Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.01 Approve 02-23-1989 & 02-27-1989 Minutes ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - February 23, 1989 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Thursday, February 23, 1989, in the Board Room of the Dublin Unified School District. The meeting was called to order at 6:55 p.m. , by Mayor Paul Moffatt. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Moffatt . * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle- giance to the flag. * * * * STATUS REPORT ON 1988 GOALS & OBJECTIVES City Manager Ambrose advised that the establishment of annual Goals & Objectives for the City provides a common direction for the Council and Staff in pursuing those issues which are of most importance to the City. By adopting a Goals & Objectives Plan early each calendar year, the City is in a much better position to develop an Annual Budget and Capital . Improvement Program which reflects the desires of the community. Mr. Ambrose advised that in 1988, a total of 104 objectives were incorporated into the Goals & Objectives Plan as adopted by the City Council . Of those objectives, 62 were given a high priority, 38 were given a medium priority and 4 were given a low priority. Fifty one (490) of the total 1988 objectives adopted last year were completed or nearly completed. Of 62 high priority objectives, 38 (61 %) were completed or nearly completed. During the year, Staff identified a total of 5 major additional programs, assignments or objectives which, were undertaken subsequent to the adoption of last years' Goals & Objectives Plan. Of these, 1 was completed and 4 were underway. As part of the adoption of the 1988-89 Capital Budget, the City Council allocated funding for a total of 20 Capital Equipment or Capital Projects . In addition to these projects, 5 projects were added during the first half of Fiscal Year 1988-89 . Of these 25 projects, the City has completed or is on. schedule with 18 projects at this time. The 1989 preliminary Goals & Objectives includes 103 objectives; 30 of which are new for 1989, 9 of which Staff recommends be deleted and 64 which are carried over from previous years and/or are expanded in scope. CM-8-76 Adjourned Regular Meeting February 23, 1989 item � A err . J. Of the 103 objectives included in the plan, Mr. Ambrose advised that 32 cannot be accomplished this year without additional personnel and/or funds. Under the Administration area, the Council discussed the development of a Municipal Code. Cm. Jeffery asked if Staff could guarantee that all the ordinances would be completed by April, 1989, for inclusion in the Code. Mr. Ambrose explained that there are about 4 or 5 ordinances remaining to be cleaned up so that they can be submitted for codification. Under Finance, Mr. Ambrose advised that fees for services have been included in the Management Audit. Under Public Relations, discussion was held related to the fact that Proposition 73 was recently overturned by a Superior Court ruling in Los Angeles . Under Planning, Mayor Moffatt questioned the status of the Downtown Plan. Mr. Ambrose advised that other projects have taken more time than anticipated, thereby leaving less time to devote to this objective. Mr. Ambrose advised that the issue of the Livermore Shere of Influence was deleted, but it has become active again. Mayor Moffatt felt that the Zoning Ordinance should be revised before too many developments come in. Under` Engineering, Cm. Snyder asked if we know specifically where the Dublin Boulevard Planline is at this time. Mr. Ambrose advised that we can' t just adopt a planline, but must do a General Plan Amendment. Under Recreation, Mayor Moffatt asked when Shannon Center Phase I will be starting. Ms. Lowart advised that there was a pre-construction meeting that morning and it was hoped that construction would begin sometime in March with completion by June 30th for the entire renovation. Under Police, Mr. Ambrose advised that the drug awareness program was the #1 high priority goal and while we did not totally achieve it, we made a good showing. Elementary grades were covered, but Police Services were unable to cover 7th and 8th grades. Cm. Snyder questioned if there was any way to measure the effectiveness of the program at some point in the future. Lt. Rose advised that this is very difficult to monitor, but through the follow-up program, we can test how individual students feel about drugs. Mr. Ambrose advised that major problems have been encountered with the implementation of a data processing program for Police Services at this time. Under Animal Control, Mr. Rankin advised that the problems are mainly due to the County. CM-8-77 Adjourned Regular Meeting February 23, 1989 ti Mr. Ambrose explained that the City has a very good working rapport with Steve Szalay, the new County Administrator. The County was to develop a proposal whereby we would contract with the County to build a new animal shelter on County property. We have not yet received this proposal, however. Under Transportation Maintenance, Cm. Jeffery questioned what the 3 community projects were. Staff advised that one project was tree staking, one was additional weeding along Stagecoach Road, and the third was landscaping in front of the Senior Center. Cm. Snyder questioned if there was a different relationship between Staff and BART Staff now. He stated he noticed a difference at the BART meeting last week. Cm. Jeffery stated that at the Advisory, Board meeting, BART Staff made it quite clear that they were going to be :very cooperative. Under Capital Projects, Cm. Snyder questioned if the Alamo Creek Park project was 6 months behind because of the bridge, and also that the bridge was just put in. Mr. Ambrose stated he would not recommend that the City do a turnkey park again, because the City has absolutely no control . ESTABLISHMENT OF 1989 GOALS & OBJECTIVES COUNCIL PROGRAM AREA/GOAL PRIORITY PROPOSED OBJECTIVES FOR ACCOMPLISHING GOAL I. GENERAL GOVERNMENT A. ADMINISTRATION Civic Center High (88) a. Coordinate activities of Contractor, Architect, Construction Manager & City High (88) b. Select Phone System High (88) c. Select Furniture High (88) d. Prepare plan for maintenance and operation of Center High (89) e. Coordinate move to Civic Center High (89) f. Plan & implement Dedication Ceremonies High (85) Complete Development of Municipal Code High (89) Prepare Report on benefits of establishing a redevelopment agency High (86) Conduct Council/Staff Team Building Retreat Medium (85) Develop Business License Ordinance Medium (88) Develop & implement Records Management Program for City Clerk records Low (87) Develop Employee Recognition Program B. FINANCE High (85) Revidw charge- for services rendered by all Departments CM-8-78 Adjourned Regular Meeting February 23, 1989 Develop a long-term financial plan for the City High (89) a. Develop & implement a sales tax monitoring program High (89) b. Develop a 3-5 year forecast for revenues & operating expenditures to be used in conjunction with the Five-Year CIP Program Data Processing High (88) a. Recreation Software-Solicit bids and install Medium (88),b. Work with Alameda Co. to complete installation of Police Computer Aided Dispatch & Police Records System software in new Civic Center Medium (88) c. Complete training on City Clerk & Administrative Software Medium (87) Develop Program for ongoing internal control Medium (87) Participate in Garbage Company rate increase proposal ADDITIONAL GOALS High (89) Develop & implement computerized billing system to track development fees C. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS Medium (85) Joint meeting with representatives from other agencies Medium (86) More aggressively monitor activities of other regional agencies D. PUBLIC RELATIONS High (89) Distribute one (1) newsletter & one (1) calendar/ Annual Report High (86) Work with Chamber of Commerce in development of community profile brochure High (89) Develop Press Release Program Medium (87) Community gift catalog Medium (87) Student Government Day Low (86) Prepare report on program for recognition of outstanding development ADDITIONAL GOALS (89) Complete Calendar by January 1st E. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION (89) Perform contract review for the following contracts High a. Animal Control High b. Building & Safety High c. Crossing Guards High d. Engineering High e. Police High f. Public Works Maintenance High g. Street Sweeping High h. Traffic Signal Maintenance High i Vector. 'Control CM-8-79 Adjourned Regular Meeting February 23, 1989 II. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A. PLANNING High (88) Complete Management Audit of Planning & Development Services High (87) Hansen Ranch General Plan Amendment Study High (87) Blaylock/Gleason/Fletcher General Plan Amendment Study High (87). East Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Studies High (88) West Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Studies High (87) Resolve Eastern Sphere of Influence dispute with Livermore High (85) Downtown Improvement Implementation Strategies Medium (86) Site Development Review Guidelines Medium (86) Develop'Environmental Guidelines Medium (85) Revise Zoning Ordinance Medium (86) Report on historic element to General Plan B. BUILDING & SAFETY High (88) Revise Infraction Procedures High (88) Complete follow-up of enforcement of non-conforming signs High (89) Prepare Ordinance adopting 1988 Uniform Building Code Medium (88) Adopt Building Security Ordinance in consultation with Police Department C. ENGINEERING High (87) Dublin Blvd easterly extension to Tassajara Rd General Plan Amendment & Plan Line High (88) Dublin Blvd Easterly Extension Assessment District High (89) Update 1985 Traffic Speed Survey Medium (89) Establish City Standard details & specifications for public improvements III. CULTURE & LEISURE A. RECREATION High (86) Renovate Shannon Community Center High (86) Develop and implement Teen Program High (88) Renovate Dublin Swim Center High (89) Develop a Vandalism Awareness Program in coopera- tion with Police & Public Works High (89) Develop a Joint Facility Use/Development Agreement with Dublin School District High (86) Renovate Shannon Park High (88) Develop Senior Center Facility Use Policy High (89) Develop Park & Open Space Masterplan in East & West Dublin Medium (88) Conduct dedication ceremonies for newly constructed/renovated park facilities Medium (87) Develop adult/youth sports program CM-8-80 Adjourned Regular Meeting February 23, 1989 Medium (89) Investigate opportunities for trail development Medium (89) Provide opportunities for increased participation at the Senior Center through expansion of programs and hours of operation Medium (89) Work with Pleasanton A Livermore to pursue development of a five (5) year regional childcare master plan Low (88) Develop a slide presentation promoting City recreation programs, parks & facilities Cm. Snyder expressed concern that there is no specific place to direct human resource type activities. He did not feel that this was the purpose in appointing the Park & Recreation Commission, yet he felt that some resource was needed within the community to deal with human resource situations. Ms. Lowart advised that Staff had talked about this and one of the things Staff will be looking at 1s the makeup of other cities, i.e. , where human services are grouped. Cm. Snyder felt that the City will receive more and more requests for social service programs in the future. Three that always end up on lists throughout the Bay Area include childcare, substance abuse, and housing. Others would include youth employment. City Manager Ambrose clarified that the Council was looking more toward a referral type, of function. Cm. Hegarty felt a lot of the responsibility lies with the County. Often times, because of a lack of funds, cities end up helping. Cm. Hegarty cited the City's funding of additional library hours as an example. Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff will investigate this issue further and report back to the Council. There definitely needs to be some type of referral. Cm. Jeffery stated she had concerns about the formation of a Commission in that it will then be a visible thing and problems will surface which could have been handled in a different way. If a Commission is formed, then it will have to be staffed somehow. Cm. Vonheeder felt it might be just as a staff position under Ms. Lowart. IV. PUBLIC SAFETY A. POLICE High (87) Provide alcohol/drug awareness program to include all grades within public and private schools High (89) Increase narcotic arrests and drug seizures by 50% improve officer safety High (88) Implement Sheriff's CAD System at Dublin Police Station High (88) Develop & implement program to recover costs associated with police response to DUI cases High (89) Develop and implement a comprehensive personal safety program for children and adults Cm. Jeffery requested that the development of a comprehensive personal safety program be given a high ranking rather than medium. Cm. Vonheeder felt it was interesting to note that n : :the two.,womea!_had, ranked..Nthis. .as,.�high,and..,the three.,men•.ranked it.