Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-23-1984REGULAR MEETING - July 23, 1984 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, July 23, 1984 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:37 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. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the following were approved: Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 9, 1984; Financial Report for Period Ending June 30, 1984 (Pro-Forma); Awarded Bid, Contract 84-3f Dougherty Road Storm Drain Improvements to Plowman & Sons, authorized Mayor to execute agreement; Accepted improvements under Contract 84-2, 1983-84 Sidewalk Repair Program, authorized final payment to Ambo Concrete in the amount of $8,824.00, and authorized a budget transfer in the amount of $5,700 to the 1983-84 budget; Warrant Register in the amount of $109,175.65. NOISE George delaCruz, Sutton Lane addressed the Council with an ongoing problem of noise coming from the location of the AM/PM Mini-Mart on Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard. Cm. Jeffery questioned if an owner of a property could be ticketed for noise coming from his property. Lt. Shores indicated he would check with the City Attorney. Mayor Snyder felt the City should meet with the property owner. City Manager Ambrose indicated that Staff would work with the City Attorney in an effort to outline some type of alternatives to relieve this situation. The information would be presented at the Council meeting of August 13th. CM-3-149 Regular Meeting July 23, 1984 PUBLIC HEARING BARRATT SAN JOSE TENTATIVE'MAP APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL On April 18, 1983, the Planning Commission approved the Barratt San Jose Tentative Map in conjunction with recommending approval for the Barratt San Jose Planned Development Rezoning. The Silvert.ree Homeowner's Association appealed the Planning Commission approval of the Tentative Map. On May 23, 1983, the City Council heard the Planned Development Rezoning and Tentative Map applications. The City Council continued the matters so that the San Ramon Road Specific Plan could be prepared. After adoption of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan, the applicant revised his proposal. On February 6, 1984, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the Planned Development Rezoning. On April 23, 1984, the City Council approved the Rezoning. At this time, the applicant is requesting approval of the Tentative Map which is consistent with the approved Planned Development. At the applicant's request, the City Council has allowed the application to include about 0.7 acres of City property. The applicant has submitted a formal offer for the property. The sale of the City property should be completed before the Final Map is submitted. The sale of City property, however, was handled as a separate action apart from the Tentative Map. Cm. Vonheeder questioned the timing of the approval of the Tentative Map before agreeing to sell the property. Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Cm. Hegarty questioned the wording in #13 related to the fault zone, and wanted to make sure everything was in agreement with what was discussed at the recent General Plan Hearing, specifically related to disclosure. Cm. Jeffery indicated she would like to see this written in the deed so that it passes from owner to owner. Planning Director Tong stated that, in accordance with #21, each purchaser must sign a statement indicating that they are aware of the fault zone. Cm. Hegarty expressed concern related to the timing of when the composition of the wall along San Ramon Road would be discussed. It was clarified that the Council would review this at the time of the Site Development Review. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the $25,000 mentioned with regard to the traffic signal represented the total amount or if this was Barratt's 1,/4 share. It was clarified that the total signal would cost approximately $100,000 and 1/4 of that amount would be paid by Barratt. Nate Meeks, representing Barratt San Jose was present at the meeting, along with Rod Andrade from MacKay & Somps. CM-3-150 Regular Meeting July 23, 1984 The Silvertree Homeowner's Association, the appellant, had no representative at the meeting. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 69 - 84 APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 5131 CONCERNING PA 82-033 BARRATT SAN JOSE EARL ANTHONY BOWL PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On June 25, 1984, the City Council heard the appeal of the Planning commission action on PA 84-024 Earl Anthony Bowl Site Development Review Modification. The City Council continued the item and directed staff to 1) determine how much signage could be placed on the building and 2) gather background material related to the County's 1976 Site Development approval. On July 9, 1984, at the applicant's request, the City Council continued the item until July 23, 1984. Potential Siqnage on Buildinq The Zoning Ordinance provides for up to 600 square feet of signage for the Bowling Alley, with certain restrictions on the amount of signage for each side of the building and the amount of signage on a free standing sign. The Zoning Ordinance further provides that the Site Development Review for the Bowling Alley shall consider the location, size, height, material and lighting on the signs. 