Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-13-1984 REGULAR MEETING - August 13, 1984 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, August 13, 1984 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Peter Snyder. ROLL CALL PRESENT~ Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt, and Mayor Snyder. ABSENT: Councilmember Vonheeder. 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. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, (Cm. Vonheeder absent), the following were approved: Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 23, 1984; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 80 - 84 ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 4859; Accepted improvements under Contract 83-2 and authorized final payment to Rosendin Electric, Inc., in the amount of $7,454.51; Accepted improvements under Contract 84-1 and authorized final payment to P & F Construction, Inc., in the amount of $7,315.87; Approved the format of the comprehensive traffic engineering study related to the Office of Traffic Safety Grant and authorized Staff to distribute RFP to engineering firms; and Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $103,854.43. PUBLIC HEARING WILLIAM McCARTNEY VARIANCE - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL In August, 1983, the McCartney's acquired the property at 7650 Canterbury court. Apparently, an enclosed patio had been previously installed without building permits. In September, 1983, the Building Inspector noticed that both the house and the patio were being remodeled without building permits. A Stop Wor~ Order was issued for both the house remodeling and patio/room addition. A building permit was issued for 'ahe house remodeling, but no permi~ was issued for the patio/room addition. The applicant was told that a variance would have to be granted prior to a building permit issued for the room addition. CM-3-167 Regular Meeting August 13, 1984 In February, 19~4, the Zoning Administrator held~ a public hearing on the variance application. Because the required findings could not be made, the Zoning Administrator denied the application. In June, 1984, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the appeal. The applicant failed to a~tend. The Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Administrator's action and denied the variance application. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission action to the City Council. On August 3, 1984, Staff met with Mrs. McCartney and discussed the variance application. Staff reviewed the findings required in order to grant a variance and the determinations by the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission that the required findings could not be made. staff reviewed three options which would be consistent with the Zoning regulations. The McCartney's are requesting a variance to allow a 14' 9" x 21' 8" room addition with a 5 %' rear yard where the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20' rear yard. State and City Zoning laws allow a variance to be granted only when the following three findings are made: 1) there is an unusual physical characteristic on the property, 2) the variance would not be a grant of special privileges, and 3) the variance would not be detrimental to property or public welfare. The Zoning Administrator and then, on appeal, the Planning Commission determined that the required findings could not be made and therefore denied the variance. Staff has identified three options which would be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance allows a 10' rear yard if there are compensating side yards. Based on a sketch plan prepared by Staff, and subject to field verification, a room addition of about 21' 8" x 8' or a room addition of 17' 9" x 10' could be allowed. A third option is to change the room addition back to a patio accessory structure. Each of the options would require structural alterations. Staff recommended that the City Council uphold the Zoning Administrator's and Planning Commission's action, deny the variance application, and request the applicant to work with Staff on one of the three options. Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Ms. McCartney addressed the Council and asked for consideration to allow the building to remain. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Moffatt questioned what legal recourse the McCartneys would have if their variance were denied. City Attorney Nave felt the McCartneys would have some legal recourse against the contractor and possibly against the real estate agency who sold them the house. CM-3-168 Regular Meeting August 13, 1984 A short recess was called to allow the City Attorney to obtain certain information. Mayor Snyder stated that, regarfdless of individual' feelings on the matter, the Council must follow state law in processing the variance application. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded.by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Vonheeder absent), the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 82 - 84 DENYING PA 83-060 WILLIAM McCARTNEY VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A ROOM ADDITION IN A REQUIRED YARD AREA PUBLIC HEARING HOTEL/MOTEL TAX This ordinance provides for the imposition of a tax on transients for the privilege of occupancy in any hotel within the City of Dublin. It is proposed that a tax of 6 1/2% of the amount of rent charged by the operator be imposed. At present the City of Dublin is the only valley city which does not have such a tax. Shown below is a list of the valley communities which presently impose a transient occupancy tax and the corresponding amount of tax. Danville 6 1/2%; Livermore 8%; Pleasanton 8%; San Ramon 6 1/2% Although several cities impose a tax of 8% it is Staff's position that 6 1,/2% is a more appropriate rate since it is equal to the present sales tax levied in the City. This tax would not affect residents, but only those individuals traveling through Dublin who use the services of a hotel. Since hotels do not usually quote taxes as part of their room rental rates, this tax should not impact a hotel's aOility to be coinpetitive with other hotels in the area. Cm. Jeffery asked for clarification with regard to the section of the ordinance related to exemptions. Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Johnson Clark, Managing Partner of Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge addressed the City Council and introduced Don Sullivan, the Manager. Mr. Clark expressed concern in that those people affected, the transients, were not represented at the meeting. Mr. Clark questioned the necessity for this tax in light of the fact that Dublin has a huge surplus of funds. Mr. Clark suggested that instead of the proposed 6½%, 5% be considered. Mr. Sullivan suggested the concept of setting a flat rate. This has worked out quite well in places such as Manhattan, where they have a $2.00 flat rate per room per night. CM-3-169 Regular Meeting August 13, 1984 Discussion was held with regard to the definition of transient. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Hegarty addressed the 6½% rate vs an 8% rate, and suggested going with an 8% tax. Cm. Jeffery stated she felt very strongly that there was no need to go above the 6½% rate. Discussion of hotel/motel was discussed as was the possibility of apartments being rented for overnight usage. Cm. Moffatt felt an 8% rate should be considered. Mayor Snyder indicated he supported the 8% rate. City Attorney Nave reported that in order to adopt the ordinance related to this matter, it required a 4,/5 vote. Cm. Hegarty made a motion to adopt an 8% tax. The motion was seconded by Cm. Moffatt. Following discussion related to the required 4,/5 vote, Cm. Hegarty withdrew his motion, and Cm. Moffatt withdrew his second to the motion. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Vonheeder absent), the Council agreed to continue this item until the City Council meeting of September 10, 1984. PUBLIC HEARING 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. I.t was decided in 1983-84 that the City should 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. The County has been requested to levy a zero assessment in 1984-85 on behalf of Dublin in the County Service Area. 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. The Council has preliminarily approved the Alternate B cost estimate in which the City absorbs the 1983-84 costs for setting up the District from the General Fund (approximately $22,000). CM-3-170 Regular Meeting August 13, 1984 The Street Light Assessment District Budget is $33,500 less than last year. this is primarily due to a PG&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 $16/year. The County Assessor has now completed updating the tax rolls and this Engineer's Report is based on this new 1984-85 tax roll. It has been recommended by the District Counsel and approved by the City Council 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 1984. Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. No written protests were received. No oral protests were made. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 81 - 84 APPROVING ENGINEER's REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING LEVY OF ASSESSMENT CITY OF DUBLIN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AM/PM MINI-MART NOISE 'The City Attorney and Police Chief were direCted to study methods to curb the neighborhood disturbances which apparently occur periodically at the AM/PM Mini-Mart. Evidence suggests that the operators have attempted to discourage problems by employing private patrolmen to m.onitor the parking lot. The service station portion of the use operates under a Conditional Use Permit (C-1788) issued by Alameda County in September, 1967. Condition No. 2 of the CUP states "said use shall be limited to a gasoline service station for only the sale of gasoline, oil and minor accessories." The CUP is subject to revocation for cause by the Planning Commission. The CUP did not have an expiration date. In May of 1981, Alameda County issued a building permit and zoning approval to convert the use into a convenience store with a gas station. The convenience store was, at that time, approved as a permitted use. Thus, the convenience store portion of the AM/PM Mini-Mart does not operate under a conditional use permit. Therefore, the City cannot impose conditions regulating hours of operation. Imposition of hours of operation on the business by ordinance might, in the opinion of the City Attorney, be unconstitutional on due process and equal protection grounds. CM-3-171 Regular Meeting August 13, 1984 Staff has identified two (2) options for addressing the issue: Option 1: Inasmuch as some of the problems stem from drinking in vehicles in the store ~Parking lot, an ordinance prohibiting this activity might curb the problem. Attached is such an ordinance for your consideration. Option 2; A general regulation of the Zoning Ordinance states that no use shall be approved which involves noise, other than related to transportation