would be handled by the
same rules.
Harry Demmel, speaking from the audience, expressed concerns that it would be
too easy for a Councilmember to remove a Planning Commissioner if they did
not vote the way in which the Councilmember desired.
Council response to this concern was that this would not happen, because the
Council can appeal any decision made by the Planning Commission anyway.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majority vote, the
Council agreed that Planning Commissioners would be directly appointed and
removed by each individual Councilmember, subject to NO ratification by the
majority of the Council. The terms of office would coincide with the
appointing Councilmember and in the event that a Councilmember left office,
their replacement would have the right to retain the former Councilmember's
appointment, or make an appointment of their own. Voting NO on this motion
was Cm. Vonheeder.
The City Attorney was directed to draft an amendment to the existing
Ordinance incorporating the new rules and present amendment at the next
regular Council meeting.
RECREATION SUMMER PROGRAMS
In accordance with the Park & Recreation Advisory Committee report approved
by the City Council on September 23, 1983, Staff has developed several
summer recreation programs for City Council-consideration. These programs
include the following:
CM-3-93
REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1984
"TENDERFOOT SUMMER CAMP" Fee: $36.00 for each 16 hour session = $2.25 per
hour.
"DIRECTION DISCOVERY CAMP" Fee: $55.00 for each 25 hour session = $2.20 per
hour.
"THE SPORTS CLINICS,' Fee: $25.00 per 7½ hour clinic = $3.30 per hour.
"THE VALLEY BASKETBALL CLINIC" Fee: $30 for 10 hours of instruction = $3.00
per hour.
With a minimum enrollment for all four programs, the City would realize a
net revenue of approximately $600, with expenses totaling $9,119 and revenue
totaling $9,715. With a maximum enrollment for all four programs, the City
would realize a net revenue of approximately $3,334 with $16,786 in expenses
and revenue totaling $20,120. The expenses identified above are direct
program expenses and do not include the administrative cost of the
Recreation Director or Secretary. The fee structure is comparable to fees
being charged by other Recreation Departments in the area.
Since summer recreation programs typically begin in one fiscal year and end
in the following fiscal year, a budget transfer from the contingent reserve
will be required to fund the 1983-84 portion of the summer recreation
program. The remaining costs for the summer recreation program will need to
be budgeted in 1984-85. The budget transfer (see attached) totaling $16,795
includes $9,130 for direct program costs and $7,665 for supplies and
equipment necessary to set up the Recreation Department.
Because of the recent election and the uncertainty of the status of the Park
and Recreation Commission, the Commission has not had an opportunity to
formally review the recommended programs. However, Staff has contacted the
members of the Commission individually to solicit comments. Since the
proposed summer programs commence on June 25, 1984 it is critical that the
City Council approve the programs proposed along with a budget transfer so
that there is adequate time to prepare a brochure to advertise the programs,
hire personnel and purchase necessary equipment and materials. If the City
Council's decision is deferred until its next regular meeting, there would
NOT be enough'time to undertake the summer recreation programs proposed.
Recreation Director Firth briefly explained and answered questions related
to the programs being proposed.
Cm. Jeffery complimented Ms. Firth on putting together this type of a
program.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council approved the recreation programs and authorized budget transfer.
CM-3-94
REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1984
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
On August 2, 1983 the City Council established a street lighting maintenance
assessment district to supplant the County Service Area which has paid for
the maintenance and energy cost of street lights within the City of Dublin.
At that time a lawsuit testing the constitutionality of maintenance
assessment districts was being tested in the City of San Jose. Because of
that lawsuit, the City Council levied a zero assessment after forming the
district and requested that the City be permitted to remain in the County
Service Area for street lighting for another year.
Last year Staff indicated that the estimated cost of maintenance and energy
for the street lighting system within the City would be $125,000 for Fiscal
Year 1983-84. This figure was based on a number of street lights being
added to the City's street lighting system and an estimated 5 percent
increase in PG&E energy rates. Since that time, PG&E substantially reduced
the energy rate charged for street lights owned by PG&E while at the same
time increasing the rate charged to cities for city owned street lights. In
addition, PG&E has not been able to install the street lights requested by
the City within the timeframe anticipated by PG&E and Staff last August. As
a result, the estimated cost that the County Service Area for street
lighting will bear for the Dublin street lighting system for Fiscal Year
1983-84 is approximately $95,000. Since the County Service Area budget was
based on an estimated cost of $125,000, it is quite likely that the
assessments received by the County Service Area will exceed actual costs for
1983-84. These funds should be available to the City for Fiscal 1984-85 to
offset some of the city street lighting costs.
