Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.1 Traffic Improvement Study S-10-LIO CITY OF DUBLIN =- AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 11 , 1987 SUBJECT Written Communications - Request by Ted Fairfield to participate in a Traffic Improvement Study EXHIBITS ATTACHED Letter from Ted Fairfield dated April 7 , 1987 ; Minutes of City Council Meeting of December 8 , 1986; Letter to City of Pleasanton dated December 15 , 1986 RECOMMENDATION 1 ) Consider Request 2 ) If Council concurs with Mr. Fairfield ' s request , direct Staff to arrange a meeting with the City of Pleasanton and the County of Alameda to develop ground rules for the study FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Undetermined at this time DESCRIPTION The City has received a request from Mr. Ted Fairfield, developer of the Dublin Ranch project , requesting that the City Council consider initiating or participating in an independent engineering study to identify the benefits to be derived by properties north of I-580 from improvements that are scheduled to be constructed by the North Pleasanton Improvement District . On December 8 , 1986 , the Council discussed an invitation by the City of Pleasanton to study improvements proposed to I-580 for the purpose of determining the benefit to Dublin property owners . At that meeting, the City Council directed Staff to notify Pleasanton that the City would not participate in a benefits study until the City had received development plan for properties located in the City' s eastern annexation area . The City Council recently authorized undertaking a General Plan Amendment Study of the eastern sphere area at the request of Mr. Ted Fairfield. Staff is in the process of identifying other interested property owners in the eastern sphere to participate in the development of a General Plan Amendment Study as well as a Specific Plan for the area. It is Staff ' s recommendation that the City Council consider Mr. Fairfield 's request in light of past Council action and determine whether or not to proceed with the development of an independent engineering study for I-580 improvements . Mr. Ted Fairfield or his representative will be present at the City Council meeting to discuss his request in more depth. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: Mr. Ted Fairfield Mr. Marty Inderbitzen ITEM NO. d Mr. John DiManto R E .C. R 1 APR 9198/ - - `r°:`=-TED C. FAIRFIELD Consulting Civil Engineer CITY, OF DU ' April 7, 1987 Mr. Richard Ambrose City Manager CITY OF DUBLIN P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Richard: This will formalize my previous verbal suggestions to you and your Councilmembers, on behalf of Chang Su-0 Lin et al , that it would seem appropriate for Dublin to initiate and/or participate in an independent engineering study of the benefits to be derived by properties north of I-580 from certain improvements that are scheduled to be constructed by Pleasanton's North Pleasanton Improvement District. My suggestion is based upon certain assumptions or conditions, including the following: 1 . The study should be limited to specific items of improvement that should be listed and agreed upon in advance. 2. The Fallon/E1 Charro interchange improvement (Dublin's "share" thereof) should be specifically included as an item of improvement to be considered in the assignment and equation of benefit. 3. The County of Alameda and Camp Parks lands should be considered developable, assessable land, for purposes of the study. 4. The study should be done by a civil engineering firm that has special expertise in assessment and reimbursement districts, but which has no ties or conflicts in the area; i .e. , has no relationship with any of the parties in interest. The effort should, at least initially, be limited to establishing costs and assigning theoretical benefits based upon engineering geometrics already designed, as opposed to developing new, alternative designs and cost estimates. I suggested to you that one engineer who appears to me to meet that criteria is John Heindel , who office is in Saratoga. 5. The results of the study should be considered advisory in nature, and not binding upon any party without the subsequent process of negotiations and public hearings. P.O. Box 1148 • 5510 Sunol Blvd. • Pleasanton, California 94566 • (415) 462-1455 Page Two Mr. Richard Ambrose April 7, 1987 As you know, I will be out of the country until May 6th or 7th, but will be available to discuss this matter in more detail soon thereafter. Very truly yours, TED C. FAIRFIELD TCF:ch cc; . Jim Tong Martin Inderbitzen Approved a revision to the Accounting Procedures related to Accounts Receivables and future revisions to the Procedures; Approved Warrant. Register .in the amount of $287, 568.27; Cm. Moffatt requested that the minutes of the November 24th meeting be pulled for discussion. On Page 245, Cm. Moffatt requested that the minutes reflect that Ordinance No. 5-82 was never revoked. With this addition, on motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the ' Council approved Minutes of Adjourned Regular Meeting of November 18, 1986 and Regular Meeting of November 24, 1986; Rick Wendling, 7194 Elk Court asked that the item related to the tax bill on the Civic Center be removed from the Consent Calendar. City Manager Ambrose indicated that the City had received a supplemental tax bill in the amount of $2, 511 which would necessitate the item being pulled also. Mr. Wendling indicated that he had spoken with a friend who is the president of a non-profit corporation in Livermore that faced a similar situation. They had received conflicting information regarding a ruling on the payment of taxes. Staff reported that we have had to make our first payment which was due on December 10th in order to avoid a penalty. In the meantime, the City Attorney will work with the Assessor' s Office to obtain a ruling. Staff advised Mr. Wendling that any information he - could provide would be appreciated. On ,motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the revised appropriation of $41, 467 from the fund balance of the Civic Center Enterprise Fund to pay (under protest) , ' the property tax bill for the Civic Center