Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.01 Approve 03-14-1988 Minutes REGULAR MEETING - March 14, 1988 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, March 14, 1988, in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7 : 31 p.m. , by Mayor Pro Tempore Georgean Vonheeder. * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Moffatt, and Vonheeder. ABSENT: Councilmember Snyder and Mayor Jeffery. Mayor Pro Tempore Vonheeder announced that the reason for Cm. Snyder and Mayor Jeffery' s absence was due to the fact that they were representing the City in the Dublin, Ireland, St. -Patrick' s D Day parade. * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor Pro Tempore led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. TRI-VALLEY CASA (CITIZENS AGAINST SUBSTANCE ABUSE) Chief John Severini introduced Ms. June Jardine, Chairman of the Tri-Valley Citizens Against Substance Abuse (TV CASA) , who addressed the Council and requested the Council ' s support to unite the communities of Pleasanton and Dublin in the CASA concept of red ribbon week, October 23-29, 1988. Ms. Jardine indicated that the group is not asking for funds at this time. Ms . Jardine reported that TV CASA is a community movement group working toward drug-free youth in the tri-valley. TV CASA' s mission is to change the current attitudes regarding drug and alcohol abuse through parent networking, student education, peers helping peers , and alternative activities. TV CASA Subcommittees are autonomous committes that plan their own activities and may sponsor a community project such as "Toma" or "Red Ribbon Week". These committees may be a part of a school, church or service club. They may use the TV CASA logo and attach their group name under the TV CASA name. Communication goes into and out of the TV CASA Advisory Council. Ms . Jardine felt that the problems of drug and alcohol abuse can be turned around if and when communities become involved and "community norms" are changed. For this to happen, people and organizations need to be involved in the process , working together, not in isolation or, worse yet, in competition with each other. Cm. Moffatt questioned if this program goes as far as Livermore. Ms . Jardine explained that Livermore has their own program, which is independent from this one; however, there is coordination and exchange of ideas and information. !+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+! CM-7-75 Regular Meeting March 14, 1988 4. • L x f On motion of Cm: Moffatt, seconded by Cm Hegarty, and by majority vote (Cm Snyder and Mayor Jeffery absent) , the Council adopted • RESOLUTION NO 35 - 88 SUPPORTING THE TRI-VALLEY CASA (CITIZENS AGAINST SUBSTANCE ABUSE) AND, PROCLAIMING OCTOBER 23-29, 1988 AS "RED RIBBON WEEK'! TRI-VALLEY COMMUNITY TELEVISION CORPORATION SIX MONTH PROGRESS REPORT The City Council approved a contribution of $20,000 to the "Tri-Valley Community Television Corporation for operating expenses and developing a public access studio and programming. . .This amount was to be paid in two installments. The first $10,000 was paid and the Council requested that a progress report be made prior to the payment of the second $10,000. Darla Stevens , representing Community TV indicated that the past six :months have been filled with establishing production guidelines and procedures, procuring state-of-the-art equipment, and striving to ensure that informative, high quality broadcasting is being provided through Community Television. Ms. Stevens explained that Jack Noonan, Chairman, was teaching tonight so she attended the meeting. Ms._ Stevens expressed appreciation for the support offered thus far from the City of Dublin. She stated they were very excited about the capabilities of equipment just now coming out. Community TV provided a six month financial report of revenues`.and expenditures and- a report showing the expenditures for capital equipment items. Cm. Hegarty stated he felt a marked improvement had taken place They are now capable of doing a lot on the air.. A lot of work'has gone into setting up the. studio. He felt the money had been spent wisely. He felt that Community TV should keep the City apprised as to how they are spending the money. _ On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote :(Cm. Snyder and Mayor Jeffery absent) , the Council authorized the allocation of $10,000 to Tri-Valley Community Television Corporation for operating - expenditures . Swimming Pool Regulations Doug Fields , representing Signature Pools, 2400 Old Crow Canyon Road in San Ramon addressed the. Council and stated a slight : problem exists with a pool they are trying to build in Dublin. He stated he has been building pools since 1972 and has worked with building departments all over the Bay Area. In every other case they have been able to work with City building departments on an individual .basis to work out problems. In Dublin, they have a situation where they feel a misinterpretation, of--the law has occurred. Dublin officials have displayed a lack of common sense in trying to take care !