activities or temporary construction work, which is discernible without instruments at any lot line of the building site. The Zoning Ordinance and CUP provide that whenever a use covered by a zoning approval or CUP is found to be exercised contrary to any condition or regulation or exercised as to constitute a nuisance or to be detrimental to the public health or safety, the Building Official shall report the matter to the Zoning Administrator. After a hearing, the Zoning Administrator (or Planning Commission) may revoke such zoning approval or CUP unless it is so altered to eliminate the cause for revocation. The City would have to find that the complaint was related to the service station use rather than the AM/PM Mini-Mart. If the City pursued this zoning enforcement action, it could take months or longer to resolve this problem, if at all. It was reported that this Ordinance is a feeble attempt aimed at curbing noise. It would be very difficult to enforce. City Attorney Nave indicated that he had spoken with 4 other city Attorneys, and none were able to suggest a resolution to this problem. If you restrict the hours of operation of a business, you could possibly get into a situation where it appears that you are singling out that business, which could have legal ramifications. Lt. Tom Shores reported that he had assigned a Police Cadet to collect and report statistical information on two recent Friday and Saturday nights. Lt. Shores suggested that perhaps public lots could be posted with no drinking in parking lot signs. Cm. Jeffery questioned the effect that such an ordinance would have on fairs and carnivals which are held in parking lots where beer and wine are sold. It was reported that it would have no effect of this type of activity, as fairs and carnivals are held with the permission of the property owner. Mr. deiaCruz addressed the Council and stated he was very frustrated with the lack of results he is getting from the City, and further, that he doesn't have the funds to sue. Mr. delaCruz stated, however, private redress may be his only solution. Mr. Ron Teutsch, owner of the AM/PM Mini-Mart addressed the Council, stating he felt he was being held solely and unfairly responsible for all of the noise and activity at the major intersection of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard. Mr. Teutsch stated he felt the security guard helped somewhat, but he could not afford to employ a guard full time. Mr. Teutsch stated his business has supported and sponsored many civic activities in the 14 years they have been at that location. He recently accepted a very high award as being ARCO's number one producing store. Mr. Teutsch indicated he would be willing to sit down with City Staff in order to try and work out some sort of solution. CM-3-172 Regular Meeting August 13, 1984 Cm. Jeffery made a motion to waive the reading and adopt an ordinance prohibiting the drinking of alocholic beverages in certain parking lots. Mayor Snyder seconded the motion. The motion was defeated due to NO votes cast by Cm. Hegarty and Cm. Moffatt (Cm. Vonheeder absent). The Council felt that Mr. Teutsch, Chief Shores and City Manager Ambrose should meet in an attempt to work out a resolution to the noise problems. Mr. delaCruz requested that he be informed of the results of the meeting. FINES & FORFEITURES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY & COUNTY Sometime ago, Staff discussed with the City Council the County of Alameda's procedure as it related to the collection of fines and forfeitures for cities. At that time it was noted that the County and Municipal Courts established a procedure, some time ago, of permitting fines to be paid through Central Collections on an installment basis instead of to the Municipal Court in one lump amount. The Municipal Court in turn placed convicted defendants on probation, even though probation did not provide supervision by a probation officer. This procedure allowed the County to retain all fines and forfeitures under the authority of Section 1203.1 of the Penal Code. This resulted in cities receiving less fines and forfeitures revenue 5han they were entitled. It's important to note that after some investigation it was determined that this procedure has been seldom practiced by the Livermore-Pleasanton Municipal Court. Over the last three (3) years, only slightly more than $3,000 for the entire District has not reached the Cities. During the last six months, the County City Attorney's and City Manager's groups have negotiated with the County over the proper accounting and distribution of each City's fine and forfeiture revenues. These negotiations have resulted in an agreement (see attached), which provides that the County will distribute to the City the City's share of fines and forfeitures collected by County Central Collections. In return the City will pay the County a 5% Administrative Fee of those fines and forfeitures returned to the City under the applicaple Section of the Penal Code, 1463. Assuming that the City of Dublin generates approximately 15% of these fines and forfeitures within the Judicial District, for the last three years, the City would have received under this agreement approximately $540 less 5% for County Administration costs in additional fines and forfeitures. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Vonheeder absent), the Council authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement, and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 83 - 84 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA RELATING TO THE COLLECTION, ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF MUNICIPAL COURT FINES CM-3-173 Regular Meeting August 13, 1984 PARADE REQUEST FOR FOUNDER's DAY FUN RUN SOROPTIMIST INTERNATIONAL Soroptimist International of Dublin has requested permission to use Dublin City streets and to block traffic at certain Dublin City street intersec- tions on September 29, 1984. The proposed event is a timed 10 Kilometer run, timed 5 Kilometer run and an untimed 5 Kilometer walk. The 10 Kilometer run will necessitate blocking traffic at Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard twice, Amador Valley Boulevard at Dougherty Road and Village Parkway at Brighton Drive. The 5 Kilometer run will necessitate blocking traffic at Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard twice. Both runs will call for additional traffic assistance at major inter- sections. Actual times of intersection blockage is unknown (depending upon number of entrees), however, it is anticipated that traffic will be stopped intermittently as runners cross intersections and then opened for traffic flow until the need arises to stop traffic for further groups of runners. In some instances, opposing traffic may be routed onto one half of a roadway allowing runners to use the other half without impeding vehicular movement. The 5 Kilometer walk restricts entrees to the sidewalks and the walk complies with any traffic controls along its route and should only De of minimal police concern. The Police Department has reviewed the proposed route and has made arrangements to have an appropriate number of volunteer police officers available to control the major traffic intersections. The Soroptimist International is furnishing experienced "Run" volunteers to man the intersections where runners could need route guidance and where very minor traffic 'control may be needed. Mayor Snyder questioned the City's responsibility and obligation in this event. Staff explained that the City had no legal obligations, but rather was cooperating with the Soropti~nists as a courtesy and it was good publicity for the City's parr and recreation department. On motion of Cm. Hegarty , seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Vonheeder absent), the Council granted the request to Soroptimist International to hold a 10K and 5K run and a 5K walk on September 29, 1984. CM-3-174 Regular Meeting August 13, 1984 LANDSCAPING OF MAJOR ARTERIALS A number of months ago, Staff brought some conceptual plans for landscaping of downtown streets before the City Council for review. The Council had generally agreed with the concept of the narrow medians along Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard being primarily landscaped with trees and decorative paving stones and where possible, pockets of shrubs and groundcover. Council had further directed Staff to deSign a more formal raised median plan on Village Parkway consisting of trees, shrubs, and groundcover (rather than grass or all shrubs). Direction was given that Staff return to the Council when the plans neared completion and that additional slides be presented depicting the types of plant materials to be used. The general theme proposed is to use deciduous trees in the median areas and along the sidewalk (street trees) on Amador Valley BOulevard and Dublin Boulevard; and evergreen trees in the raised median and deciduous trees along the sidewalk on Village Parkway. The planting of deciduous trees along sidewalks would allow pedestrian areas to receive more sun during the winter months. The narrower medians would be planted with smaller growing trees such as Crepe Myrtle. The larger canopy type trees would be planted in larger landscaped areas. The exact variety of tree may vary slightly after the horticulturist has analyzed the soil condition. Ail medians are proposed to be irrigated. The street trees will be hand watered during the summers for a few years until the roots reach down into the water table. This project is proposed to follow immediately behind the Federal Aid to Urban project to resurface the same streets over roughly the same limits. The State has made its first review of the street project plans and specifications and the Federal Government has just approved the project for funding subject to State plan approval. It is anticipated that the FAU street project will be presented to the City Council for bid authorization at its next regular meeting on August 27, 1984. The Council viewed bricks and selected the dark brown brick for portions of the project where bricks would be used~ On mo'cion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Vonheeder absent), the Council approved the plans and specifications and authorized Staff to advertise this project for bid with the modifications identified by the City Council and the City Manager. CM-3-175 Regular Meeting August 13, 1984 VILLAGE PARKWAY WALL At its meeting of January 23, 1984, the City Council authorized Staff to proceed with the plans & specifications for a sound wall along the west side of Village Parkway between Amador Valley Boulevard and Kimball Avenue. The Council appropriated $200,000 for the construction of that wall, authorized Staff to proceed to obtain the necessary easements from the 72 property owners which backed up to Village Parkway, determined that the wall should be a slumpstone wall facing Village Parkway, and that Staff should identify some color choices for the City Council's consideration at a future date. During the City's annual budget hearings, the City Council reallocated the $200,000 for the Village Parkway Wall. Since January 23, 1984, Staff has prepared the necessary plans & specifications to bid and construct the Village Parkway Wall. Staff has also obtained 68 of the 72 easement agreements which are necessary to undertake the project. Staff anticipates that the remaining 4 easement agreements will have been executed by the time the bid is awarded to the successful bidder by the City Council. The estimated costs for the project are as follows~ Improvements - Design/Inspection - Total Estimated Cost - $180,000 20,000 $200,000 The Council viewed the color chips and made a selection. On motion of Cm.' Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Vonheeder absent), the Council authorized Staff to advertise Contract 84-7 for bids and selected the color of Fawn Beige #4753 for the Village Parkway Wall. ANNUAL STREET OVERLAY PROGRAM The annual street overlay program was approved by the City Council as part of the City's Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and 1984-85 adopted budget. The City Council authorized $130,000 for the 1984-85 street overlay program. This project would provide for the placement of at least one and one-half inch asphalt overlay on streets that are in a badly deteriorated condition. This contract includes the placement of a special fabric (petrumal) over the travel way prior to the asphalt overlay. This fabric will help bridge the existing pavement cracks and prevent the reflection of the new cracks through the new asphalt. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Vonheeder absent), the Council authorized Staff to advertise Contract 84-4 for bid. CM-3-176 Regular Meeting August 13, 1984 ANNUAL SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM The City Council allocated $50,000 for the slurry seal of the local streets as part of the adopted street maintenance budget for 1984-85. The estimated design and inspection cost for this program are $4,500 and are budgeted in the General Engineering Budget. The total estimated cost is $54,500.. Slurry seal is a preventive maintenance technique used to prolong the life of a street. It consists of sand/oil mixture which seals cracks and provides a new uniform wearing surface. City streets are presently on a 5 to 7 year cycle depending on the level of wear. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unainimous vote (Cm. Vonheeder absent), the Council authorized Staff to advertise Contract 84-5 for bid. SAN RAMON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (PHASE I) & MEDIAN BREAK-SILVERGATE DRIVE/SILVERTREE LANE This contract consists of two separate projects where were approved by the City Council as part of the 1984-85 annual budget. The projects are similar in nature, and have been combined for reasons of economy of scale. San Ramon Road improvements (Phase I) provides one additional traffic lane for motorists traveling northbound on San Ramon Road through the intersection of Amador Valley boulevard. This project will require pavement widening, restriping and relocation of signal equipment at the northeast corner of the intersection. The Silvergate Drive/Silvertree Lane median break project would pr.ovide for the modification of the existing raised median on Silvergate Drive to permit direct access to Silvertree Lane from Silvergate Drive. Total project costs are estimated at $92,000. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Vonheeder absent), the Council authorized Staff to advertise Contract 84-6 for bid. VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES Vector Control Services have been provided in prior years by the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency, Division of Environmental Health. The City Council voted at its regular meeting on January 9, 1984 to decline the offer to be included in the County Service Area and Benefit Assessment for Vector Control. The County was notified of this decision and it was requested that the County continue to provide the current level of service to the City of Dublin. CM-3-177 Regular Meeting August 13, 1984 Staff has been notified that effective July 1, 1984, the Alameda County Vector control Staff and its budget were transferred to the newly created Vector Control District. The County Counsel has ruled that funds cannot be expended outside the District. Recognizing the need to have some level of service, Staff has received a list of potential options~ (1) Not provide vector control services (2) Have existing staff provide the services (3) Hire additional staff to provide the services (4) Contract the services to another agency or private firm Given Dublin's organizational structure, Staff has proceeded with investigating contracting with the County. In preliminary discussions with the Director of the Environmental Health Division, he has expressed an interest in providing services. This will facilitate a coordinated effort in the area of vector contr.ol in this area of the County. On a conceptual basis, Staff has proposed that the City pay $28.50 for each hour of service provided and that the annual cost would not exceed $5,000. If the City of Dublin was a part of the District and had 5,000 assessment units, each of which is charged $3.15, the cost to taxpayers would be approximately $15,750. The City of Emeryville City Council also chose not to be a part of the District. It is Staff's understanding that Emeryville will contract directly with the County and the costs will be borne by the City's General Fund. This option also exists for Dublin