In addition to the developments above, it is a strong possibility that a
constitutional initiative will qualify for the November ballot which would
preclude utilization of maintenance assessment districts which have been
formed after August 15, 1983. This initiative is popularly referred to as
the Jarvis Initiative. Since the City of Dublin formed its assessment
district on August 2, 1983, there is a possiblity that the City may not be
affected by the initiative. In any event, it is quite likely that there
will be a substantial amount of litigation if the initiative passes.
The following options were identified with respect to the financing of the
city street lights:
1) Request the County to levy a zero assessment for Fiscal Year 1984-85
with the City levying the assessment directly to cover street lighting
costs. Once collected, these funds then could be placed in a trust fund,
pending the outcome of the Jarvis Initiative and any subsequent lawsuits.
The risk to the City would be that the City may have to refund to the
property owners those funds collected during the 1984-85 Fiscal Year if the
Jarvis Initiative passes and is vindicated in the courts.
2) City would request the County to levy a zero aSsessment for the
Fiscal Year and would then levy a direct assessment to cover street lighting
maintenance costs and pay for these costs with the assessments collected.
The risk would be that the City may have to refund the assessments out of
the City's General Fund.
CM-3-95
REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1984
3) Levy a zero assessment for the Dublin lighting district and request
the County to again collect the funds under the County Service Area for
lighting. This opt~ion would present no risk to the City, however the City
would not have direct control over those funds collected by the County until
such time that .the City withdrew from the County Service Area.
Staff has discussed the various options with the District Legal Counsel,
Jones Hall Hill and White, who has recommended if the City does levy the
assessments, this money be placed, in a trust fund and that the City pay the
lighting bills out of the General Fund pending the outcome of the Jarvis
Initiative.
Cm. Jeffery requested that Staff analyze the possibilities of the various
monetary impacts on the City.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote,
the Council authorized Staff to proceed with option number 1 by approving a
resolution directing the engineer to prepare the annual report for the
maintenance assessment district. This recommendation is based on the City's
original commitment to eventually withdraw from the County Service Area and
form its own district.
The Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 43 - 84
DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ANNUAL REPORT FOR
MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
PLANNING CONFERENCE
The American Planning Association (APA) National Conference is being held in
Minneapolis-St.Paul from May 5-9, 1984. The conference offers a number of
discussion sessions which can directly benefit Staff and the City in the
areas of economic development and finance, computers and telecommunications,
management and professional skills, transportation, urban design. The
conference also provides an excellent opportunity for Staff to establish a
network with other Planning Directors from the Bay Area and the nation to
broaden its experiences and perspectives, and to learn from other's successes
and failures.
The conference will last 5 days and cost $1,100. Funds for this conference
were included in the Planning budget.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the
Council authorized Planning Director, Larry Tong to attend the American
Planning Association National Conference.
CM-3-96
REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1984
OTHER BUSINESS
General Plan Hearing Continuation
City Manager Ambrose announced that not everyone felt the scheduled date of
May 10th to be good for the continuation of the General Plan consideration by
the Council.
Following discussion, the date of May 15, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. was decided upon.
Study Session for Contract Services Review
City Manager Ambrose reported that he felt it appropriate for the Council to
establish a date on which to conduct a study session to review contract
services provided by various contractors.
Council determined that it would conduct this special study session on
May 21, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Offices conference room.
Capital Improvement Proqram Presentation
City Manager reported that he would be involved in a presentation being
sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce the following Thursday morning regarding
the City's Capital Improvement Program.
Neighborhood Watch Program
Cm. Vonheeder had questiones related to a recently passed out form for
identification of valuables as part of the Neighborhood Watch Program. She
suggested mailing these forms to each resident of Dublin along with the soon
to be published City Newsletter.
Council Committee Appointments
With the recent reorganization of the Council, it was necessary to reaffirm
committee status regarding delegates and alternates on various committees.
ACTEB/ACAP - Cm. Moffatt (Delegate), Cm. Jeffery (Alternate)
Library Commission - Cm. Hegarty (Delegate), Tanya Clark (Alternate)
Tri-Valley Housing Authority - Cm. Hegarty (Delegate) - No provision for
alternate
League Committee on Revenue & Taxation - Cm. Jeffery (Delegate) - No
alternate
Transit Study Policy Committee - Cm. Jeffery (Delegate) - Cm. Vonheeder
(Alternate)
CM-3-97
REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1984
Solid Waste Management Authority - Mayor Snyder (Delegate) - Cm. Moffatt
(Alternate)
East Bay Division of the League of CA Cities - Cm. Vonheeder (Delegate) - Cm.
Moffatt (Alternate)
ABAG - Cm. Moffatt (Delegate) - Cm. Jeffery (Alternate)
Other committees were standing committees with no vacancies existing.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was
adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
ATTEST:
REGULAR MEETING
CM-3-98
APRIL 23, 1984