1976 Alameda County Site Development Review Approval The Site Development Review proposal that was approved by Alameda County in September 1976 did not contain a sign program. In approving the Site Development Review, the County applied a Condition which required: "all signing to be in conformance with the Dublin Regional Center Design Policy and the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance. No free standing signs will be allowed. All building mounted signs subject to Planning Director approval prior to obtaining a building permit." Basically, the Dublin Regional Center Design Policy provided that all building-mounted signs be mounted below the roofline and take up no more than 5% of the total area of the building elevation they are mounted on. In February 1977, the County approved wall signs with a total of 348 square feet. Regular Meeting CM-3-151 July 23, 1984 The applicant proposed a 15 foot high, 80 square foot double faced free standing sign at the northeastern corner of the site with a 25 foot setback from the street right of way and 45 feet from the northern property line. The wall signs on the north elevation remain. Those signs on the east and west elevations have been removed. The applicant has not indicated whether the wall signs on the east and west side of the building will be replaced. The Planning Director and then on appeal, the Planning Commission, conditionally approved a free standing low-profile sign rather than the proposed taller and larger sign. The low profile sign had the following restrictions: 1) Maximum sign area = 24 square feet. 2) Maximum sign height = 6 feet. The precise location of the low profile sign along the street frontage was not specified but staff felt that the best location for a low profile sign would be outside of the 30 foot sight distance triangle just south of the main entrance to the Bowling Alley. At this location, the sign could fit between the mature alder trees, underneath the existing tree canopy, and still be visible from vehicles approaching the main entrance along Regional Street. On July 19, 1984, the applicant phoned the Staff and proposed an alternative monument sign which would be slightly taller and slightly larger than a low profile sign. The proposed monument sign would have a maximum height of 8', a maximum length of 7', and a maximum double-faced area of 42 sq ft. The sign would be located just south of the main entrance to the bowling alley, with clearance for vehicular safety. Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. George Lane, representing aActive Signs addressed the Council. A drawing of the proposed sign was presented. Concern was expressed that the cement block base would block the view of motorists. Mr. Lane explained that there was a 30' set back. Mr. Lane questioned the possibility of having 50' of red curb painted so as not to block the view of the sign by vehicles. It was explained that this would be a separate matter and would necessitate a public hearing. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 70 - 84 UPHOLDING THE pLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A LOW-PROFILE, MONUMENT SIGN WITH MINOR REVISIONS AS A MODIFICATION TO A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AT 6750 REGIONAL STREET Voting NO on this motion was Cm. Jeffery. CM-3-152 Regular Meeting July 23, 1984 PUBLIC HEARING DOUGHERTY ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY & PLAN LINE The purpose of this study was to identify needed safety and capacity improvements and to accept a preliminary plan line on Dougherty Road between Dublin Boulevard and the northern City limits. The plan line will reflect these improvements graphically and will establish a basis for identifying future capital improvement projects. The right of way is proposed at 110 feet with a four lane divided roadway expandable to 6 lanes by removing the outside parking/bike lanes. The right of way is envisioned to flair out at Amador Valley Boulevard intersection for a double left turn lane and at Dublin Boulevard for additional turn lanes. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the City of San Ramon had been contacted regarding their thoughts on this issue. Staff indicated that San Ramon and Contra Costa County had been sent copies of the traffic study. Mayor Snyder opened the public_ hearing. Arnold Durrer questioned 4 lanes versus 6 lanes on part of the road. He felt it should all be widened to 6 lanes initially. The City Engineer explained that it would all be 6 lanes in width, but the striping on some parts would be 4 lanes plus bike lanes. Fred Houston, representing the American City Truck Stop expressed concern with the fact that the ultimate plan allowed for no left turn access from the truck stop onto Dougherty Road. Discussion was held related to the interim plan versus the ultimate plan at such time that development occurs along Dougherty Road. Captain Buzan, representing Camp Parks discussed the possible use of an alternate exit from Camp Parks. Mr. Buzan indicated the Army would be willing to consider using this alternate location as a main entrance and use the existing entrance as a secondary one. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, 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. CM-3-153 Regular Meeting July 23, 1984 PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN EXTENSION On June 25, 1984, the City Council authorized Staff to request a General Plan extension from the Director of the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR). On July 17, 1984, the City Council directed Staff to draft an appropriate resolution requesting a one year extension from OPR. At the same time, the City Council made a commitment to complete the General Plan within 90 days if at all possible. Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. No public comments were made. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 71 - 84 REQUESTING GENERAL PLAN EXTENSION SCA 23 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FROM LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES The League of California Cities has mailed a special notice to cities in districts of Assembly members on the Ways and Means Committee. This constitutional amendment would serve to protect the vehicle license fee as a local revenue. Under the current system which provides statuatory provision, the Legislature can change the formula for distributing the fees or eliminate their return to local governments. This has been the case when the State has found a budget shortfall and required additional revenues. As a constitutional amendment, the measure would be placed before the voters. This is an important step to create a stable source of revenues for local governments. Assemblyman Baker is a member of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee which is scheduled to hear this legislation in mid-August. It is recommended that the City Council direct the Mayor to notify Assemblyman Baker and the members of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee of the City's position. A proposed letter was drafted for Council consideration. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed that the drafted letter be sent to Assemblyman Baker and members of the AsSembly Ways and Means Committee. Cm. Jeffery suggested also sending a copy to the League. CM-3-154 Regular Meeting July 23, 1984 SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY TO BARRATT SAN JOSE As part of a revised Barratt San Jose proposal for 88 condominium dwelling units' (48 "townhouses" and 40 condos"), the applicant asked the City to enter into negotiations for the sale of the land adjacent to San Ramon Road south of Silvergate Drive. On December 12, 1983, the City Council directed Staff to enter into negotiations and gave the applicant permission to incorporate City right of way in their revised proposal. After the public hearing before the Planning Commission, the City Council approved a revised 84 dwelling Unit Planned Development Rezoning on March 12, 1984. On April 23, 1984, the City Council adopted the Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance for the rezoning. Condition #2 of the Resolution approving the rezoning states: "Acquisition of the City owned property proposed for inclusion in this project shall be completed before any permits can be issued for or physical work started on the subject property." Condition #1 of the draft resolution approving the Tentative Map states: "Prior to filing the Final Map, or grading approval being given, the City owned property shown within the proposed project shall be acquired from the City." In order for the City Council to consider selling the surplus property to Barratt San Jose~ the Staff recommended that the following procedures be used: 1) Adopt a resolution establishing surplus property and directing Staff to notify appropriate agencies (such as East Bay Regional Parks District and State Resources Agency); 2) After expiration of the response period (not to exceed 60 days) the City Council must adopt a resolution of intention to sell the City property and setting a public hearing date to discuss the sale of the property; 3) Take action on the sale of surplus property at the established hearing. City Attorney Nave discussed the timing of this procedure. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 72 - 84 ESTABLISHING SURPLUS PROPERTY AND DIRECTING STAFF TO NOTIFY APPROPRIATE AGENCIES CM-3-155 Regular Meeting July 23, 1984 ACTEB/ACAP JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT At its meeting of March 26, 1984, the Dublin City Council rescinded a resolution which it previously adopted approving an amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement for participation in the Alameda County Training and Employment Board (ACTEB)/Associated Community Action Program (ACAP). This action was taken by the City Council to reduce the City's potential liability stemming from a lawsuit brought by the City of Berkeley against the Alameda County Training and Employment Board and all of its members. This lawsuit resulted from a dispute between the City of Berkeley and the Alameda County Training and Employment Board over the amount of funding that the City of Berkeley was to receive from this program and also the question of Berkeley's ability to become a member of the Board. Over the last several months, the City of Berkeley and representatives from the Alameda County Training and Employment Board have negotiated a resolution to this dispute. This resolution is reflected in a "Side Agreement" on which the City of Berkeley and ACTEB have agreed. There have also been changes to the Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement which reflect Berkeley's status in the Consortium. The settlement between ACTEB and Berkeley does not effect the allocation to the Valley Cities, with the exception of the loss of one vote by the City of Livermore on the ACTEB Board. As indicated in the Staff Report in March of this year, this Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement will update the language of the JPA in order to more accurately reflect the agency's funding sources. The Amendment will also include the City of Dublin as well as all other member governments as official signatories to the JPA. This Amendment will also combine the current separate ACTEB and ACAP JPA's into one consolidated agreement which more accurately reflects the fact that ACTEB/ACAP is one, not two, agencies. Since the problem with the City of Berkeley has been resolved and further, that this program does provide services to residents of the Valley, it is Staff's recommendation