+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!±!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!±!+!+!+!+!+!+!+! CM-7=76 Regular Meeting March 14, 1988 of their problem. Dublin' s interpretation is the water line must be 6 ' from a bay window that is sticking out rather than from the house. Mr. Fields stated that he had talked with Vic Taugher (and they went through this before with the last pool ) , and Mr. Taugher indicated he thought this was "nonsense and stupid" , and that the rule should be changed. They ended up having to make the last pool smaller. He is addressing the Council because he can get no satisfaction in dealing with Mr. Tong. Mr. Tong is interpreting the law differently than anyone he knows . He indicated that he is trying to get some sense into the rules in Dublin. They are planning to build the pool and they need a motion to okay it . Assistant City Attorney Silver explained that the Council cannot legally take any action on this item as it was not agendized. She explained that the Council could consider amending the Zoning Ordinance at a future meeting. Another option would be to have the property owner apply for a variance. Mr. Fields indicated that the property owner was present and quite frankly he did not feel that this requires a variance. They do not want :to vary anything; they just want it interpreted the proper way. Ms . Silver indicated that if they disagree with the interpretation, there are avenues to appeal it pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, but the Council has no authority to act until there has been proper appeals . Mr. Tong stated that this afternoon he spoke with Mr. Fields and explained to him what the Zoning requirements were. He also met this afternoon with both Mr. and Mrs . Flick, the property owners , at the site, discussing the same item. He has discussed this matter with the Building Inspection Department, City Attorney, and the City Manager ' s Office and all are collectively of the same opinion that this item does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tong explained that the options are : 1) They can apply for a variance. Application forms have been previously sent to Mr. Flick; 2) They can petition the Council to initiate a change in the Zoning Ordinance; 3) They can comply with the Ordinance as is indicated with a 6 ' setback between the structure and the swimming pool; 4) They can challenge the interpretation of Staff, and that would be in the form of a written communication to the Planning Commission. This would then be taken up by the Planning Commission as an interpretation issue. Mayor Pro Tempore Vonheeder advised the Applicant that they have not gone through the actual processes that are available to them. The Council cannot act without proper notification in any event. Mr. Fields indicated he was under the impression that Mr. Tong was the Planning Commission. Mayor Pro Tempore Vonheeder advised that Mr. Tong is the Planning Director and the Planning Commission consists of 5 individuals appointed by the City Council . It will take at least 2 weeks ho get on a Planning Commission agenda. !+! +!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+ !+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+! CM-7-77 Regular Meeting March 14, 1988 ' L Mr. Tong added that this is basically the: same .situation- which he and others on his Staff discussed with Mr. Fields and Mr. Butler of Signature Pools on September 23rd. At that time, they filed for a swimming pool permit and failed to show that the structure was less than 6 ' away from the swimming pool that was proposed. . At that point, a _considerable amount of Staff time was spent discussing the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Staff clarified to them what the Ordinance indicated. The issue was ultimately resolved by Signature Pools adjusting the size of the swimming pool to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Mayor Pro Tempore Vonheeder advised Mr. Fields that he has these options open to him. Mr. Fields stated he felt the only avenue open to him was that he was beat, as you can' t fight City Hall. There' s no way -to compete with someone who interprets the law the wrong way. Mayor Pro Tempore Vonheeder stated there were avenues open, it just takes time. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majority vote (Cm. Snyder and Mayor Jeffery absent) , the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Adjourned Regular Meeting of February 23, 1988 and Adjourned Regular Meeting of March. 1, .1988; Approved Treasurer' s Investment Report_ for Period Ending February 26, 1988; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 36 - 88 FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, TRACT 4415 (CORAL GATE) and authorized Staff to accept maintenance bond at a future date; Authorized Staff to issue an encroachment permit to the Soroptimist International for a banner to be displayed from July 25th thru August 7th, advertising the Concours d'Elegance to be held at the Dublin Sports Grounds on. August 7th, once insurance certificate has been received; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 37 88 AUTHORIZING METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC) AS A SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES (SAFE) Approved the Financial Report for Period Ending .January 31, .1988; l+f+!