if the City Council feels the level of service provided in the District is warranted. If the City funded the cost directly, based on the estimates above, the cost to the City would be approximately $14,965. The lower cost is due to an adjustment to account for delinquencies. The Division of Environmental Health is reviewing the current proposal to provide service on an hourly basis with a maximum expenditure of $5,000. Some of the possible constraints include manpower restrictions and the difficulty of providing two different service levels. The County will advise Staff of their recommendations in the near future. Staff requested that the City Council review the information and provide any pertinent input to Staff. Following discussion, Staff was directed to check with the State to determine if Alameda County has any legal obligation to provide vector control services to Dublin. Staff was also directed to check with Contra Costa County, Fremont, and the Lawrence Livermore Lab to determine whether or not they would be interested in providing vector control service to the City. Staff indicated they would also try to determine if there are any private individuals that provide this type of service. CM-3-178 Regular Meeting August 13, 1984 Ge~ ANNEXATION OF CAMP PARKS In accordance with the City's adopted Sphere of Influence and the planning which the City Council has undertaken during the General Plan process for those lands east of the City's present boundaries, the City Attorney and Staff have been reviewing those steps which would be necessary to annex the land presently under the jurisdiction of the Army (Camp Parks) to the City of Dublin. The City Attorney, in his memorandum, outlined the process which the City would have to follow if it were to annex the Camp Parks property into the City of Dublin. The procedure which the City would follow would depend on whether the annexation was an inhabited annexation or an uninhabited annexation. Staff has determined through discussions with the County Registrar of Voters that the Camp Parks property presently has 39 registered voters living at Camp Parks. Thus, if the City were to annex the entire Camp Parks property within Alameda County, the City would have to have the approval of at least 50% of the registered voters living on the property. If the City pursued an annexation which included only those areas of Camp Parks that are presently uninhabited, the consent of the property owner (Federal Government) would be necessary. Staff has had preliminary discussions with the Camp Parks Commandant regard- ing the City's interest and ultimate plans for those lands to the east of the CitY's present boundaries. The local Commandant suggested that repre- sentatives from the City meet with the Commandant, Legal Staff from the Presidio and Army real estate personnel from Sacramento in order to explain the City's goals prior to submitting a formal request to the Army for annexation. Consensus of the Council was to authorize the City Manager, Mayor and the City Attorney to meet with representatives from the Army and Federal Government regarding the City's intentions and the potential annexation of Camp Parks and report back to the City Council regarding the results of that meeting. DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE The general business session of the League of California Cities Annual Conference will be held on Wednesday, September 26, 1984 in the Anaheim Convention Center. At this meeting the delegates will consider a number of conference resolutions for adoption. These resolutions will be distributed to cities on September 4, 1984. The League has requested that the City designate a voting delegate and voting alternate to attend the General Business session. The League is also requesting that the City notify the League by September 1, 1984 as to who the City's voting delegate and alternate will be. The Council determined that the voting delegate would be Mayor Snyder, and the alternate would be Vice Mayor Hegarty. CM-3-179 Regular Meeting August 13, 1984 CITY COUNCIL LIAISON ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT The City is in receipt of a letter from Mun J. Mar, General Manager of the Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District requesting that the Dublin City Council consider the assignment of a Councilmember as a liaison to Zone 7. Mr. Mar has indicated that such a liaison person could improve and enhance communications between the Zone 7 District and the City of Dublin. The Council determined that the liaison person would be Mayor Snyder. OTHER BUSINESS General Plan City Manager Ambrose indicated Staff would be unable to complete all the necessary documentation in time for the scheduled August 21, 1984 meeting to adopt the General Plan. The City Council determined that an alternate date of September 10, 1984 was acceptable. League Conference/September/Anaheim City Manager Ambrose advised the Council that Staff would make necessary travel reservations should the Council so desire to the conference in Anaheim. Committee for Water Policy Consensus Councilmembers indicated they had problems with the broad policy statements related to SB 1369 and asked that this item be agendized for discussion at the September 10, 1984 meeting. CLOSED SESSION At 11:26 p.m. the Council recessed to a closed executive session for discussion of personnel related matters. CM-3-180 Regular Meeting August 13, 1984 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 a.m. Mayo~ ATTEST: CM-3-181 Regular Meeting August 13, 1984