that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute the Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement. Cm. Moffatt explained that Dublin's liability would be 2 votes out of 100 or 2%. On motion of Cm. Mcffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 73 - 84 APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY TRAINING & EMPLOYMENT BOARD/ASSOCIATED COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CM-3-156 Regular Meeting July 23, 1984 PARK DEDICATION FUND POLICY Prior to incorporation, the County of Alameda functioned as the Planning Agency for the Dublin area. As part of its development review process and in accordance with the County's Subdivision Ordinance, the County required residential developers to either dedicate land for park purposes or pay fees in lieu of land dedication as a condition of development. Lands were dedicated and fees paid to the agency responsible for parks and recreation in the Dublin area, which was the Dublin San Ramon Services District. This practice continued after incorporation until the City Council determined that it was appropriate for the City to provide recreation services to residents,-and the City Council furt'her determined to revise the City's Subdivision Ordinance to provide that park dedication and park in-lieu fees would be paid to the City on all residential developments approved by the City after the effective date of the ordinance. As of June 30, 1984, the City presently has $489,990 in park in-lieu fees and a commitment from the developer of Amador Lakes to refurbish the tennis courts, lighting and adjacent landscaping at a cost not to exceed $50,000. The Dublin San Ramon Services District has $167,346 in park in-lieu fees as of June 30, 1984. Since the amendment of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, the City Council also directed Staff to work out a policy with the Dublin San Ramon Services District regarding the expenditure of park in-lieu fees. Staff has met with the General Manager of DSRSD and has drafted the attached policy for City Council consideration. Staff did not provide in the policy document for the input of the Park & Recreation Commission regarding desired improvements on District facilities prior to District and City Staff meeting because it has no bearing on the City's relationship with the District, but is rather part of the City's internal decision making process. It is Staff's recommendation that the Park & Recreation Commission, prior to January 1st of each year, provide the City Council with a list of desired park facility improvements, whether they are on City, DSRSD or School District property. This will provide suffici'ent time to undertake the negotiation process with DSRSD Staff prior to the formulation .of each agency's annual budget. The policy has been reviewed by the Park & Recreation Commission. The Commission at its meeting of July 17, 1984 recommended that language be added to the policy that representatives from the School Districts be included in discussion where applicable. Since this is a policy that addresses how park in-lieu fees are to be spent and on DSRSD and t'he City have responsibility for these fees, it does not seem appropriate to include language in the policy which would provide the School Districts with input on how moneys which belong to their agencies are spent. Further, any proposed expenditure of park in-lieu fees on School District property would have to be agreed upon by the appropriate School District prior to the City and DSRSD meeting to discuss priorities for the expenditure of. those funds. The DSRSD General Manager concur.s with the position of the City Staff. CM-3-157 Regular Meeting July 23, 1984 Cm. Jeffery questioned situations where the City is considering making improvements on school sites. Cm..Vonheeder questioned if the City had to wait until January 1st to do anything with the in-lieu fees. It was indicated that the City has already proceeded with improvements to Kolb Park. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the policy and directed Staff to forward its recommendation to the Dublin San Ramon Services District for consideration. STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT One year ago, the City Council formed a Citywide Street Lighting Assessment District to replace the County's Lighting Service Area (as promised at incorporation). It was decided in 1983-84 to levy a zero assessment due to pending litigation in San Jose and to stay with the County Service Area for an additional year. The assessment now being considered will replace the County Service Area charges, however, the County has been requested to again levy a zero assessment in 1984-85. This will keep open the option of returning to the Service Area should the new Jarvis initiative require the dissolution of the City of Dublin Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District. The District diagram and method of determining assessments remains the same as the previous year. Alternative A and B are included as the cost esti- mates and are different in that Alternate B assumes that the City would absorb the 1983-84 costs for setting up the District from General fund monies. The costs identified in Alternative A are $10,000 less than the budgeted costs for 1983-84. Alternative B costs are $33,500 less than last year. This is primarily due to a ?G&E rate reduction. This reduction and the fact that the Dublin formula is more beneficial to residential and small commercial lots than the County's formula, will reduce a single family rate from approximately $24/year to about $19/year for Alternate A and about $16/year for Alternate B. The County Assessor has not completed updating the tax rolls and this preliminary Engineer's Report is based on the 1983-84 tax roll, with the understanding that the City will have the roll in time for the Council meeting of August 13, 1984. The County has given the City until this date to approve the assessments. To proceed with this District, the Council must preliminarily approve the attached Engineer's Report and set August 13, 1984 as a public hearing to present and set the proposed assessments. CM-3-158 Regular Meeting July 23, 1984 It has also been recommended by the District Counsel that the City pay the lighting costs out of the General Fund and put the collected revenues in a trust fund pending the outcome of the Jarvis initiative in November. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed on Alternate B, established a public hearing date of August 13, 1984, and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 74 - 84 PRELIMINARILY APPROVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, DECLARING INTENTION TO ORDER LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF HEARING THEREOF CITY OF DUBLIN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT TRANSIT AUTHORITY JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT & BYLAWS (JEPA) The Pleasanton/Dublin Transit Study Policy Committee has developed a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) and Bylaws for consideration by each agency's Council/Board. The major features of these documents, along with the recommendations of Councilmember Jeffery and the City Manager were identified for the Council. City Attorney Nave felt that the agreement, as submitted was unworkable. Mr. Nave indicated he and the City Attorneys from Livermore and Pleasanton were working on cleaning up the language of the document to make it a more workable agreement. City Attorney Nave indicated he had sent for and received a copy of the agreement used in the Monterey/Salinas JPA and he felt that with minor modifications, it addresses most of the issues. City Attorney Nave pointed out some of the inadequacies, i.e. Dublin would be financially locked in, even if we wanted to get out. The Council directed Staff and the City Attorney to bring back the revised draft JPA and present it to the Council for consideration at their regular meeting on August 27, 1984. CM-3-159 Regular Meeting July 23, 1984 REVISION OF ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES The present procedure was adopted by the City Council on November 14, 1983, and provided that enforcement would be primarily on a complaint basis. This resulted in problems whereby visible and obvious similar zoning violations in the immediate vicinity of another zoning violation would not be investigated because a complaint had not been registered. Under .the revised procedures, it is proposed to investigate all similar violations that are visible from the site where a complaint is being investigated. It is also proposed to investigate any similar violations pointed out to the investigator. Under the present procedures, enforcement actions are suspended after an application for Variance, Conditional Use Permit or other administrative remedy has been filed. It is proposed to revise this procedure so that enforcement actions are not suspended where compliance can be obtained with minimal effort or expenses, such as the removal of temporary signs, banners and the elimination of outdoor display of merchandise. In many instances the merchandise is moved into the building each night. Staff believes this type of violation should not be allowed to continue just because an application for approval of this activity is in process. Discussion was held related to the wording on page 4 of the procedures with regard to written notices in emergency situations. Consensus was that elimination of the word "written" would clarify the intent. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 75 - 84 ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ZONING, BUILDING, AND HOUSING VIOLATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION WORK WITHOUT PERMITS ADOPTION OF JOB CLASSIFICATIONS During the 1984-85 budget process, the City Council appropriated funds for the addition of two full-time positions and one part-time position. Pursuant to the Personnel' System Rules, appropriate job descriptions must be adopted. The proposed resolution contains a job description for each of the following positions: Crime Prevention Assistant (Part-Time), Recreation Supervisor and Senior Planner. These are consistent with the needs of the organization and related jobs in other municipal agencies. CM-3-160 Regular Meeting July 23, 1984 On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 76 - 84 AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN Mayor Snyder requested that Staff prepare a table of organization chart with names for the Council. ESTABLISHMENT OF SALARY RANGES FOR NEWLY AUTHORIZED POSITIONS In conjunction with the development of the 1984-85 budget, the City Council approved the addition of the following positions: Recreation Supervisor, Senior Planner and Crime Prevention Assistant (Part-Time). In accordance with the Personnel System Rules adopted by the City Council, it is necesary to establish a salary range for each position. Staff has taken into consideration salaries paid to similar positions in comparable municipal agencies. The recommended salaries have also been developed to provide adequate separation between positions within the City of Dublin's organization. The approval of a salary range will allow Staff to proceed with the recruitment process pursuant to the PerSonnel System Rules. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and bY unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 77 - 84 AMENDING THE SALARY AND BENEFIT PLAN FIXING EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION UNDER THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICKL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT At its regular meeting of March 26, 1984, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 32-84, Electing to be Subject to Public Employees Medical Care Act and Fixing the Employer's Contribution. The effective date was established as May 1, 1984. Due to the City's entry into the program late in the fiscal year, it was anticipated that a premium increase would be received. Attached is a listing of the changes for insurance programs offered by PERS. The employees will also receive additional choices through the offering of new plans. It is recommended that the City Council authorize a maximum contribution of $224 per month. This will provide a wide range of options for employees. With the City's current 11 authorized full-time positions under the proposed $224 limit, the City's maximum liability is $2,464/month plus contingency CM-3-161 Regular Meeting July 23, 1984 fees. Based on the actual demographics of the organization and assuming the maximum amount for vacant positions, the actual premium cost is approxi- mately $1,915/month'. This is approximately 29% less than the total potential liability. The proposed change would be effective September 1, 1984. The proposed contribution of $224 per month will cover~ the cost of Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance for an employee and one dependant. If an employee selects a plan costing more than this amount, the elnployee will pay the difference. The City has also been advised that the contingency fees for 1984-85 have been reduced from 3.5% to 2.7%. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote,~, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 78 - 84 FIXING THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION UNDER THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT and authorized a transfer from the Contingent Reserve in the amount of $2,475. RECREATION PROGRAM AND FEE POLICY In order to facilitate the administrative processes relating to the development of recreational services, it has been recognized by Staff that a guiding policy regulating the future development of programs and their related fees is necessary. The concept was presented to the Park & Recreation Commission on July 17, 1984 and they have endorsed the policy to require City Council approval of any subsidized programs not indicated in the annual bUdget prior to the development of said programs. If a policy of this nature is not adopted, the operation of the Recreation Department will become quite cumbersome due to the need for City Council approval of individual programs and classes already indicated in the annual budget. The adoption of this policy will allow for the efficient development of programs and services with appropriate review by the Park & Recreation Commission and City Council as required. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 79 - 84 ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATION PROGRAMS AND ASSOCIATED FEES CM-3-162 Regular Meeting July 23, 1984 SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL CAPACITY In 1974 the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) formed the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Authority (LAVWMA), a joint powers agency, for the purpose of implementing a sewage disposal system and, if necessary, sewage treatment. The joint powers agreement, as amended May 31, 1977, provided that the disposal system's maximum capacity would be 15.62 million gpd. In the event there was excess capacity in the 15.62 million gpd, the joint powers agreement-allowed the original member agencies to purchase any unused capacity up to 1 million gpd. The City of Pleasanton was guaranteed 500,000 gpd of the unused capacity (Para. XIA(8)). The joint powers agreement further provided' that such unused capacity could be purchased for "industrial (including non-retail commercial) purposes" but only after voter approval of the purchasing entities' electorate. In February, 1980, after Pleasanton had requested its additional 500,000 gpd, Livermore requested the right to purchase the remaining 500,000 gpd of the unused sewer capacity in LAVWMA's sewage disposal system. At the LAVWMA Board meeting of March 20, 1980, the Board discussed the allocation of the 500,000 gpd unused capacity. Because DSRSD, as a community services district created under the provision of Government Code Section 61000, et seq., lacked land use authority (i.e., zoning authority), and lacked statuatory authority to acquire sewage capacity for a specific use, DSRSD turned to the County of Alameda for advice. The County indicated to the LAVWMA Board that it sought to acquire 100,000 gdp of the unused capacity for the unincorporated area of Alameda County within DSRSD's boundaries. The LAVWMA Board voted to authorize Livermore to acquire 400,000 gpd and DSRSD to acquire 100,000 gpd. (LAVWMA minutes of March 20, 1980.) Voter approval of the purchase of the 100,000 gpd was required by the LAVWMA joint powers agreement. The County of Alameda requested DSRSD to call a district-wide advisory election for the November, 1980 election. The question submitted to the voters within DSRSD was: "Shall the County of Alameda acquire from the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency 100,000 gallons of additional pipeline capacity for industrial (including non-retail commercial) uses to serve that portion of the County of Alameda lying within the Dublin San Ramon Services District? All cos'ts relating to such