Property. I-580 IMPROVEMENTS NORTH PLEASANTON IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Pleasanton has requested that the City of Dublin begin studying the improvements proposed to I-580 for the purpose of determining the City of Dublin' s benefit in those improvements as well as funding for those improvements. The District Director of CalTrans has stated that the projects proposed to I-580 could be phased. Pleasanton feels that a logical first phase would result in approximately $45 million in improvements, $9 million of which they believe would benefit properties north of I-580. Pleasanton has suggested that Dublin form a benefit district to reimburse Pleasanton for these $9 million in costs . They have implied that if Dublin does not set up such a district, they would attempt to have those improvements deleted from their phase I construction. It is not clear whether or not the State .Department of Transportation would allow these improvements to be excluded. Cm. Snyder and City Manager Ambrose indicated that notes which were taken at the November 5th meeting were distributed to the Council. These notes were not precise minutes, but rather general notes. CM-5-257 Regular Meeting December 8, 1986 Cm. Vonheeder felt that if we agree to the . $9 million, we are in a sense, agreeing with the split percentage and at this time there is no way to put a number to the benefit on Dublin' s side of the freeway. An impartial third party doing a study would be a possible solution. The Council questioned who would pay for such a study. Cm. Hegarty felt that until a developer plans a project, there is no way we can determine the benefit. Pleasanton is many years ahead of Dublin in development, and we simply must wait to see what develops on Dublin' s side of the freeway. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the County might be willing to enter into some kind of a financial obligation for some kind of a study. City Nlanager Ambrose indicated that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors has not taken any position as yet. Cm. Moffatt felt that since it ' s obvious that the County will probably be the first player, they should make a decision on whether they want to participate in a study. . Discussion was held related to boundaries and City Manager Ambrose reported that the freeway is completely within Pleasanton. Cm. Vonheeder felt Dublin should agree to enter into a study if we don't have to pay for it. Other 'Councilmembers disagreed as the study would then have to be funded by Pleasanton. They questioned if this would provide accurate information from Dublin ' s standpoint. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to send a .letter to the City of Pleasanton indicating that the Council had again discussed the issue and their position remains basically the same; i .e. , Dublin cannot do anything until an actual development comes in. REPORT FROM ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MUNICIPAL CODE Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Silver explained that during the 1986 Goals & Objectives meeting, the Council established the development of a Municipal Code as an objective which should be pursued during 1986 . Such a code would incorporate nearly all of the City ' s ordinances into one volume which will make it easier for City Officials, as well as the public to use . A format for a proposed table of contents has been developed for consideration . The format is very important because the Council may wish to add or delete certain ordinances during the process of considering those ordinances which would be included in the Municipal Code. The table of contents, as well as the entire code will have to be adopted after all the << [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ CM-5-258 Regular Meeting December 8, 1986 S December 15, 1986 Mayor Ken Mercer City of Pleasanton P. O. Box 520 Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802 Subject: Response to your letter of November 18, 1986 Dear Ken: At its meeting of December 8, 1986, the Dublin City Council discussed your letter requesting the City of Dublin to undertake a benefit study of those improvements proposed by the City of Pleasanton to I-580. You suggested that the purpose of such a study would be to determine what benefit Dublin would receive from the proposed improvements, as well as what costs should be allocated to Dublin. It was the unanimous position of the Dublin City Council, that the City of Dublin would .not participate in a benefit study until the City had received a development plan for properties located in the City's eastern annexation area. It is important for you to know that the City of Dublin does not wish to shirk any responsibility that it may have for freeway improvements, but rather, it believes that it is not feasible to undertake any benefit study until there are sufficient development plans to determine what benefit northern property owners will actually receive. The City of Dublin believes that unless an arbitrary percentage of benefit is assigned to Dublin, the amount of benefit to properties north of the freeway cannot be determined until their impact on the proposed interchange is known. we understand that there is some negative feeling towards the City of Dublin's position regarding this matter, however, we believe your request for Dublin to determine the benefits derived by Dublin property owners as a result of I-580 irmrovements at this time, would be similar to someone requesting the City of Pleasanton to determine what benefits and costs should be allocated to the City of Pleasanton for I-580 ,i-Vrovenents before Pleasanton received any proposed plans for development in the north Pleasanton area. I am sure you will agree that your City may have been.- reluctant to undertake such a study until there were some proposed plans for development in that area. I hope that you will not view our City's response in a negative light, but rather in the light that the City of Dublin feels that it is not possible to proceed with the benefit study at this tine. If you would like to talk with me about our position in more detail, please give me a call. Sincerely, LJJ:kk Linda J. Jeffery Mlayor cc: Ed Campbell