+!+!+!+! !+!+!+!+!+!+T+f+!+!+1+!+!+!+!+!+!+! !+!+!+!+1+i+!+!+!+!+!+!+! CM-7-78 Regular Meeting March' 14 1988 Authorized the Mayor to execute an agreement with Norm's Towing Service for towing of abandoned vehicles ; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 38 - 88. SUPPORTING THE CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE, COASTAL AND. PARK LAND CONSERVATION ACT .0F..•1988 Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 39 - 88 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR STORM DRAIN PARCEL MAP 518 (CIRCUIT CITY PARCEL) Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 40 - 88 RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 33-88 AND APPROVING AN AMENDED AGREEMENT WITH THE DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT FOR USE OF THE VALLEY COMMUNITY SWIM CENTER Received a report ,on the 1987 Fall Recreation Programs; . - Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 41 - 88 INTENTION TO ESTABLISH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES FOR THE EXTENSION OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN DOUGHERTY ROAD AND THE - SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND FOR A STREET CONNECTING THE DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION WITH SCARLETT COURT . and set a hearing .date for April 11, 1988; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 42 88 INTENTION TO ESTABLISH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES FOR DUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN DONLON WAY AND AMADOR PLAZA ROAD . and set a hearing date for April 11, 1988; Accepted improvements under Contract 87-5, Dougherty Road Fence at Camp Parks and authorized payment to Central Fence in the amount of $1,643.65; Adopted RESOLUTION NO 43 - 88 ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE REPAIR OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS DEEMED TO BE PEDESTRIAN HAZARDS (Sidewalk Safety Repair & Handicap Ramp Construction Program) !+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+! CM 7-79 Regular Meeting March 14, 1988 and authorized Staff to advertise for bids and 'authorized .a "loan from the General Fund to the Capital Project Fund in the amount "of _$15,600, -to be repaid in 1988-89 when the City receives its 198-89 TDA ,allocation Cm. Hegarty requested that the Warrant Register. be pulled for discussion' related to the purchasing of tires for police vehicles and also police supplies . Cm. Hegarty indicated he is again objecting to the amount of money spent on tires and requested that the explanation be more specific when referring to police vehicle supplies . Chief Severini indicated that the police vehicles were purchased;'approxi- mately 2 years ago. City Manager Ambrose indicated that the City has a total of 10 vehicles; 8 patrol cars, a 'Datsun 240Z recovered as ,part of a drug bust, and the Police Chief's unit. Mr. Ambrose indicated that we have been looking at the total repair costs as part of the Internal Service Fund.. ;- All of the expenses are carefully monitored and charged against this fund, so we can keep-good track of the cars in order to come up with an annual mileage rate to charge the departments each year Cm. Hegarty felt perhaps we should look at the possibility of putting more durable tires on the police cars, so we won't have to replace them as often. Chief Severini reported that the average wear that a patrol tire is expected to get is 10,000-15,000 miles , because "of . the way the vehicles are driven; a lot of stop and go, a lot of turning. We are getting close to 14,000 miles per tire on our vehicle. We are getting what would be considered as the upper end of what is expected from 'a tire. We're getting a good deal on the tires by purchasing them at wholesale. The tires are good quality, Goodyear tires . Mr. Ambrose indicated that the type of tires are not the.'same that .one' would buy for a passenger vehicle. They are speed-rated tires , which will- stand up better under higher speeds than a typical passenger vehicle type. tire. He was also concerned when he saw the number of tires being purchased, so he checked with some independent tire places regarding the experience they had in replacing police vehicle tires . They indicated that 10,000-15,000 miles is about all you can expect from a speed-rated tire for police service. These tires are constructed for a _ specific type of use and we will never be able to get 25,000-40,000 miles out of them, but rather they will ' wear out more quickly than a. passenger tire. He has checked with other police departments in other cities to make sure we weren't unique or unusual and he found a fairly consistent response in terms of the average tire life.. Cm. Hegarty requested that special care be given to the purchase of all supplies to make sure the City is getting the best price possible. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, ',seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote (Cm. Snyder and Mayor Jeffery absent) , the Council approved the Warrant Register in the amount of $869,602.39 !+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!±!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+! CM-7-80 . . Regular Meeting March 14, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING - AMADOR AUTO CENTER SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST 6000 DOUGHERTY ROAD, PA 87-140 , APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL Mayor Pro Tempore Vonheeder opened the public hearing. Staff advised that the Applicant , Douglas Bradford, is developing a three- building, 40 ,000 + square foot automotive service-retail center on 2 .8 + acres at 6000 Dougherty Road at the intersection with Sierra Lane. The buildings are currently under construction. The Applicant is requesting approval of a sign location variance for one tenant space in Building A, the building closest to Sierra Lane. A quick service lube and oil change operation named Precision Tune , is a potential tenant for tenant space A-3 on the north side of Building A. The Applicant proposed a total of four business signs on Building A for Tenant Space A-3 : • two signs are proposed on the northeast side • a third sign is proposed on the southwest side • a fourth sign is proposed on the southeast side The first three signs are consistent with the sign regulations . The fourth sign is not located on the tenant space and is not consistent with the sign regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant requested a variance for the sign. The Zoning Administrator denied the request on November 24, 1987 . The Applicant ' s appeal was denied by the Planning Commission on January 18 , 1988. The Applicant has now appealed the Planning Commission' s action to the City Council. Staff advised that State Planning and Zoning Law and the Zoning Ordinance require that the following findings be made, based on facts in the record, prior to granting a variance : 1) that there is a unique physical feature of the property that is not found in other property in the vicinity and. under the same zoning; 2) that a variance would only grant parity with other properties , and not a special privilege. The Zoning Ordinance also requires the additional findings for granting a Sign Variance: 3) that a variance would meet the intent and purpose of the sign regulations ; 4) that a variance would not adversely affect the surrounding property. The Planning Commission found that there was no unique physical features regarding the property. It further found that granting the variance would constitute a special privilege and may set an undesirable precedent for similar, future requests . Based on those findings , the Planning Commission denied the variance request. Casey Cummings , the Precision Tune Leasee stated he would address the 4 findings that the Council must make in order to grant a variance. There will be 2 tenants in the building. His firm will occupy the back section of the building. His business is the only one whose sign faces the cow pasture. Mr. Cummings stated they feel their site is unique because of the way the building faces . Slides were displayed indicating where they want the sign to be . This building will become an independent parcel in the future. ! +!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+ !+!+!+ !+!+!+!+!+! CM-7-81 Regular Meeting March 14, 1988 Cm. Hegarty questioned why the building was designed the way it was because signage is so important . He did not feel the site is unique, but they simply did not take advantage of how they ' could have designed the building. Instead, they blame the 'City ' s Ordinance for not allowing them to do what they want. Signage, according to the City' s Ordinance, must be on the building where the business is located, not on someone else ' s space. Cm. Hegarty felt that every decision made by the Council is somewhat precedent setting. Cm. Moffatt questioned if there was any possibility of putting in a perpendicular sign that comes out of the building. Planning Director Tong stated that there are provisions for projecting signs in the Ordinance. This type of sign would still, however, have to be on the tenant ' s premises . With regard to the lot split that was mentioned, this would allow each of the lots to have its own freestanding sign. They could either have a large tenant sign or a directory sign. Cm. Moffatt asked if they had considered a projected sign. Doug Bradford felt that the tenants behind this space would object to a projecting sign which might block their own sign. He stated that he recognizes that variances are a touchy subject in Dublin. Unfortunately, Mr. Cummings is a victim of the safety measures imposed due to the drive-through feature of his business .