Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.3 Approve 01-23-1984 Minutes REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 23, 1984 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, January 23 , 1984 in the multi-purpose room of Frederiksen School . The meeting was called to order at 7 : 32 p.m. by Mayor Peter 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. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the following: Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 9 , 1984 and Regular Meeting of October 24 , 1983 ; Financial Report for Period Ending December 31, 1983 ; adopted RESOLUTION NO. 08 - 84 ESTABLISHING POSITION OF PLANNING INTERN adopted RESOLUTION NO. 09 - 84 FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS TRACT 4736 (FORMERLY TRACT 4188) authorized execution and substitution of performance bond in the amount of $128 , 500 in connection with the guarantee of work performed in Tract 4736 . On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the Warrant Register in the corrected amount. of $247 , 045.10 . AM/PM MINI-MART, NOISE COMPLAINT George DeLaCruz , Sutton Lane, addressed the Council with a status report related to the continuous noise that comes from the corner of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard as a result of tires peeling out of the 24 hour service station and mini-mart . J •� ; CM-3-11 January 23 , 1984 Mr . DeLaCruz reported that there was a definite difference as a result of the 90 day trial period with a guard on duty. However , the trial period had recently ended, and in speaking with the owner , Mr . DeLaCruz was advised that the station would no longer pay the cost for a guard, and from this point forward, if the City wanted a guard, they would have to bear the cost . Mr . DeLaCruz suggested an ordinance of some sort be adopted whereby an individual doing business in Dublin would need to bear this cost as a part of the cost of doing business . He further suggested that the cost could be shared between AM/PM Mini-Mart and the Jack-in-the-Box Restaurant next door . City Staff was directed to contact the owner of the AM/PM Mini-Mart and request . a status report and determine if the owner intends to use a security guard in the future . CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITATION ORDINANCE WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FROM DAVID BURTON On January 9 , 1984 , the Dublin City Council enacted Ordinance No. 01-84 as an urgency measure. The Ordinance was substantially identical to the Livermore Ordinances . The Dublin Ordinance differs from Livermore ' s in the amount that can be contributed to a campaign ( $100 instead of $50 ) and the amount that must be reported ( $15 . 01 instead of $10 . 01 ) . The remaining substantial difference between the Ordinances was the language added during the Council meeting to permit a candidate to contribute more than $100 in order to pay for a filing fee and/or a campaign statement . The addition of this language created an implication that the word "person" , as used in Section 3 (b) , included candidates . In response to an inquire at the meeting, the City Attorney stated that in his opinion, the word "person" did include candidates. Thus, under the Ordinance, candidates were limited to contributing no more than $100 to their own campaign. Since January 9th, there have been come questions raised regarding the constitutionality of a restriction on the amount that a candidate may contribute to his or her own campaign . After further study, the City, Attorney concluded that Ordinance No. 01-84 may be unconstitutional as applied to candidates. The City Attorney recommended that the Council amend Ordinance No. 01-84 to remove the constitutional infirmity. An amended ordinance, deleting the problem language was presented, correcting a misnumbered Government Code Section, and also, containing a severability clause which provides that, if one part of the Ordinance is held to be unconstitutional, the vali.dity of the remaining portions would be unaffected. The City Attorney explained that , like the original Ordinance, this amended Ordinance relates to an election and is, therefore, an urgency Ordinance effective upon adoption. CM-3-12 Regular Meeting January 23, 1984 Loans from candidates to their own campaigns was discussed. David Burton reiterated his position and urged the Council to rescind the ordinance. Cm. Hegarty felt that campaigns cost money and if a person believes in a candidate they should be able to support that candidate . He stated they still have to disclose under the state regulation. Cm. Jeffery felt the ordinance .evens out the advantage an incumbent has over an unknown candidate . She further stated she didn ' t feel this ordinance created undue bookkeeping, as records must be kept anyway. Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing . Mike Greenspan, a Berkeley resident spoke against the ordinance stating that the $100 limit severely limits those opposing incumbents . Harry Day, a Dublin resident who indicated he had considered running for office in the past, spoke against the ordinance . George DeLaCruz spoke against the ordinance, stating that everyone presupposes that outside interest would be detrimental to the good of the people of Dublin. He felt this issue was coming up too early in Dublin ' s history. Ed Rasmussen, Kolb Place supported the ordinance. Pat Henderson, Emerald Court, spoke in favor of the ordinance . Eileen Henderson, Emerald Court, felt that now was the time to deal with this issue and to settle it before it has a chance to become a problem. Ron Noble, Elba Way felt that the perception by the public was that all elected officials are less than saintly and supported debugging the ordinance by adopting the amendments and applauded the Council for adopting the ordinance in the first place. Bruce Patchen, Newcastle Lane, spoke in favor of the ordinance . John Rogila, Betlen Drive, spoke in favor of the amendments to the ordinance. Steve Taylor , Beverly Lane opposed the ordinance. Tom McCormick , Emerald Avenue, felt the existing newly adopted ordinance should be repealed. He quoted from a recent newspaper editorial and agreed that "a hasty law is often a bad law" . Harry Demmel, Los Ranchitos Court felt that Dublin doesn ' t need this kind of an ordinance and stated his motto was " if it ain ' t broke, don ' t fix it . " He felt the ordinance should be repealed and that the state law is adequate . CM-3-13 Regular Meeting January 23 , 1984 David Burton, Dillon Way, felt that more public input and participation should be encouraged and suggested that the issue should be put to a vote of the people . Kathy Braytron cited the big dollars that came into Dublin by the fireworks companies during the fireworks advisory ballot measure in 1982 . She spoke in favor of the ordinance. Gary Lochren, a Pleasanton resident felt the ordinance should be repealed, or put to a vote of the people . Norm Pitchford, Bonniewood Court, spoke in favor of the ordinance and urged the City Council to take time to come up with the right law. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing . Cm. Moffatt made a motion to repeal the ordinance and to come up with a better idea . The motion was seconded by Cm. Hegarty. The motion was defeated due to NO votes cast by Mayor Snyder , Cm. Drena and Cm. Jeffery. The City Attorney read the amendments . On ;notion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Drena, and by majority vote, the amended Ordinance was adopted as an urgency ordinance . Voting NO on the motion were Cm. Hegarty and Cm. Moffatt . ORDINANCE NO. 3 - 84 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 01-84 REGULATING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BY EXEMPTING THEREFROM CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY CANDIDATES TO THEIR OWN CAMPAIGNS RECESS A short recess was called . All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened. NOISE ORDINANCE - PUBLIC HEARING At the City Council meeting of December 12 , 1983 the City Council introduced a Noise Ordinance which had been prepared by the City Attorney. The City Council established January 23 , 1984 as a public hearing date for the second reading of the noise ordinance . This ordinance would restrict all types of noise and would be enforced utilizing a "reasonable person" standard. This ordinance would enable a , police officer to act as a witness and apply a standard of reasonableness of noise based on the criteria established in the ordinance . CM-3-14 Regular Meeting January 23, 1984 Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Nidel Day spoke in favor of having a noise ordinance adopted. Lou Holveck, representing PG&E, stated he spoke not for or against ordinance, but rather, wanted exemptions given to PG&E, as stated in his written request. The City Attorney indicated concern in that if the City exempts any public utility company, they are essentially exempting themselves and felt the City should, instead rely on the reasonable man standard. Lt. Tom Shores indicated his department receives informal complaints from time to time, but there have been no major problems since the Bonniewood incident. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Drena, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 4 - 84 PROHIBITING UNREASONABLE NOISE VILLAGE PARKWAY FENCING Staff has conducted a mail survey at Council direction to ascertain from the residents who back onto Village Parkway as to their feeling regarding replacing the fence along Village Parkway with a precast decorative concrete wall . To replace the fence with a wall in the same location will require an easement from the property owners as the existing fence is on their property. The results of the survey, as of this writing, are as follows : Mailed out 71 Would like fence replaced . 52 Would not like fence replaced 4 No response 15 The purpose of this hearing is to obtain verbal input from the affected property owners and determine the course of further action on this matter. If the Council does not wish to replace the fence of those people opposed to a new wall, a concrete wall could be constructed with a vertical board finish and painted a dark brown so that there would not be much of a visual contrast between the new wall and the old fence. However, this alternative is not recommended by Staff . Also, the actual decision of the finish of the wall can be postponed until it can be determined whether all the property owners will dedicate the easement for the new wall . CM-3-15 Regular Meeting January 23, 1984 Staff recommended either a slumpstone/skip trowel or a vertical board/skip trowel finish on the wall and that Council select the finish that it prefers to have face the street . Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing . George Zika, Peppertree, questioned the legal process of how the City would deal with those who don ' t want the fence . Gary Lonigan, Beverly Lane, questioned who would bear the cost and any possible assessment . It was explained that the City intended to pay for the fence and that there would be no assessment to the property owners . The City Attorney explained that the City would need a temporary construction easement . Mr . Lonigan questioned whether or not this project would go out for competitive bid. The City Engineer explained that it would. Bill Chew, Diana Lane indicated he was originally concerned about trees that are up against his fence . He questioned the length of time between when the old fence was torn down and the new one erected. It was explained that the timing would be approximately 1 - 2 weeks . Mr . Chew questioned the chain link fence on the other side of Village Parkway. Mayor Snyder explained that Zone 7 owns and maintains that particular fence. David Burton, Dillon Way, questioned why the City didn ' t consider building the fence on the sidewalk rather than having to obtain the easements . The City Manager explained that the City needs this space to provide adequate passage and for bus shelters . Mr . Burton questioned the priority of this project and suggested putting the money into parks and recreation services instead . Steve Taylor , Beverly Lane, was in favor of the new fencing and asked if the fence would also provide sound barrier benefits . He stated he would like to see the time that the fence is down minimized. He questioned how side fences will tie in . Jenny Murray, Beverly Lane, spoke in favor of the new fences . David Weinberg, Tamarack Drive, questioned the height of the fence and the corner treatment . The corner treatment was explained and he was advised that the fence will be 6 ft high . Norm Pitchford, Bonniewood Court questioned if -the City Council might be setting a precedent for future areas with regard to replacing fencing. A Canterbury Lane resident was very much in favor of the project and asked if there would be any tax benefit to those donating the easement . Leonard Jenkin, Brighton Drive, questioned if residents would have choice of which fence they want . Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Drena expressed concern regarding the 15 people who didn' t respond . CM-3-16 Regular Meeting January 23, 1984 On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt , and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to proceed to obtain easements from the property owners . On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Drena, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to contract for appraisals as needed. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council determined that slumpstone fencing be used similar to that used on the other side of Village Parkway and that color choices be brought back at a future time . On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to proceed with plans and specifications for : Project #1 - Sound wall along the west side of Village Parkway between Amador Valley Boulevard and Kimball Avenue; and Project #2 - Landscape and sidewalk improvements for the same limits; and made an additional appropriation of $200 , 000 for the wall, and an additional appropriation of $120 , 000 for landscaping . PA-82-033 BARRATT SAN JOSE REVISED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING ,& TENTATIVE MAP Barratt San Jose originally applied for a Planned Development and Tentative Map to develop a 112-unit mini-condominium project . The application was considered by the Planning Commission and City Council . The City Council continued the public hearing on the application in order to prepare the San Ramon Road Specific Plan and to allow the applicant to address the concerns of local residents . Barratt San Jose has now submitted a revised Planned Development and Tentative Map to develop an 88-unit project, with 48 townhouses and 40 mini- condos . The application involves a revision to the Zoning Ordinance that was not previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. State .zoning law requires that the application be referred to the Planning Commission for report and reco;nmendation. Staff has met with applicant and there are four items which still need to be resolved: 1 ) ARCHITECTURE 2 ) CITY LAND 3 ) LANDSCAPING 4 ) HEIGHT mayor Snyder opened the public hearing . Nathan Meeks addressed the Council, stating he would answer any questions the Council may have, but felt perhaps questions at this point would be premature, as most issues would be resolved at the Planning Commission level prior to being heard by the Council . CM-3-17 Regular Meeting January 23, 1984 Residents who had questions related to the frontage treatment and sidewalKS, size of units, etc . , were encouraged to attend the Planning Commission hearing and provide their input at that time. Dennis Ramsdell , Calle Verde Drive, spoke in opposition to the project . Dick Hopkins spoke against the project . Jim Hjerpe questioned where the people who were opposing this project had been for the last year during which time all the public hearings had been taking place . Mr . Hjerpe explained that many people had volunteered many many hours toward the resolution of concerns related to this project . He felt Barratt had made great strides toward working with neighboring home- owners' related to various concerns and further , that Barratt had made many concessions . Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing . On motion of Mayor Snyder , seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council referred Barratt ' s application to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation at a public hearing . DOUGHERTY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT The City Council has held a public hearing regarding the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant and Jobs Bill funds allocated to the City of Dublin for Fiscal Year 1983-84 . As a result of these .hearings , the City Council approved the expenditure of $55 , 100 for a street improvement project on Dougherty Road. This project consists of the installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements from the railroad pathway on the south to as far north as possible . At this time the City Engineer estimates that improvements can be installed to North Mariposa Drive, which is just north of the Arroyo Vista Community Building . It is anticipated that the remainder of the improvement would be constructed as additional Community Development Block Grant funds become available to the City. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to advertise Contract 84-1 for bids . SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM At its meeting of November 28 , 1983 , the . City Council adopted a sidewalk repair policy for fiscal year 1983-84 and appropriated $100 ,000 for undertaking sidewalk repairs throughout the City. In accordance with City Council direction, the City Engineer prepared plans and specifications and a list of defective sidewalk locations. Cm. Hegarty questioned if every street had been surveyed. The sidewalk in front of 7475 Starward Drive was added to the list . CM-3-18 Regular Meeting January 23, 1984 On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to advertise Contract 84-2 for bids . OLD ST. RAYMOND ' S CHURCH In October , the Amador-Livermore Valley Historical Society (ALVHS) contacted the City Council indicating an interest in meeting with the Park & Recrea- tion Commission to investigate the possibility of mutually providing for the restoration of old St . Raymond ' s Church. Representatives of ALVHS were in attendance at the Park & Recreation Commission meeting on December 13 , 1983 . The representatives indicated to the Commission members that they would like to consider a lease arrangement with the City. ALVHS President, Alan Campbell, indicated that they were considering a twenty year lease at one dollar per year , which would include renewal options . The Park & Recreation Commission had concerns about providing funding for capital improvements on a building which the City did not own. Therefore, the Commission requested additional information and a legal opinion from the City Attorney. The. City Attorney has indicated that if a mutually acceptable agreement cannot be negotiated then the City Council would have the option to acquire the property for public use through emminent domain proceedings . This process would require the City to pay fair market value for the property based on an independent appraisal of the property. At the Park & Recreation Commission meeting on January 17 , 1984 , the Commission requested additional information on the potential cost of acquiring the old St . Raymond ' s Church . The Commission is desirous of analyzing all costs and options available. In order to proceed with this process , the Commission has requested that the. City Council authorize Staff to acquire an independent appraisal . Included in the motion was the request to have the City acquire an estimate of the cost of repairs necessary to bring the building up to code . At the Park & Recreation Commission meeting, the Commissioners were under the impression that an appraisal would cost approximately $150 . 00 The assumption of a small expenditure for a qualified appraisal encouraged them to request authorization. However , subsequent to the Commission meeting, Staff has consulted with the City Attorney on the cost of this item. The Attorney has estimated the cost between $3 , 000 and $5 , 000 . An appraisal which is used in emminent domain proceedings is required to be prepared by an independent appraiser and would serve as a legal document . Given the additional information on the cost of appraisal and the receipt of correspondence frora ALVHS, Staff requested the City Council consider options available and provide direction accordingly. CM-3-19 Regular Meeting January 23, 1984 Liz Schmitt , P&R Commissioner , stated she would like to see Staff directed to telephone and get approximate appraisal costs . She stressed the critical time factor because of the current disrepair of the facility. Cin. Jeffery felt the historical society had provided a service to the community and further , that the Council should write them a letter thanking them very much for their generous offer and politely ask them to make good on their commitment to restore the church . Council should also ask them to define "weather permitting" , and ask if Council could check back at some future date . Tom McCormick , P&R Commissioner , stated the Livermore-Amador Valley Historical Society is now having a major fundraising event directed toward other activities, and they simply don ' t have time to devote to old St . Raymond ' s . There is no committee directed to this project . Cm. Moffatt questioned if the City could repair the facility and give the bill to the historical society. The City Attorney responded negative . Cm. Drena felt the City should ask the society what their restoration plans are for this property. He felt it looked as if they had shown no interest in this particular site and that they have had enough time to do something if they were going to do it . The City Attorney explained the process for obtaining an appraisal and because of the unique and peculiar nature of the location, this could actually cause a .high appraisal . The appraisal must be figured at the highest commercial use potential for the property. Tom McCormick stated he would be very happy to conduct a tour of the facility for the City Attorney. Mr . Taugher and Mr . White, Dublin Building Officials have both checked the building and found it to be up to code. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt and by majority vote, the Council directed the Park & Recreation Commission to continue in their efforts toward restoration and to keep an open dialogue and discussion going with the LAVHS, and come up with some kind of proposal to report back to the Council in 2 months . Further , if the Commission could come up with a pro-bono appraisal, they should obtain it . Voting against this motion were Cm. Jeffery and Mayor Snyder . TRAFFIC STUDY - SIGNALS ON VILLAGE PARKWAY The Council directed Staff to study these two intersections at the request of a citizen of Dublin for the possibility of replacing the four-way stop intersection control with traffic signals . TJKM completed the study and their report was given to the City Council. CM-3-20 Regular Meeting January 23 , 1984 These intersections do meet signal warrants with the Brighton Drive intersection indicating a higher priority. It is felt that even though these intersections do meet the warrants, other locations in the City do have a greater need . On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to include signal installations at Village Parkway at Brighton Drive and Tamarack Drive for future consideration in the Five-Year Capital Improvement budget to be updated in June, 1984 . Cm. Jeffery felt that if there were greater needs elsewhere, this should be put in a lower priority position. H .R. 4103 - FEDERAL CABLE TELEVISION LEGISLATION At the regular City Council meeting on January 9 , 1984 , Councilmember Drena requested that H . R. 4103 be examined, to determine the need for Council action . Staff has contacted Congressman Stark ' s office to determine when the legislation may be heard by the full committee. The staff members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee informed Representative Stark ' s office that they do not have a hearing date set at this time. Their best estimation was that the hearing would be held in mid - February. The legislation in its current form has been opposed by the National League of Citites and the California League of Cities . Difficulties the legislation would cause cities was discussed. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council determined that based upon the findings, a letter of opposition be sent to legislative leaders in the House of Representatives . 1984 CITY INSURANCE PROGRAM The City has received the .1984 Insurance Renewal Quotation from the City' s Insurance Broker . The total 1984 premium cost to the City is $ 9 ,080 which is $ 1,080 more than 1983 . This is primarily attributable to the following : 1 . Increased coverage required for the City ' s fixed assets . Last year those City fixed assets covered totalled approximately $42 ,000 . This year , more than twice the coverage is required. The Public Employee ' s Bond was also increased from $100 , 000 to $200 ,000 . Premium difference, $541 . CM-3-21 Regular Meeting January 23 , 1984 2 . Last year the City ' s Umbrella Policy premium was a minimum premium. This year the company has increased its minimum premium by approximately $600 . Approximately 10% of this increase, or $60 will be reimbursed by Alameda County. It is also important to note that there has been an increase in the auto coverage due to the addition of a detective car which was approved in the 1983-84 budget . However , this additional premium will be paid by Alameda County in accordance with its agreement with the City. The City budgeted a total of $8 , 100 in the 1983-84 budget for insurance coverage . Since a portion of each years insurance is prepaid for the subsequent fiscal year , a total of $8 , 300 is needed for fiscal year 1983-84 . On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council 1) Authorized the City' s insurance broker to bind the proposed coverage ; and 2 ) Authorized a budget transfer in the amount of $200 from the Contingent Reserve to the Insurance Budget . LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1983-2 (KREMCO PROPERTY) As part of the review and approval of Larry Lee ' s 150 unit , single family development and Amador Lake ' s development , certain landscaping and park maintenance was made a condition of approval . This maintenance assessment district will assure that these maintenance responsibilites are undertaken. The first years assessment is to be $27 , 000 ; to be shared by Amador Lakes ( 60% ) and Larry Lee ' s 150 unit subdivision ( 40% ) . The County Assessor will collect the money and turn it over to Dublin. The City will then be responsible for the maintenance of the park and land- scaping . This District ' s boundaries includes all of subdivision #4719 and maintains all Stagecoach Drive landscaping ( including that portion within the City of San Ramon) and the mini park in this subdivision. Staff has met with the City Manager of San Ramon regarding various methods of handling the maintenance within San Ramon . At present, Staff is proceeding with a draft joint powers agreement for Dublin to contract to maintain all the landscaping with the funds collected from the