-mediumi'r Cm:­ Snyder­, indicated he based his ranking on the way Staff ranked it. CM-8-81 Adjourned Regular Meeting February 23, 1989 Medium (89) Develop and implement a facility operation and maintenance program for the new police facility Medium (88) Develop tracking system of all traffic related complaints Medium (87) Expand bicycle safety/education/enforcement program to include teens and adults B. ANIMAL CONTROL High (86)_Prepare report to City Council on long term solution for animal shelter Medium (88) Provide public with information on. Vector Control C. DISASTER PREPAREDNESS High (85) Complete Emergency Response Plan High (87) Hold disaster simulation exercise ADDITIONAL GOALS High (89) Develop Emergency Preparedness Handout for distribution to the public V. TRANSPORTATION A. MAINTENANCE High (86) Report to Council on Street Tree Policy High (89) Implement three (3) new community volunteer public works projects High --- (88) Study cost/benefit of computerized irrigation system Medium (87) Complete development of Public Works Maintenance Procedures Manual B. TRANSPORTATION High (88) Resolve issue of Downtown and East Dublin BART stations High (87) Complete I-580 improvement cost/benefit study High (88) Complete Traffic Impact Fee Study and report to Council High (87) Coordination of I-580 improvements with Pleasanton High (89) Develop conceptual plan for financing staged construction of Dublin Blvd to Tassajara Rd High (87) Resolve BART Park & Ride Lot installation in Downtown Dublin Medium (88) Work with Tri-Valley Council to develop Regional Transportation Plan Medium (87) Work with other valley agencies to implement Measure B project Medium (87) Report on County Transportation Plan Low (87) Monitor San Ramon Branchline ADDITIONAL GOALS (89) Review where we are now and can reasonably go in the future, .. - CM-8-82 Adjourned Regular Meeting February 23, 1989 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11 : 05 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CM-8-83 Adjourned Regular Meeting February 23, 1989 REGULAR MEETING - February 27, 1989 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, February 27, 1989, in the Board Meeting Room of the Dublin Unified School District. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. , by Mayor Paul Moffatt. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Moffatt. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and .those present in the pledge of alle- giance to the flag. * * * * INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEE Lee Thompson introduced Phillip Tiewater, the City' s new Public Works Inspector. Phil' s most recent experience was with the City of Berkeley. Phil will be doing all of the City' s capital project inspections. The Council welcomed-Phil aboard. * * * * PRESENTATION BY DUBLIN FINE ARTS FOUNDATION Cm. Snyder advised that he would not participate in discussions related to this issue due to a conflict of interest. Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that the purpose of this presentation is for the Dublin Fine Arts Foundation to apprise the City Council and the community of the efforts of the Foundation to acquire a commissioned piece of art for the' Civic Center. An artist has been selected and a design proposal has been prepared. The Foundation's intent is to provide the artwork to the City as a gift. The City Attorney' s Office has advised that it would be appropriate to accept the gift upon specified assurances from the Foundation and the artist. City Staff anticipated that the City Attorney' s Office can work with representatives of the Foundation to develop an agreement which would be presented at a future meeting. The artist has worked in conjunction with the Project Design Team to develop the appropriate environment for the placement of the art. In order to accommodate this element, it will require construction revisions to the courtyard area. Staff and the Construction Manager have obtained of4. $5..0,,.,00,0,.:- .$6..0.,.000.,_.,. ..A •proposal, would,l-,,& sub-mu.-�.���' to the City Council at a future meeting. CM-8-84 Regular Meeting February 27, 1989 Mr. Rankin advised that the proposal by the Dublin Fine Arts Foundation represents a significant community effort which will further enhance the Civic Center project. Ron Nahas addressed the Council and stated that he was present on behalf of the Dublin Fine Arts Foundation. Mr. Nahas felt that there was a special opportunity tonight to make a presentation on a piece of artwork for the Dublin Civic Center. They hope to raise money in order to give this to the citizens of Dublin. • The Foundation was founded about 1 year ago and it is a non-profit corporation which has been approved by the California State Franchise Board. They hope to promote fine art in the community. They are in the very early stages. Dublin' s new Civic Center building will rank among the major buildings in the state. Mr. Nahas advised that Lynne Baer has been hired as Executive Director of the corporation. To date, they have about 50% of the cost of the artwork which has come from a broad base of the business community. They have also applied to the Endowment of the Arts for a grant. If the City Council concurs with their choice, the story will just be beginning on what will hopefully be a long story. The plot will be the interaction of the weaving of fine arts into the community. They plan for art education, expositions and involvement of the community in all phases. Mr. Nahas stated that the newspapers reported that this would cost the City additional money in order to site this piece of artwork in the new Civic Center, but what they are asking is for the Council to endorse this particular artist and particular piece of artwork. He hoped that the Council would commit Staff to work with them in order to complete the task. He explained that only an outline is presented at this meeting of what this. will mean to the community. Artist Ned Smythe was their first choice of an artist to do this piece. He first had his work displayed in 1973 in New York. They looked at the work of over 100 artists. Ned Smythe stated that he works primarily environmentally with something that looks as though it has always been a part of the project. He looked at Dublin' s entire site to determine where the piece would make a state- ment. He focused on the center courtyard and on a sphere which would symbolize the heart of the entire community. Mr. Smythe displayed his concept and explained that everyone will interpret this in a different way. He stated the globe would make viewers think about the fact that the world is really very small and everyone needs to consider how we treat it. It will cause people to think about nature and families. It will be a stationery sphere 8' in diameter and will be sunken about 18" from ground level. Mr. Nahas advised that they need the blessings of the City Council to proceed from this point forward. CM-8-85 Regular Meeting February 27, 1989 Cm. Jeffery stated she had seen the artwork twice and felt that you need to walk around it to see all the images. She stated she was impressed with the work Ned Smythe has done in his field. She felt the piece he has created is fascinating Cm. Hegarty stated he certainly enjoyed the presentation as it was very educational. He stated he enjoys things of culture and the arts. He felt this was a good step for Dublin to support fine arts and what this will give to the community at the Civic Center. He did explain that he was very cautious about how it will all come about, however. Cm. Vonheeder stated she was very impressed with the concept and the statement it makes about local government in solving some of the worlds problems. It all starts one step at a time at home. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Snyder abstained) , the Council directed Staff to work with the Dublin Fine Arts Foundation on the development of the necessary agreements. * * * * RECESS A short recess was called in order to allow everyone an opportunity to view the sphere. ' All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened. * * * * CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Adjourned Regular Meeting of January 24, 1989; (Cm. Hegarty requested a correction on page 47 in the last paragraph. The minutes indicated he referred to the 1200 acre Rafanelli & Nahas project, but he actually meant the 1200 "unit" project. ) Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 89 APPROVING AGREEMENT REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF NON-POINT SOURCE CONTROL EVALUATION PROGRAM Authorized Staff to issue an encroachment permit for banner installation by the American Cancer Society (4/22 - 5/1 /89) , once an insurance certificate has been received; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 15 - 89 AWARDING CONTRACT 89-2 ANNUAL SIDEWALK REPAIR/HANDICAP RAMP CONSTRUCTION PROGRA141 TO AMBO ENGINEERING, INC. ($37,884.15) CM-8-86 Regular Meeting February 27, 1989 Received a Report on the 1988 Fall Recreation Programs; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 16 - 89 APPROVING & AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH DUBLIN JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR USE OF THE DUBLIN SWIM CENTER Accepted the Audit and Management Letter for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1988; (Cm. Snyder stated that while he did not wish the item pulled from the Consent Calendar, he did wish to ask a question related to interest . rates on the City' s checking account. Cm. Snyder questioned if the City needed to renegotiate the account with Security Pacific since their takeover of Hibernia Bank. Finance Director Molina advised that the City is currently renegotiating with Security Pacific National Bank, and the City is very concerned regarding the low interest rate. We hope to be able to bring the rate up. ) Accepted a Financial Report for period ending June 30, 1988; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $903,075.31 . * * * * PUBLIC HEARING CHANGE OF SPEED LIMIT ON STAGECOACH ROAD Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Staff advised that this ordinance was introduced at the City Council meeting of February 13, 1989 and would provide for a speed limit of 30 mph on the entire length of Stagecoach Road within the City of Dublin. No comments were made by members of the public. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and. adopted ORDINANCE NO. 1 - 89 ESTABLISHING A 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT ON STAGECOACH ROAD BETWEEN AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD AND THE NORTHERLY CITY LIMIT * * * * PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR VARIANCE - DUBLIN CYCLERY - AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLERS Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Staff advised that 'in August; 198;, it 'c .::E`Lo -the City's attention that an addition had been constructed on property located at 7381 Amador CM-8-87 Regular Meeting February 27, 1989 Valley Boulevard, without a permit. The addition contains approximately 530 square feet. The addition does . not comply with the building code in that the exterior wall is required to be 1 hour fire resistive and extend 30" above the roof. The purpose of this requirement is to minimize the potential for the spread of fire from one building to the other. The appealant is aware of this requirement. On January 13, 1987, Ordinance No. 58-87 became effective. Section 3802(c) requires an automatic fire extinguishing system in a.Group B (Business) occupancy when the floor area exceeds 5,000 square feet. Section 3802 (i) 4th paragraph provides that when an addition is made to an existing building and the addition and the existing building exceeds' the area limitation (5, 000 sq ft) , the automatic fire extinguishing system must be installed. The original building was 14, 400 sq ft and with the additions is now 15, 350 sq ft. Dublin Cyclery now occupies 5, 670 sq ft. Ten additional tenants occupy the balance of the building. In order to obtain a building permit for the additions, it will be necessary to install automatic fire sprinklers throughout the entire building. The addition as proposed, plus the illegal addition, constitutes an 8 . 2% increase in the floor area of the original building. The alternative to installing automatic fire sprinklers is to remove both additions . Staff advised that in order to grant a variance the Council must find that the variance is consistent with the intent of the ordinance and that granting the variance will not lessen the protection of the people of the City of Dublin and the property situated therein. The Building Official advised that he cannot make these findings and in addition, the Fire Department is also opposed to granting the variance. Freeman Graves stated he wished to clarify the fact that Charles Tyler is not the property owner, but rather a tenant. The addition is primarily for storing bicycles which are not of a hazardous substance. The requirement of the ordinance is a substantial burden to a tenant to improve a site. If he must sprinkle a 14, 000 sq ft building, then the economics will not be feasible. He wants to stay at this location. If a variance was granted, it would be consistent with the ordinance in that the safety of people and buildings in this instance would remain because he would sprinkle the addition. Cm. Hegarty asked if the addition was done without a permit. Mr. Graves stated he thought there was a structure there before his client occupied the building. There were also some old sheds which were very dangerous and were torn down. Cm. Hegarty felt that the landowner gave the tenant permission to do what _, he, wanted -to ,do. and,.,_no_one..bothe.r_ed,,t:; ,c;onta:c t.-he-City. - -He_fel -}he owner should be the one addressing this. He questioned if Mr. Tyler had talked to the owner. CM-8-88 Regular Meeting February 27, 1989 Mr. Graves advised yes, they had contacted the owner and he basically said he will not sprinkle the entire building under any circumstances. Fire Chief Ritter pointed out that the statement that the addition would not be a danger to the adjoining buildings is not true. There is a service station next door, with a maximum exposure potential. The Fire Department feels there is a direct increase in the danger potential because of the construction that took place there. Mr. Graves advised that the addition, as planned, has been approved with conditions set forth. The addition will be sprinkled and this controls any hazard to the service station or the other buildings. Any increased hazard would be minimal. Chief Ritter explained that from a practical standpoint, sprinklers . are designed to put out fires when they are small. He discussed the costs involved in putting in 6 sprinkler heads. Partially sprinkling a building is not a practical approach. Mr. Graves stated the hazard will continue to exist whether or not this addition is built. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. Cm. Hegarty felt that the owner has violated -the codes and ordinance. If Dublin Cyclery moves out, the City still has an illegal addition and no sprinklers . Mr. Taugher explained that what brought this to the Council is that the Applicant indicated that a Site Development Review had been approved with conditions imposed by the Planning Department. The SDR expired, so they started the enforcement process. They are now at a point of either tear down the addition or sprinkle it. Staff needs to seek legal advice on whether to go after the owner or the tenant. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 17 - 89 DENYING VARIANCE TO SECTION 22.19 OF ORDINANCE NO. 58-87 PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10-82 REGULATING THE SALE AND USE OF FIREWORKS Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Fire Chief Ritter advised that this ordinance, which was introduced at the February 13, 1989 City Council meeting, would amend Ordinance No. �:- .- -1082. -to-deal. with-adm-in-i.�strat-iv�e ,matt-ers;�=��Fae change; '2i'ours""off `'� '''``,, � � - operation and clean up of fireworks booths. CM-8-89 Regular Meeting February 27, 1989 No comments were made by members of the public. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 2 - 89 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10-82 REGULATING THE SALE AND USE OF FIREWORKS * * * * PUBLIC HEARING - DUBLIN SECURITY STORAGE/RYDER TRUCK RENTAL APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION RELATED TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - 6055 SCARLETT COURT Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Laura Hoffineister advised that in May, 1988, the Applicant filed an application for a use permit request to consider a 35 foot tall freestanding sign for Dublin Security Storage/Ryder Truck Rental. During a review by Staff, it was determined that the Conditional Use Permit for the on-site outdoor recreational vehicle storage had expired and no Conditional Use Permit had been obtained for the truck rental operation which also required outdoor storage of vehicles. In October, 1988, the Applicant filed the additional use permit applica- tions. The application materials for the truck rental was completed in January, 1989 . Staff reviewed the request under the Design Criteria and recommended that the size be limited to a maximum of 7 ft x 12 ft (84 sq ft) to be compatible with the width of the existing landscape planter and newer nearby freestanding signs . On February 6, 1989, the Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit application for the outdoor recreational storage/truck rental and approved the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for a 35 ft tall freestanding sign subject to Conditions of Approval. On February 10, 1989, the Applicant appealed the Planning Commission's action specifically relating to the requirement for the sign size. The Applicant had proposed a 7 1 /2 ft x 15 ft ( 112 1 /2 sq ft) single-faced freestanding sign (35 ft tall) . The Commission approved a 7 ft x 12 ft (84 sq ft) size sign. The Commission had also expressed concerns of a second or back panel being installed which could be visible to traffic on the future Dublin Boulevard extension north of this site. The Commission felt that since �;7-,.-tbere.�wou>1-d,<=be.,-no--direct -through,--connection­-to -this"s'i;t�' frbftirt ie -fUttffz Dublin Boulevard extension the sign should be limited to a single-faced oriented toward Scarlett Court. CM-8-90 Regular Meeting February 27, 1989 The Applicant states in the appeal that the larger sign is warranted in that the sign meets code requirements and has a larger setback from Scarlett Court than other nearby signs. Staff advised that should the City Council decide to increase the Planning Commission sign size, the City Council should modify Condition #1 and the title in the draft resolution accordingly, and then adopt the modified resolution. Cm. Hegarty questioned if Staff has presented the alternative that the planter could have been made wider. Ms . Hoffineister advised that there is a driveway aisle that would not permit a wider planter area. Cm. Hegarty felt that they would be allowed a maximum of 150 sq ft according to the ordinance, but because people in the vicinity have put up smaller signs, Staff' s decision was `to not use the maximum of 150 sq ft. If the other businesses had put in the maximum size, then Staff's recommendation would be to allow the maximum. Ms . Hoffineister advised that this is only one of the things considered. Cm. Hegarty expressed concern that the sign ordinance allows 150 sq ft and the applicant only wants to put in 112 sq ft which is well below the maximum, but because the others did not use the maximum, now they cannot either. Cm. Jeffery asked if the 150 sq ft applied to 2 sides of a sign. Ms. Hoffineister stated no, this was for a single faced sign. Planning Director Tong stated that during discussions when the sign ordinance was done, it was determined through the review of the sign ordinance, that a permitted sign size, height and area would be related to the setback from the roadway. Mr. Tong explained that an appropriate mechanism would be through the CUP process. A set maximum could be established by amending the ordinance. - Mayor Moffatt stated that in order to go up to 35' with a 150 sq ft sign, a CUP would be required. The height limit is 201 . Shirley Simpson-Johnson with Arrow Sign Company advised the Council that she is a paid researcher. She investigates and determines within a City' s guidelines, what is best for the site. In this case, they need only 112 sq ft. She passed out pictures and advised that there are 2 freestanding signs on Scarlett Court. The existing U-Haul sign is approximately 60 sq ft with a 40 sq ft reader board underneath. This is set back about 50' from the street. The Nissan sign is about 60 sq ft and is in front of her clients property. Her client' s property is set back about 325-350' from the street and the sign is at the same location signs .�':,The.y-,ar.e.,only:;,propos4.ngr-.a •s;i-ngle aced si , ►: a:nd �fe•?# ..:� . that it meets the ordinance requirements. CM-8-91 Regular Meeting February 27, 1989 Cm. Hegarty clarified that it meets the ordinance requirements in one respect. Cm. Snyder asked if the size request had anything to do with a standard fixture. Ms. Johnson advised no that they build everything custom. Glenn Kierstead, Heritage Investments advised that he has been here since 1971 . Dublin Security Storage has been there since 1979. He is just asking for equal identification. They stayed well below the maximum on the original application. He is not a public storage person or a U-Haul person. If the sign is further reduced, it will not be worth putting up. Cm. Snyder asked if Mr. Kierstead would, every consider entering into discussions regarding the back panel or a second side of the sign. Mr. Kierstead stated no, and he would be willing to agree to this. He simply needs to fill up his buildings now. Cm. Snyder expressed concern that he might be giving up potential future considerations. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. Cm. Vonheederr- felt that with regard to visibility, there is no question that visibility is needed. The Staff Report addresses visibility from Scarlett Court, but she felt it was necessary from the freeway. She worked a lot on the sign ordinance and tended to agree with the sign people regarding the planter. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it as it is perception. She felt that what they are asking for is reasonable. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to allow a 112.5 sq ft 1-sided sign. Mr. Tong advised that the draft resolution can be modified to allow for this action. The Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 18 - 89 APPROVING PA 88-054 DUBLIN SECURITY STORAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST FOR A 35 FOOT TALL SINGLE-FACED FREESTANDING SIGN LOCATED AT 6005 SCARLETT COURT * * * * CM-8-92 Regular Meeting February 27, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING - HANSEN RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY, EIR, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PREZONING, TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 5766, & ANNEXATION REQUEST FOR 240 DWELLING UNITS ON 147 ACRES WEST OF SILVERGATE DRIVE AND NORTH OF HANSEN DRIVE Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Maureen O'Halloran advised that this item was continued most recently from the January 24, 1989, City Council meeting. At that meeting, the Council discussed issues related to: 1 ) land use designation and density for developable areas indicating Low Density Single Family Residential (0 . 5 to 3.8 DU/AC) on 57.2 AC and Open Space, Stream Corridor on 89 .8 AC; 2) incorporate entire Hansen Hill Ranch project within primary planning area; 3) amend Table 1 , development ' policies for residential sites, page 8, and Figure 4 sites for housing development, page 9, eliminating Areas .5, 6 and 7 from the Table and Figure; 4) amend General Plan policy and map with regard to Hansen Drive extension; 5) amend General Plan relating to alternate roadway serving project site; 6) amend General Plan relating to maximum acceptable level of service (LOS) for major street intersections; 7) amend General Plan relating to fire protection buffer zone; 8) amend General Plan relating to open space maintenance; and 9) EIR and Mitigation Measures. Additionally, at that meeting, the Council directed Staff to prepare the necessary resolutions to: 1 ) certify the EIR; 2) approve the EIR mitigation monitoring program; and 3) adopt the General Plan Amendments related to the PA _87-045 Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendment/EIR. Ms. O'Halloran advised that prior to approving the General Plan Amendments, the City Council will need to make findings certifying that the EIR is complete and adequate; adopt a statement of overriding consideration if the General Plan Amendments will have significant environmental impacts, and approve the EIR Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Staff advised that the Applicant is responsible for costs the City incurs in providing an up to date General Plan resulting from the adoption of Hansen Hill Ranch General Plan Amendments. A subsequent Planned Development Prezoning, Tentative Map and Annexation request will require submittal of planning application materials and public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council prior to action on those applications . Staff advised of several wording changes on pages 2 and 3 of the resolution marked as Exhibit A, recommended by the City Attorney. Mr. Gordon Jacoby stated that they had had a chance to read the Staff Report and they agree with it in its entirety. He encouraged the City Council to vote in accordance with Staff' s recommendations. Elliott Healy expressed concern with what he felt were some loose ends . He 'felt that before' the 'developer gets approval, 'th'e management of the open space area in the Martin Canyon Creek area needs to be determined. CM-8-93 Regular Meeting February 27, 1989 Mayor Moffatt advised that this is a question that will come up later in the process. Ms. O'Halloran stated that the issues to be decided at this time relate to the EIR. Later there will be resolutions on the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Healy stated he initially got the impression that there was some vagueness related to where one would view the major ridgelines_ from, but the General Plan Section 2 .3 (f) cites the actual locations. An unidentified member of the audience thanked Mr. Jacoby . for getting rid of the pick-up truck on the site. Raul Ramirez stated he did not see anything in Exhibit B that relates to density and where schools would be proposed to handle all the additional children. Ms. O'Halloran stated that this would be the next issue discussed and that it was addressed in the EIR. Mayor Moffatt closed this portion of the discussion to the public. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 19 - 89 MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WITH STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - PA 87-045 HANSEN HILL RANCH) Ms. O'Halloran stated that the next resolution for consideration would deal with the mitigation monitoring program. No members of the public made comments related to this section. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 20 - 89 ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (HANSEN HILL RANCH) Ms. O'Halloran stated that the next item would be the resolution adopting the General Plan Amendments. Cm. Jeffery questioned if Section B.F. ("Prohibit development within designated open space areas except that designed to enhance public safety and the environmental setting." ) would. preclude. stables or something _of this" nature from being built:. CM-8-94 Regular Meeting February 27, 1989 Ms. O'Halloran advised that the purpose of the policy is to be somewhat general in nature. A proposal would be reviewed at the zoning level. A stable could be appropriate, for instance, in an agricultural area. This determination would be made at the time of the tentative map approval. Marjorie LaBar, Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee discussed the stated intent to try to maintain Service Level D. With other developments coming down the pike, she was concerned that the wording may not be strong enough. She stated she wished to add a voice of approval with regard to the open space section. She also felt that the Council may need to start addressing an overall hillside policy ordinance. Mayor Moffatt closed this portion of the discussion to the public. Cm. Vonheeder discussed the fact that the City would strive for not worse than Service Level D. City Engineer Thompson indicated that the words, "strive to" were added. It very well could be that it may get worse due to factors outside the City over which we have no control. Cm. Snyder felt this was an important point. We all have to be cognizant when we look at the downtown traffic situation, most of the traffic is not Dublin people, but,people from outside who come into Dublin and spend their tax dollars . Cm. Hegarty stated that the developers are the ones who improve the infrastructure in the City. As development occurs to the west, other arterias will open up. He cautioned the public to be "heads up" on what is going on. Without development going to the west, we will not lessen the level of service at the Dublin Boulevard & San Ramon Road intersection. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded .by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 21 - 89 ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR PA 87-045 HANSEN HILL RANCH * * * * PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT OF PARCEL 1 , WESTERN TERMINUS OF BETLEN DRIVE: QUITCLAIM OF PARCEL 2 Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. City Engineer Thompson advised that on December 12, 1988, the City . - - Counci3i- adopt-edc Resolut�ion'�,No,7 144y ,In accordance with Government Code provisions, on February 6, 1989, the Planning Commission considered this right-of-way abandonment from the standpoint of conformance with the General Plan. The Planning Commission had some questions regarding the use of the property by DSRSD, and therefore, the Councils public hearing was continued to this meeting. The Planning Commission made their finding of conformance at their meeting of February 21 , 1989 . When the right-of-way of Betlen -Drive was originally dedicated, the street ended at the boundary of Tract 2534 (adjoining Valley Christian Center) . When Tract 5777, the Pulte Homes development (Hacienda Heights) developed, the westerly end of Betlen Drive was constructed as a knuckle cul-de-sac at its junction with Las Palmas Way. This configuration leaves the remainder of the end of Betlen Drive as excess right-of-way. The area to be abandoned is approximately 0. 16 acres. If the abandonment is approved, this excess right-of-way will revert to the owners of the adjacent properties - from the centerline south to Pulte Homes and from the centerline north to DSRSD. Pulte has stated that they are not interested in utilizing the property as part of the Hacienda Heights Development and plan to quitclaim the property to DSRSD. No public comments were made related to this issue. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 22 -, 89 VACATING A PUBLIC STREET WESTERN TERMINUS OF BETLEN DRIVE and RESOLUTION NO. 23 - 89 APPROVING QUITCLAIM DEED FOR 320+ SQUARE FOOT PARCEL AT WESTERNMOST END OF BETLEN DRIVE * * * * PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE INCREASING CITY COUNCIL SALARIES Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Assistant City Manager Rankin stated that in accordance with City Council discussion in January, the City Attorney prepared an ordinance which would increase Councilmembers salries by 5% for calendar year 1989 . Incumbent Councilmembers would not, however, be eligible to receive the increase until after the November 1990 election. a„ �: •:Cm::.� Jeffery sta•te&.-.th&t--�,rome -of.=•the=-,bi:ggest-:-exg4--nses-- is-- +_ha.t-�of--au.�tomohile4,a - mileage. She asked if an auto allowance could be discussed in lieu of a salary increase. She felt that a great deal of Staff time was spent in CM-8-96 Regular Meeting February 27, 1989 going through all the auto mileage reports which were turned in for reimbursement. She felt that if the Council had a car allowance, this would save Staff time. City Attorney Nave stated he could review the Government Code Section with regard to this request and report back to the Council. Cm. Vonheeder stated she has a stack of mileage notes that date back many months, but she hasn' t turned them in simply because of a lack of time necessary to complete the forms.' Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 6-82 and providing for an increase of the salary for members of the City Council. * * * * DUBLIN SWIM CENTER RENOVATION Recreation- Director Lowart advised that Pool Consultant August Waegemann has completed the final report and developed a proposed plan for renovations of the Dublin Swim Center. Ms. Lowart stated that it was suggested that the renovation be broken into 2 categories: 1 ) temporary repairs to allow the operation of the Swim Center during the coming swim season; and 2) permanent repairs to return the pool to a properly functioning entity with all components operating. The total cost for temporary repairs equalled $27,950 - $32, 250 . Long term renovations costs totalled $101 , 500 - $203, 500. The Consultant's Fee totals $10, 355 - $18, 860 . Ms. Lowart advised that presently, there is $101 ,200 available in the 1988-93 CIP for renovation of the Dublin Swim Center. Therefore, Staff will prepare final recommendations and cost estimates for the renovation prior to the development of the 1989-90 Update to the CIP. Cm. Jeffery questioned whether the costs would be any greater for an entire new pool. Ms . Lowart felt the biggest item would be the building itself. With regard to the pool, we are pretty much redoing everything and when it' s completed, it should last quite a long time. Cm. Vonheeder thought it was amazing that the pool had ever passed any health inspections . Park & Recreation Commissioner Liz Schmitt stated there probably were no inspections made as''she,could -'remember.or 1y---A.A -se- er l 'years -aga. CM-8-97 Regular Meeting February 27, 1989 Cm. Snyder questioned if we use the money available in the next 5 years identified in the Capital Improvement Program, what this would mean to the life of the pool. Ms. Lowart advised that we would need to determine which items would be the most cost effective to do and give, these the highest priority. The deck has been a liability and the other big item is the relining. All of the repercussions mean increased costs in one area or another. Mayor Moffatt asked if Staff felt the solar units work. Ms. Lowart stated yes, but they take a lot of electricity to run. Cm. Jeffery asked if the pool was a part of the Task Force Report. Ms. Lowart advised that it was not. Cm. Snyder questioned what a Chlorine Factory was. Cm. Jeffery advised that they work quite nicely by allowing the water to• flow through a cylinder to pick up chlorine on a gradual basis. Cogeneration was discussed, and Ms. Lowart stated she did not feel it would be warranted with our limited amount of use. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to continue with preparation of the final scope of work and cost estimates . TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROGRAM - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Planning Director Tong advised that the Tri-Valley Transportation Council has requested that each jurisdiction adopt a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) . The purpose of the MOU is to cooperatively address transportation planning issues. In order to implement the MOU, the Tri-Valley Transpor- tation Council will formulate rules and procedures and develop a proposed budget and administrative support to accomplish the goals of the MOU. Mr. Tong advised that Cm. Vonheeder is the Council representative on this committee. Cm. Vonheeder indicated that this has been discussed for a long time. The intention is for this group to be an advisory body. Cm. Jeffery questioned their budget. As an example, Cm. Vonheeder explained that if the group were to commission TJKM to develop a transportation plan, they would use each city' s set of criteria. It would be all 7 entities contracting and at some future point, there would be discussion on sharing the costs. She wasn' t sure what type of a formula would be established, whether it would be based on populations ,or -other,- criteri-a". CM-8-98 Regular Meeting February 27, 1989 Cm. Jeffery questioned the possibility of putting in some sort of a sunset clause, perhaps a 2 or 4 year period. Cm. Vonheeder felt this was a reasonable request, but was not something they had discussed. Cm. Jeffery expressed concern with #5 that states that the Tri-Valley Transportation Council will serve as a forum for resolving transportation related disputes between member jurisdictions. She thought the word if should be changed to "may" . Cm. Jeffery asked about the possibility of giving each city the opportunity to use this as a forum only if they want to. Cm. Vonheeder advised that they have no authority to do anything other than serve as a forum. Cm. Vonheeder stated she could take the MOU back with changes. It only says we will try to agree. Cm. Snyder stated he wasn' t too concerned with the forum situation as he felt it is an opportunity for people to speak. City Attorney Nave advised that he had no legal problems with the document, i .e. ; there is really no teeth to it. Cm. Hegarty stated that it has no authority and can't really do anything. All it can do is recommend to the 5 cities. -- - Cm. Vonheeder stated she sees it as an opportunity for 5 cities and 2 counties to get together to discuss something where everyone has an opportunity to speak at the same level. On motion of Cm: Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Dublin' s participation on the Tri-Valley Transportation Council. DUBLIN SCHOOL FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS Recreation Director Lowart advised that after receiving the final report from the Dublin Schools Facilities Task Force on May 9, 1988, the Council authorized Staff to seek the services of a professional landscape architect to prepare cost estimates . for the improvements identified in the report. On February 14, 1989, the Park & Recreation Commission reviewed the Task Force Report, as well as the Consultant's Report. The purpose of their review was to develop priorities for the projects identified by the Task Force utilizing the cost estimates prepared by the Consultant. The priorities identified by the Commission were spelled out in the Staff Report and totalled $3, 028, 530 . The Commission identified Dublin High School"projects as high priorities since -there is greater potential for CM-8-99 Regular Meeting February 27, 1989 community use at this facility than any other. Additionally, they felt that cleaning up and upgrading the, grounds would instill a greater sense of pride in both students and the community. Ms . Lowart explained that the. recommendations of the Commission vary somewhat from those of the Task Force. Ms. Lowart also advised that the School Board had met on Friday to prioritize the projects. Liz Schmitt advised that the most crucial item was the middle school gym. Cm. Jeffery stated she thought that this was what their bond issue was for, and this should not be included in the priority list. Liz Schmitt advised that parents complained bitterly about the poor condition of the fields. The suggestion was made that the City could improve them in exchange for usage. She felt it important that the Council be made aware that this was the original idea. She stated she has felt all along that there must be some reciprocity arrangements and this was the only reason she had stuck with the project for so long. She indicated that the Task Force did not think in terms of money and the Park & Recreation Commission did. Zev Kahn advised that they tried to take personal preferences out of the Task Force' s decisions . Cm. Jeffery indicated she had no problem with the priority list except she suggested moving #11 to #6. This item was for the Frederiksen kindergarten tot lot and currently, within this area, there is no place for kids to play: Ms. Lowart advised that what she would like to do is take a list to the meeting with the School District and then come up with a list that meets both the School District needs and the City's desires, and then bring it back for funding discussion. Cm. Snyder stated he had heard that in the last week the High School had secured a new score board. He expressed concern with doing all the necessary stuff on the football field when you don' t have adequate bleachers for people to sit on. Cm. Snyder questioned the possibility of obtaining any state grants. Ms . Lowart advised that they are normally not allowed on school property unless there is some type of a long term lease. They are not unheard of, however, and she would be checking into this . By a consensus of the Council, Staff was directed to take the priority list and proceed. The Council agreed to move item #11 to item #6 on the list. CM-8-100 Regular Meeting February 27, 1989 1989-90 BUDGET HEARING AND CONTRACT EVALUATION Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that Staff is requesting that meeting dates be set for the annual contract evaluations and Budget hearings during the week of June 26th, in order that these dates can be noted in the upcoming publication of the City's Spring/Summer Newsletter. Cm. Snyder advised that he would be out of the Country during that week. The Council selected the dates of Tuesday, June 27th and Wednesday, June 29th to conduct the meetings. The Council determined that the meetings should begin at 7 :00 p.m. Staff was directed to find a suitable meeting location. * * * * OTHER BUSINESS Curbside Recycling Cm. Snyder advised that at the Goals & Objectives meeting on Thursday, February 24th, he had neglected to bring up a goal for consideration related to curbside recycling. The Waste Management Plan says that by either 1990 or 1991 all communities should have curbside recycling. A pilot program was recently approved in Albany. Livermore has been doing some type of curbside recycling for about 10 years. The Cities of Fremont, Union City and Newark have gone together as a consortium. He stated he would like to see Dublin include this in future considerations. Mayor Moffatt asked if there was a sample plan available. Cm. Snyder advised that the Albany plan is available and it might be able to function in Dublin. Valley Waste Management may be looking at some new types of processing. Consensus of the Council was to include' this as a goal and if we consider it a pilot program, perhaps we could ask for some grant monies. Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that Staff will incorporate this for future consideration. * * * * CLOSED SESSION At 10 : 57 p.m. , the Council recessed to a closed executive session to discuss potential litigation in accordance with Government Code Section 54956.9(c) . * * * * CM-8-101 Regular Meeting February 27, 1989 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11 :30 p.m. * * * * Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CM-8-102 Regular Meeting February 27, 1989,