- They could probably meet Mr. Cummings ' needs by the pylon, monument sign, but most communities do not want pylon type signs . The tenants are after parody with respect to the size of their letters and he felt the only way to get parody for Mr. Cummings with regard to the size and exposure that he wants is with an off-premise facia sign. Cm. Moffatt questioned if Mr. Bradford had entered into an agreement with a front tenant and if they would allow Mr. Cummings to have a sign on their building. He further questioned how future tenants would feel about this. What if a future tenant moved in and wanted the entire area for their sign. Mr. Bradford indicated he could live with a restriction on a future tenant. The building has a large 60 ' frontage. They want to have uniformity. City Manager Ambrose felt that it was important for the Council to understand that the City ' s Ordinance does not provide that they have to adopt a sign program that allows all the tenants within a shopping center to compete equally. There are a lot of centers in town that do not have as visible sign space as tenants that are in more enviable positions in the shopping center. Therefore, the cost of that tenant space varies . Dublin Town & Country was used as an example. Mayor Pro Tempore Vonheeder closed the public hearing. Cm. Moffatt stated that with regard to signs , the location of a place in a particular area is important and as location becomes more desirable , the amount of rent would be greater. This is a decision that both the landlord and the renter have to thoroughly discuss . There is the ability to put a !+ ! +!+ ! + !+! +! +! + ! +!+!+!+ ! +!+ ! + !+!+! + !+!+! +!+! +!+ ! +!+ ! +!+ ! +! +!+ !+!+!+ !+!+! +! CM-7-82 Regular Meeting March 14, 1988 locator sign up. An off-site sign could conceivably be altered by some tenant in the future, possibly without the consent of Mr. Cummings . Cm. Hegarty did not feel that the findings cab be made. They should have taken the situation into account when the building was designed. Mayor Pro Tempore Vonheeder indicated that when an architect designs a building, they only try to get as big a building on the property as possible. Even though the Council is not mandated to guarantee equity, .she felt the Council should do everything possible, to protect the City' s sales tax base, even if this means granting a variance. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majorityvote (Cm. Snyder and Mayor Jeffery absent) , the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO 44 88. UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DENYING THAT PORTION OF PA 87-140 .AMADOR AUTOMOTIVE CENTER SIGN LOCATION VARIANCE REQUEST, CONCERNING BUILDING A TENANT SPACE A-3, 6000 DOUGHERTY'ROAD . Mayor Pro Tempore Vonheeder voted against this motion. Assistant City Attorney Silver advised that the Council .failed to overturn the Planning Commission' s decision, so. in effect, they have upheld the denial. • elb a a PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE REQUIRING DEDICATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY. Mayor Pro Tempore Vonheeder opened the public hearing. City Engineer Lee Thompson advised that this Ordinance, which is part of the Municipal Code review, requires a property owner to dedicate and improve right-of-way in cases where the issuance of a- building permit, conditional use permit, site development review approval, variance, or Planned Development Rezoning would result in an increase in traffic on the street or streets on which the lot fronts . The provisions of this ordinance would only apply when a future right-of-way line has been established or where the rest of the street is already wider than at the property in. question. In a case in which all or part of said improvements are not practical at the time occupancy is allowed, the City Engineer may accept'. a guaranty in an amount adequate to cover the cost of the improvements, providing for installation or relocation of improvements in the event of default by the applicant or a cash deposit of said amount as discharge of the applicant's obligation. In a case in which the City, Engineer determines that the applicant ' s proposed land use does not warrant dedication or improvements to the extent required either by designated center line or by designated 'future right-of-way line, he may recommend to the City Council that the applicant 's obligation be reduced accordingly. !+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+-!