District . This agreement will be brought to the City Council for its consideration at a later date . On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 10 - 84 INITIATING PROCEEDINGS LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1983-2 CM-3-22 Regular Meeting January 23, 1984 adopted RESOLUTION NO. 11 - 84 ORDERING FORMATION LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1983-2 (TRACT #4719 ) COMMISSION CONFERENCE & MEETING POLICY The City ' s Planning Commission has indicated its desire to host joint local dinner meetings with the Planning Commissions from Alameda County, Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon . The Planning Commission has also expressed an interest in hosting a dinner for the City of San Ramon Planning Commission and Staff at the upcoming League of CA Cities Planning Commissioners Institute in San Diego. The cost of hosting the local dinner meetings would be approximately $500 per meeting . The cost of hosting the San Ramon Planning Commission would be approximately $200 . At present, the Travel , Conference & Meeting Account in the Planning budget does not have funds budgeted for such meetings . If the Planning Commission were to host one local meeting and a dinner at the League meeting between now and the end of the fiscal year , a budget transfer in the amount of $700 .would be required. Since the City Council has not typically hosted such meetings for other bodies in the past at City expense, and since the City Council has also appointed a ParK & Recreation Commission which might request similar authorization in the future, Staff recommended that the City Council adopt a policy with respect to the City incurring the expense for such meetings . Cm. Hegarty felt there should be an attitude of give and take, and that we should not always be on the taking end. Mayor Snyder felt that since the City Council attends meetings and seminars at their own budgeted expense, and since other cities budget for these same expenses, it is not appropriate for Dublin to spend money on other cities . Cm. Drena felt an expenditure of perhaps $50 to secure a meeting facility and to provide light refreshments would be appropriate. Council concensus was that light refreshments could be served and an appropriate meeting place secured. Cm. Hegarty asked to be excused and left the meeting at 12 ; 05 a.]ri. CM-3-23 Regular Meeting January 23, 1984 BART LIVERMORE-PLEASANTON ROUTE EXTENSION On January 18 , 1984 Mayor Snyder from the City of Dublin, Cm. Mercer from the City of Pleasanton and Cm. Weiskamp from the City of Livermore heard public testimony and discussed the potential for all 3 Cities agreeing on the extension of a BART line to the Valley area . All representatives at the meeting agreed that it was important for the Valley to present a unified position to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Executive Committee at its hearing on January 26 , 1984 . Each of the representatives agreed to bring the following concepts back to their respective City Council ' s for consideration by the full Council of each City: 1 ) The Valley should have 2 stations built in the first phase in addition to the Bay Fair Station. The first station would be located on I-580 between Dublin and Stoneridge. The second station would be located in the vicinity of the Hacienda Interchange . 2 ) That the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton would support the City of Livermore ' s position with respect to the routing of a BART line provided that the BART line would follow route I-580 .to at least the eastern City limits of the City of Pleasanton. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, ( Cm. Hegarty absent) , the Council adopted . RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 84 A RESOLUTION OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITIES OF LIVERMORE, DUBLIN AND PLEASANTON ON RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO THE LIVERMORE-PLEASANTON BART RAPID EXTENSION STUDY adopted RESOLUTION NO. 13 - 84 AGREEING TO SUPPORT THE CITY OF LIVERMORE PREFERRED BART RAIL ALIGNMENT EAST OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON CITY LIMITS and approved a drafted letter be sent to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. OTHER BUSINESS Goals & Objectives Meeting The City Manager indicated that it was necessary for him to request a change of the previously agreed upon meeting date for the special meeting to discuss the City' s Goals & Objectives, due to a prior commitment . CM-3-24 Regular Meeting January 23, 1984 The date for the meeting was changed to Thursday, February 16 , 1984 at 7 : 30 p.m. The meeting location will be arranged by Staff . League Revenue & Taxation Committee Meeting Cm. Jeffery reported that she had recently attended a committee meeting and had copies of information available if the Council were interested . Cm. Jeffery indicated she had also recently attended a study session put on by UC Davis on autonomy of local government. Cm. Jeffery felt there was an interesting exchange of information and a written report will be available soon . Village Parkway - Landscaping on East Fence Line Liz Schmitt , Cypress Court, asked about the possibility of landscaping between the sidewalk and fence along the east side of Village Parkway. Staff was directed to determine if this area is in the City right-of-way. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12 : 19 a .m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CM-3-25 Regular Meeting January 23 , 1984