expansion for private use shall be paid by private developers with no cost to the taxpayer." The Board of Supervisors' ordinance (Ord. No. 80-77, Section V) calling the election noted that DSRSD was entitled to acquire the 100,000 gpd for industrial purposes, but Alameda County proposed to acquire the 100,000 gpd capacity through DSRSD because DSRSD lacked the power to industrially zone real property within its jurisdiction. (Only DSRSD, Livermore and Pleasanton were authorized, pursu&nt to the LAVWMA joing powers agreement, to purchase the 1 million gpd unused sewer capacity. Hence DSRSD purchased the 100,000 gpd capacity on behalf of Alameda County.) CM-3-163 Regular Meeting July 23, 1984 By agreement dated September 11, 1980, between LAVWMA and DSRSD, DSRSD purchased 100,000 gpd of unused sewer capacity in LAVWMA's pipeline (Article 1). The purchase of the unused capacity was subject to voter approval by the DSRSD electorate (Article 5). The agreement contemplated that DSRSD would sell its right to the 10,000 gpd to Alameda County due to DSRSD's lack of land use controls (Article 10). Provision was made for DSRSD to pay all costs associated with the increased sewer capacity in LAVWMA's disposal facilities (Article 2). The voters of DSRSD approved the purchase of the 100,000 gpd capacity in November, 1980. By agreement dated June 2, 1981, and amended on January 18, 1983, between DSRSD and the County of Alameda,. the District (DSRSD) agreed to expand its sewage treatment plant to accommodate the additional 100,000 gpd disposal capacity and agreed to reserve 100,000 gpd of treatment capacity "for users to be designated by County". (Sections 1 and 2) DSRSD agreed .to enter into all necessary agreements with LAVWMA to obtain 100,000 gpd "added capacity in LAVWMA facilities for County's users within the District", and County agreed to pay its proportionate share (i.e., 10%) of LAVWMA's costs incurred in connection with the additional 1 million gpd (Pleasanton 500,000, Livermore 400,000 and DSRSD/Coun~y 100,000) capacity. At the time of this agreement (June 2r 1981) Dublin was not yet incorporated, hence the reference to "County's users within the District" encompassed the area now within 'the City of Dublin. DSRSD thus purchased the right to the 100,000 gpd sewer disposal capacity from LAVWMA with the restriction that it was limited to territory within DSRSD and for industrial (including non-retail commercial) uses. (At that time Dublin was not incorporated. The territory now within Dublin was, of course, the major portion of the area within DSRSD.) DSRSD then agreed with Alameda County to (1) expand the District's sewage treatment plant to accommodate the 100,000 gpd and reserve the additional 100,000 treatment capacity for users designated by Alameda County, and (2) enter into all necessary agreements with LAVWMA to obtain the additional 100,000 gpd disposal capacity "for County's users within the District". (The September 11, 1980, agreement between LAVWMA and DSRSD required written consent of LAVWMA to assign it. Alameda County agreed to pay its proportionate costs for the expanded sewage treatment directly to DSRSD. The county agreed to reimburse DSRSD for its costs (payable by DSRSD to LAVWMA) for the additional 100,000 gpd disposal capacity. During 1983, the expansion of the 'DSRSD treatment plant was completed. The total cost to the County for its share of the expansion and the additional disposal capacity is broken down as follows: Treatment Plant Expansion $330,287.95 Export System Expansion 149,0.88.27 $479,376.22 CM-3-164 Regular Meeting July 23, 1984 It was the understanding of all parties involved at the time of the advisory election that the additional 100,000 gallons for industrial (non-retail commercial) sewage capacity was to be used for the in-fill of Dublin. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed that the City would offer the County $479,376.22 plus interest for the period in which the expense had been incurred. OTHER BUSINESS City Manager Ambrose indicated to the Council that Staff had not had a chance to prepare the necessary information and therefore, there would be no closed session at this meeting. Arroyo Vista Mayor Snyder indicated he had recently communicated with the Mayor of Pleasanton regarding the operation of Arroyo Vista and the possibility of Dublin taking over this operation. There would be many legalities to consider on the parts of both Dublin and Pleasanton. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the City Attorney to proceed with investigating the various legalities related to Dublin taking over the operation of Arroyo Vista. Alameda County Transit Committee Cm. Jeffery reported that she had attended the Alameda County Transit Committee meeting. The intent of the County was to make all members aware of projects going on in all communities. League Board Meeting Cm. Vonheeder indicated she had recently attended the League of California Cities East Bay Division Board meeting. Cities were asked to draft a resolution re SCA 23. A list of nominations for the East Bay Division officers was presented. At the October meeting, there will be a Jarvis initiative forum meeting. Cable TV Cm. Hegarty indicated he had attended~the Cable TV meeting on July 18th. Another meeting has been scheduled with the Consultant and the Advisory Committee. CM-3-165 Regular Meeting July 23, 1984 League Conference/Anaheim/September Cm. Vonheeder questi'oned if the Council planned to attend the annual League conference being held in Anaheim in September. All Councilmembers indicated they would most likely attend. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. Mayor City CM-3-166 Regular Meeting July 23, 1984