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+! CM-7-83 Regular Meeting March 14, 1988 Mr. Thompson advised that dedications within subdivisions are required under the State Subdivision Map Act and are not included in this ordinance. Rezonings that are not Planned Developments are also not covered by this ordinance, as the requirement for dedication will come at .the' time approvals are given for later actions allowing the actual uses to be constructed. Any agreements relative to right-of-way dedication must be approved by the City Council. No comments were made by members of the public. Mayor Pro Tempore Vonheeder closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by. majority vote (Cm. Snyder and Mayor Jeffery absent) , the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance requiring dedication and improvement of right-of-way. RECESS A short recess was called. .Councilmembers Hegarty and Moffatt and Mayor Pro Tempore Vonheeder were present when the meeting was reconvened. -Mayor Jeffery and Councilmember Snyder were absent. J. AGREEMENT WITH AVJUHSD FOR USE OF VALLEY COMMUNITY SWIM CENTER Recreation Director Lowart advised that at its March 1st meeting, the Council approved an agreement between the City and DSRSD for use of the Valley Community Swim. Center. In addition, the Council directed Staff to develop an agreement between the City and the Amador Valley Joint Union High School District in order that the Dublin High School Swim Team could utilize VCSC' for the purpose of practice and meets. The agreement states that the City will receive $25 for each registered swimmer on the swim team. The current enrollment is 23 students and the coach anticipates that the enrollment may reach 30 once practice is moved to VCSC. Thus, the estimated $23 ,500 that the City .will be paying to DSRSD for use of the pool will be offset by approximately $575 to $750 in revenue. The Amdor Valley Joint Union High School District will be considering adoption of the agreement at their Board of Directors meeting on March 16, 1988. Ms. Lowart advised that the agreement was prepared by the City' s legal counsel and the School District has requested that Paragraph 5 on Page 2 be deleted. This paragraph refers to responsibility for abuse to the property or vandalism. The paragraph is redundant „as responsibilities are spelled out in a previous section. Assistant City Attorney Silver concurred with this deletion. !+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+! CM-7-84 Regular Meeting March 14, 1988 Ms. Lowart advised that the pool could potentially be open by March 21st if the agreement is approved by the School District Board at their meeting on March 16th. Cm. Moffatt advised that this puts the ball in the School District ' s court. Cm. Moffatt felt that Staff had done an excellent job on this project, and commended Ms . Lowart. Mayor Pro Tempore Vonheeder also felt this was a very good moment. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majority vote (Cm. Snyder and Mayor Jeffery absent) , the Council adopted (with the deletion of Paragraph 5 on Page 2) RESOLUTION NO. 45 88 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH AMADOR VALLEY JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE USE OF THE VALLEY COMMUNITY SWIM CENTER PARATRANSIT SERVICES FOR 1988-89 Finance Director Molina advised that the City currently contracts with the San Ramon Community Services Group (SRCSG) for the provision of paratransit services . The Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority has presented a proposal to provide the same level of service at..a price that is less than the amount currently being charged by the SRCSG. A chart was presented indicating that the total operating costs have increased at a faster rate than the increase in the number. of trips since 1983. . LAVTA proposes that the estimated cost per trip will be $6.60. - LAVTA' s proposal also identified that the use of Dublin's use of General Funds for paratransit services would decrease from its current funding level to $2 ,000 for the first year and zero in the next year. With regard to Dublin' s concern with LAVTA' s ability, to obtain an additional van that would be needed to absorb the Dublin paratransit program, Mr. Vic Sood identified two alternative solutions to financing the acquisition of the van during the current fiscal year: 1) use Measure B money, and 2) use TDA 4.0 money. The decision to continue with the San Ramon Community Services Group or to start a new contract with LAVTA is subject to a decision from MTC on whether Dublin must use the competitive bid process to do so. Cm. Moffatt asked Mr. Molina if the MTC Legal Counsel does not approve does : this mean Dublin will stay with SRCSG. Mr. Molina stated this was correct and MTC has indicated they would attempt to get back to us by the end of this week. !+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+! CM-7-85 .. Regular Meeting March 14, 1988 City Manager Ambrose pointed out that it is not that LAVTA is trying to avoid a competitive bid process . We are obligated to notify Danville. and San Ramon by April 1, whether we will be continuing. Mayor Pro Tempore Vonheeder felt that we should support our own transit authority. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote (Cm. Snyder and Mayor Jeffery absent ) , the Council authorized the City' s withdrawal from the San Ramon, Danville Paratransit JPA and authorized Staff to contract for paratransit services from the Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority, pending favorable determination from MTC. Jc . J. J: TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) FUNDS AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT CLAIM FOR 1988-89 Finance Director Molina advised that the City is currently a member of the JPA with the Cities of San Ramon and Danville for the provision of paratransit services to the elderly and handicapped. Staff is seeking Council approval to contract this year with the Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority for paratransit services . The funding is expected to come from: 1 ) TDA funds ( $11 , 920) ; 2) Fares ( $3,100) ; 3) _Dublin' s General funds ( $2 ,000) ; and 4) LAVTA systemwide contribution ($3 ,682) . Mr. Molina advised that there may be some additional unbudgeted costs or balances available from the San Ramon Community Services Group contract at the end of this year. The difference has not been finalized, but is composed of : 1 ) the SRCSG experienced a substantial increase in the amount of vehicle insurance premiums over the amount budgeted in the 1987-88 year. The City ' s net share of this increase has not been determined yet, but could amount to approximately $3,000 ; 2) the City helped to pay for the acquisition of another van for the SRCSG which is due to be delivered between April and June of this year. The City' s equity amounts to $3,014. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt , and by majority vote (Cm. Snyder and Mayor Jeffery absent) , the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 46 - 88 AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A CLAIM WITH THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR- ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 and authorized the preparation of the contract for services between the City and LAVTA for paratransit services . !+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+! + ! +!+!+!+ !+! +!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+ !+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+! +! CM-7-86 Regular Meeting March 14, 1988 • DOUGHERTY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY CITY ASSUMPTION OF PERSONNEL SUPPORT SERVICES City Manager Ambrose advised that on January 26, 1988, the Dougherty Regional Fire Joint Powers Agreement became effective. This Joint Powers Agreement and the Authority Bylaws provide that. the City of Dublin is responsible for providing personnel support services , including .workers ' compensation administration, administration of all employee benefit programs , collective bargaining responsibility and administration of all other personnel activities . The City will .have responsibility for handling the development and on-going administration of these activities for approximately 50 employees of the JPA, and three (3) recognized bargaining units In addition to the personnel responsibilities, the Board of Directors of the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority appointed- the Dublin City Manager as the Authority' s first Chief Executive Officer for a. period of approximately 16 months. This means the City of Dublin will be responsible for the Authority Agenda preparation, Authority meeting minutes, and actin a lead capacity for the start-up of Authority operations . Mr. Ambrose advised that he has evaluated the available time of the current Staff in the City Manager' s Office to assume these additional responsibil- ities and has concluded that there is insufficient time available to assume these support services and leadership role without additional Staff. Staff has identified and interviewed Pamela Robbins , an independent personnel professional who is interested in working for the City as an independent contractor on an hourly basis. . Under the terms of the attached standard consultant agreement, the City would provide office space, • supplies, and secretarial support. Ms . Robbins would provide for her own liability and workers ' compensation insurance coverage, as well as her own _ transportation costs. ' Staff has estimated that approximately $18,000 in contract services would be needed between now and July 1, 1988. The City also anticipates that additional secretarial costs and legal services will be required. However, at this time, it is too early to accurately predict the impact of assuming the Fire JPA personnel support' services. Staff will report back to the City Council' regarding additional secretarial and legal costs once the impacts are precisely identified. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm.' Hegarty, and by majority vote (Cm. Snyder and Mayor Jeffery absent) , the Council approved the Consultant Agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute said Agreement and authorized a transfer from the Contingent Reserve in the amount of $18,000 to the City Manager' s Activity Account. T *. :: * - - !+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!-!