Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-28-1983 Adopted CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 28, 1983 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, November 28, 1983 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Snyder ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Drena, Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt 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. Drena, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the minutes of the regular meeting of September 26, 1983; Warrant Register in the amount of $187,614.67; Financial Report for Period Ending September 30, 1983; Waived reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 14 - 83 AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE REZONING OF REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN (K & S Company); Waived reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 15 - 83 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE REZONING OF REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN (H & H Development Company - Formerly Dublin Green) ANNUAL CITYWIDE CELEBRATION At its meeting of November 22, 1983, the Park & Recreation Commission discussed various goals and objectives which it might undertake in the next 6 months. One goal which the Park & Recreation Commission believed worthy of consideration by the City Council and had been presented to the City Council as part of the Park & Recreation Advisory Committee's report, was the concept of a City sponsored annual community celebration. CM-2-215 Regular Meeting November 28, 1983 The Park & Recreation Commission respectfully requested that the City Council consider authorizing the Commission to contact all of the community groups and organizations within the City to attend a meeting for the purpose of discussing and ascertaining the level of interest among the community based organizations in participating in a Citywide event. Mayor Snyder indicated the Lyon's Club has reserved Shannon Center on St. Patrick's Day and various activies are being planned. There will be food and entertainment, etc. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the Park & Recreation Commission to contact these groups and to schedule a meeting in which a representative from each would be invited for the purpose of discussing and possible planning a Citywide event. ASSEMBLY BILL 4 COMMUNICATION FROM R. ROBINSON, CHAIRMAN~ ASSEMBLY MAJORITY CAUCUS The City has received a letter from Richard Robinson, Chairman of the Assembly Majority Caucus re Assembly Bill #4 which he has recently introduced. AB4 would authorize counties and in the absence of action on the part of the county, cities to impose a local option 1¢ sales tax effective July 1, 1984. Those state discretionary subventions which the City now receives would be repealed on that date. The State, in turn, would reduce its state sales tax by 1¢ if all 58 counties adopt the local tax. The State would reduce the sales tax an additional 1,/2¢ in 1984-85 if the Governor certifies that there will be a 3% reserve in the State's budget at the end of that fiscal year. According to the legislative analyst estimates which are attached to the letter from Assemblyman Robinson dated November 7, 1983, the City of Dublin would stand to gain approximately $50,000 over and above the subventions it presently receives from the State if this piece of legislation was approved. After discussion, Council directed Staff to prepare a letter to Assemblyman Richard Robinson conveying their opposition to this proposal. AB4 would place an unfair burden on local governments. The anticipated outcome if this legislation were adopted is that .sales tax would be increased and the responsibility for doing so would be placed on local lawmakers. In exchange, the benefit provided to local governments would be minimal, while school districts and counties are offered the greatest advantage for realizing increased revenues. SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (AREA 3) - PUBLIC HEARING On August 22, 1983, the City Council approved the San Ramon Road Specific Plan for four of the five defined areas. Area 3 of the Specific Plan covers approximately 13 acres, generally west of San Ramon Road at Amador Valley Boulevard. The Specific Plan designates Area 3 for retail commercial shopper goods uses, and for eating and drinking establishments. CM-2-216 Regular Meeting November 28, 1983 Mr. Richard Jeha of Festival Enterprises, Inc., is requesting an amendment to the Specific Plan to allow 25% to 30% personal service, financial, and office uses in Area 3. Mr. Jeha is proposing a shopping center which, he says, will be like the Town & Country Center in Palo Alto. Cm. Jeffery questioned how the 20% would equate in square footage. Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Richard Jeha, 211 Valley Oaks Drive, Alamo, owner & applicant addressed the Council. He felt that Staff comments applied to very large centers. Mr. Jeha indicated that the Danville Livery & Mercantile Center consists of approximately 30 acres and is doing very poorly. Mr. Len Magnani, Western Development Services, addressed the Council, stating he felt the overall goal the City Council wished to achieve (a quality shopping center) could be reached by a 25%-30% services mixture. Mr. Roy Moret, an adjacent property owner in this area stated he felt these restrictions were undue and not based on good sense. Dave Burton, Dillon Way, stated he felt the City was getting into a numbers game and that the real perspective had been lost. Mr. Burton suggested the City Council reconsider their decision and let the marketplace resolve. He didn't feel it appropriate that the business community be restricted by artificial barriers. Mr. Burton questioned how the City could possibly enforce this type of a decision. Mr. Burton summarized his request that the parcel be put into a C-1 zoning with restrictions. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Mayor Snyder stated he was an advocate of mixture in this area and felt some of the restrictions appear to be unreasonable. Cm. Moffatt felt the entire parcel should be given a C-1 classification with restrictions. Cm. Jeffery felt some limitation of percentage should be deCided upon. Cm. Hegarty felt the Council should strive to attain the original goal as set by the San Ramon Road Specific Plan. Cm. Drena felt the Specific Plan for San Ramon Road should stand, as adopted. Mayor Snyder felt the developer should be allowed at least 25% of non-shopper oriented uses. Cm. Moffatt made a motion to change the zoning to a C-1 area. The motion died for lack of a second. Cm. Moffatt made a motion to allow 50% non-shopper oriented uses. The motion died for lack of a second. CM-2-217 Regular Meeting November 28, 1983 On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by majority vote, the Council agreed that up to 25% of the total gross first floor area of any development can be for personal service, financial institution, or office uses, as defined in the San Ramon Road Specific Plan. Voting no on this motion was Cm. Moffatt. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 81-83 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN PA83-064, SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN - AMENDMENT TO AREA 3 On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 82-83 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN, PA 83-064, SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN - AMENDMENT TO AREA 3 REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM The City Manager explained that the League of California Cities has notified the City that Congress has passed a bill which would reauthorize the Revenue Sharing Program at the present level of funding for an additional 3 years. This bill has been forwarded to President Reagan for signature. The bill is in substantially the same form as was recommended by the President to the Congress earlier in the year. Staff anticipated that this bill will be signed by the President and the City will receive additional Revenue Sharing Funds this year. These funds may not be spent by the City until the appropriate hearings are held by the City Council with respect to modifying the City's budget in accordance with revenue sharing regulations. Following discussion, the Council agreed to deal with this issue when the City has a program to consider. CITY AUDITOR REPORT - FISCAL YEAR 1982-83 Bray, Burke, Waterman, Cockrill & Carter, the City's Audit Firm has completed its review of the City's financial records for Fiscal Year 1982-83, and the report was presented to the Council. City Manager Ambrose explained that the total revenues for Fiscal Year 1982-83 were $4,138,755, which is approximately $210,000 (5%) more than was estimated in the 1983-84 budget. This increase was primarily attributable to sales tax, state motor vehicle in-lieu tax, state cigarette tax and county CM-2-218 Regular Meeting November 28, 1983 gas tax. Total actual expenditures for Fiscal Year 1983-84 were $1,820,351, which is approximately $69,000 (3.6%) less than was estimated in the 1983-84 budget. This was primarily attributable to several capital improvement projects not being completed prior to the end of the fiscal year ($38,094); salary and fringe benefit savings as a result of late recruitments and fringe benefit programs not being implemented; and savings on the police services contract. City Manager Ambrose indicated that the Auditor had made some recommendations with respect to internal control, and Staff has attempted to immediately implement those recommendations. As part of the audit process, it was not recognized that the Council during 1982-83 established a portion of the reserve for a City Hall facility acquisition/construction. A modification to the financial statement should be made to reflect this. Cm. Jeffery and Cm. Moffatt, who served on the Audit Committee indicated that the "proceed slowly approach" h'as been successful. Cm. Jeffery complimented City Manager Ambrose on his management. Cm. Moffatt indicated he felt it amazing that City Manager Ambrose was able to anticipate needs in advance and prepare the necessary changes. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Drena, and by unanimous vote, the Council accepted the 6/30/83 Financial Statement with exceptions as discussed. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved 1983-84 budget modifications in the amount of $22,273. VILLAGE PARKWAY FENCING During the 1983-84 hearings on the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program, the City Council expressed i'ts concern with respect to the dilapidated condition of the wooden fencing, along Village Parkway between Amador Valley Boulevard and Kiinball Avenue. Since this portion of Village Parkway is one of the main entrances into the City, the Council requested Staff to develop a project to improve the appearance of the fencing. The City Engineering Staff has determined that the fence was constructed on private property by the developer of the subdivision along Village Parkway. The fence is typically located approximately 1 1/2' to 2' from the right-of- way line. It was also determined that the existing fence pilasters are not of sufficient strength to be used in a new wall. Alternative solutions were presented to the Council and discussed. The Council agreed that this fencing had a.substantial impact visually on the entire community. CM-2-219 'Regular Meeting November 28, 1983 Cm. Drena questioned why Village Parkway should be considered more of a thoroughfare with a higher priority than San Ramon Road. Cm. Drena asked for clarification as to whether the Council was talking safety or beautification. It was determined that both areas were of concern. Resolution would also provide some relief as a sound wall. A draft letter and a survey to those residents affected was discussed. Cm. Drena felt the Council should see what the community thinks before making an alternative selection. Cm. Hegarty felt the Council should proceed with Alternative #2 as presented in the Staff report, but have public hearings to gather the public input. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Drena, and by majority vote, the Council agreed to proceed with: the demolition of the existing fence and the construction of a six (6) foot wall in its place. This would necessitate obtaining an access easement from approximately 70 property owners who live along Village Parkway at this location. This alternative would require the installation of additional sidewalk, but is preferable from an aesthetic and public safety point of view. The estimated cost is: Wall - $170,000; Demolition - $ 30,000; Landscaping/New Sidewalk - $ 80,000; Total Project Cost - $280,000. Voting NO on this motion was Cm. Drena. SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM Sidewalks, curbs, and gutters need periodic maintenance due to tree root damage, utility trench settlement, and the driving of heavy vehicles over these improvements. When these improvements crack and offset, a tripping hazard is created. The State Improvement Act of 1911 established that it is the responsibility of the property owner to maintain those public improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk) which front the individual property owner's property. Many of the Cities do utilize this provision of the state law and undertake both an annual sidewalk survey and an active enforcement program to ensure that damaged frontage improvements are replaced at the expense of the private property owner. Most property owners are not aware of their responsibility as spelled out in the 1911 Act and often content that these public improvements are for public use, and the damage is typically caused by street trees, which the public agency reviewing the original development or subdivision, required as a condition of development for aesthetic reasons. In reality, public agencies still often end up paying liability claims resulting from sidewalk tripping hazards due to the "deep pocket" concept adopted by muCh of the judicial system in California. Since Proposition 13, the County has done little or nothing except make temporary sidewalk repairs due to budgetary constraints. As a result of the County's inability to effectuate sidewalk repair, there is a substantial number of sidewalk repairs required throughout the City. CM-2-220 Regular Meeting November 28, 1983 The Engineering Staff conducted a sidewalk survey of all sidewalks throughout the City, identifying approximately 200 locations which require sidewalk and/Or curb and gutter repair. The City Engineer has estimated that it will cost approximately $100,000 to replace and repair all of the damaged sidewalk. The ongoing sidewalk repair program would cost approximately $20~000 per year in order to keep up with sidewalk damaged in the future. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 83-83 ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE REPAIR OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS DEEMED TO BE PEDESTRIAN HAZARDS On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized an additional appropriation from the street improvement reserve in the amount of $100,000, and authorized the City Engineer to proceed with preparation of plans and specifications. PURCHASING PROCEDURES Pursuant to state law, a City is required to adopt by ordinance, policies and procedures, including bidding regulations, governing purchases of supplies and equipment. Dublin's proposed ordinance requires a formal bid process for any purchase or contract for services over $5,000. The methods of notice and manner in which the bid may be awarded are clearly defined. In addition, the ordinance specifies additional criteria which may be used to determine the bid which is most advantageous to the City. The competitive bidding process i.s not utilized for professional services or when the cost involved is less than $200. The proposed ordinance contains provisions which allow the exclusion of the formal bidding process when an emergency requires immediate acquisition or where the needs can only be met by a single patented item or process. The informal procedures are required for services and goods which cost more than $200 but less than $5,000. This process involves gathering three price quotations to assure that the City is making purchases which reflect the lowest price available. The ordinance also addresses the disposal of surplus goods. The process is similar to the purchasing procedures, such as the value of the goods will determine the method of disposal. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and introduced the ordinance establishing procedures for the purchase of goods and services. CM-2-221 Regular Meeting November 28, 1983 ESTABLISH POSITION OF RECREATION DIRECTOR On September 21, 1983, the City Council adopted the recommendation of the Park & Recreation Advisory Committee that a Recreation Director be hired. Prior to the actual recruitment, the Council needed to establish a salary range for the position and approve the job description as prepared by Staff. The Recreation Director is a professional level employee, functioning as a Department Head. The position will require a minimum of three years of responsible experience. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Drena, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 84-83 ESTABLISHING THE POSITION OF RECREATION DIRECTOR and authorized the City Manager to proceed with recruitment of a Recreation Director. Staff was also directed to pursue negotiations with the DSRSD and the School District indicating an interest in Shannon Community Center and any available school sites. OTHER BUSINESS Transit Vehicle Demonstration The City Manager indicated that there would be a demonstration and trial route run starting at the Library on Wednesday morning at 11:00 a.m. Anyone interested in taking the route, as being proposed, was welcome. 1-680 Off-Ramp Access into Dublin The City Traffic Engineer presented a draft letter regarding the concept of additional 1-680 access. The letter ask'ed for a review of the potential for additional off-ramps into Dublin from 1-680. The letter requests the County Public Works Director to include this as a part of the planned widening of 1-680. Mayor Snyder felt it important that the City at least identify this as an addressable issue, even though it is probably several years down the line. Consensus of the Council was to send the letter. CM-2-222 November 28, 1983 General Plan Working Paper #3 Council was asked to determine a date for its consideration of Working Paper #3. Council consensus was that the meeting be held on Tuesday, December 6, 1983 at 7:30 p.m. Staff was directed to secure a location. City Manager Ambrose indicated that the Council may wish to also address the letter which was submitted to LAFCO by the City of Livermore. Mr. Ambrose indicated that Staff would draft a letter for Council approval to be submitted in response to Livermore's letter. Answerinq Machine for City Offices Cm. Moffatt felt that because of the upcoming holidays, it would be appropriate for the City to secure some type of an answering machine that could handle phone calls when employees are not present. City'Manager' Ambrose indicated Staff would look into purchasing some type of a telephone answering machine device. ACTEB/ACAP Seminar Cm. Moffatt indicated there was going to be a seminar on December 2, 1983 in Boulder Creek, and he requested permission to attend. Ail Councilmembers agreed that Cm. Moffatt should attend this seminar. Regular Meeting - December 26, 1983 The City Manager indicated that the next regularly scheduled meeting would be the day after Christmas and asked for Council direction with regard to this meeting. Consensus of Council was that the last regular meeting in December be cancelled. ABAG Election Mayor Snyder mentioned that he had received a letter from ABAG with regard to the election of officers. City Manager Ambrose indicated the City had just received the ballot. Since the ballots must be returned by December 21st, the issue would need to be agendized for the December 12th meeting. CM-2-223 November 28, 1983 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, at 10:55 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to an adjourned regular meeting on December 6, 1983. "Mayo~ .... City C~rk CM-2-224 November 28, 1983