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+! CM-7-87 Regular Meeting March 14, 1988 OTHER BUSINESS Civic Center Refinancing City Manager Ambrose reported that the City closed the refinancing deal last week, just as the interest rates started heading upward. . The total size of the issue was $17 ,175,000, and the actual size ended up being $17 ,230,000. The true interest rate at closing was about 7.67% average The refinancing savings were approximately $275,000. There were a number of public agencies entering the market about a week or so after us, and the day after we closed the deal, the interest rates went up about another 1/4% which would have had a downward affect on the savings realized. So, our timing was just about as good as we could have hoped for to maximize the savings to the City. . . J. Sign Ordinance Review Mayor Pro Tempore Vonheeder felt that since the Council had discussed the Sign Ordinance more than once, and as the time starts to close in on the non-conforming and illegal signs , she questioned if the Council wanted to review that portion of the Ordinance' which seems to be a problem. She questioned how this review process would begin. Mr. Tong indicated that direction would be given to Staff and. Planning Commission would hold a public hearing and make a recommendation and then it would be brought back before the Council for final resolution through potential amendment to the Ordinance. Mayor Pro Tempore Vonheeder asked Mr.- Tong if he felt there have been enough problems to his Staff that Council needs to redefine its direction. Mr. Tong stated that the items in question have -.basically been variance requests . If the Council wants to review the Ordinance, then Staff could bring back the particulars of portions of the Sign Ordinance that were involved in past variance requests . Cm. Moffatt felt that the Ordinance shows direction and policy as it is , and it fits 99% of all the signs in Dublin. The small percentage of signs which are non-conforming, if the owner requests, the Council could hear on an individual . basis . Cm. Hegarty. felt that when you make policies, you should stick with them. Each time you grant a variance you are weakening your Ordinance. Mr. Ambrose indicated that Staff 's concern in looking at this issue is that the City will be challenged down the line by someone who has an identical situation and the Council grants a variance to one person and not the next. In discussing this with the City Attorney' s Office, the greatest concern is one of the City' s exposure. Staff simply wants to make sure that whatever the standards are, the City can sustain and support them and they cannot be easily challenged. !+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+! • CM-7-88 Regular Meeting March 14, 1988 Ms . Silver discussed the findings that must be made in order for the Council to grant a variance. Mr. Tong advised that Staff could provide to the Council information from the State of California regarding making findings, with some specific examples . The Council agreed that this would be helpful. BART Meeting Cm. Moffatt reported that he attended a BART meeting on March 8th related to the change in the routes for the UL line. They are proposing to change from a line that runs along the freeway from Livermore to Dublin. Mr. Allen gave his position that was that it would increase the head time of the lines to a minimum of 15 minutes. They have developed a park & ride lot over on Owens Drive in Pleasanton, which is supposedly 'just a few blocks from Santa Rita Jail if you go down the County property, through the Federal property, underneath the freeway and over a little. Mr. Allen thought this was a great idea. Cm. Moffatt indicated he presented a letter from Mayor Jeffery indicating Dublin' s opposition to the new route. A letter from Sheriff Plummer was also presented in opposition. This letter was jointly signed by Pleasanton Mayor Mercer, Livermore Mayor Turner, Dublin Mayor Jeffery and Alameda County Supervisor Campbell. Gail Gilpin was prepared to present the concept that Pleasanton concurred with the new alignment , but expressed mixed emotions when she learned Mayor Mercer had signed the letter in opposition. There will be another meeting later in the month in which Mr. Allen will be conducting himself. It was Cm. Moffatt' s understanding that Mr. Allen would be the only Board member present, but it was to be an official meeting. This meeting will be March 18th at 9 : 00 a.m. Mr. Ambrose reported that a letter was just received from Mr. Allen requesting that Dublin reconsider its previous position prior to March 24th. Mayor Pro Tempore Vonheeder suggested that Staff send a letter acknowledging receipt of Mr. Allen' s letter, and indicating that we stand firm in our original position. The letter should be directed to Mr. Phil Omsby, the BART District Secretary. Cm. Moffatt suggested that in the letter we question what BART' s official policy is along transportation corridors . • ;; * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council , the meeting was adjourned at 10: 28 p.m. • * * Mayor Pro Tempore ATTEST: City Clerk * * * !+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+! CM-7-89 Regular Meeting March 14, 1988