HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.1 Approve 07-13-1987, 07-21-1987, 7-27-87 Minutes REGULAR MEETING - July 13, 1987
At 7:30 p.m. , Richard C. Ambrose, City Clerk, announced that due
to the lack of a legal quorum present, no City business would be
conducted, pursuant to Government Code Section 54955.
Mr. Ambrose then called the meeting to order and ajourned the
meeting to Tuesday, July 21, 1987, 7:00 p.m. , Shannon Community
Center, West Room.
In accordance with State Law, these minutes are to be reflected
in the official minute book of the Dublin City Council.
Respectfully submitted
City Clerk
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
CM-6-216
Regular Meeting July 13, 1987
Itn c
/
O
y, q .,3i:.Y. �, .,, t .�. .. ,: p. . .. :�` dr':sa�Y"uiar+ust7.4A'.KF±r9'. EhP"F�.-..cmraaK�i..',u.p,artm;"'e�.'7..'A3ti'F.�z4�'±x.Ewv'.yaivN�.,u'•i,7id.:.s:i
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - July 21, 1987
An adjourned'meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on
Tuesday, July 21, 1987, in the west room of the Shannon Community Center.
The meeting was called to order at 7: 05 p.m. by Mayor Linda Jeffery.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Moffatt, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor
Jeffery.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle-
giance to the flag.
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous
vote, the Council took the following actions:
Approved Investment Report for June 30, 1987, in the amount of
$18,740,999 . 00.
Approved Cal I.D. Contract Agreement and Authorized Mayor to execute the
Agreement.
Awarded bid Contract No. 87-5, Dougherty Road Fence at Camp Parks
($17, 326) , to Central Fence Company, and authorized Mayor to execute
Agreement.
Reviewed Dublin's Single Audit Report for Fiscal Year 85/86, including
Report of Internal Controls, Report on Compliance, and Accountant's Report
on Supplementary Schedule at Federal Assistance, and accepted the reports
as presented.
Approved City Manager's Employment-Agreement, and authorized Mayor to
execute Agreement; and approved Budget Change Form.
Awarded bid Contract No. 87-6, Kolb Park Improvements ($621,329) , to
Valley Crest Landscape based on inclusion of all bid alternates, and
authorized Mayor to execute the Agreement.
Adopted
CM-6-217
Regular Meeting July 21, 1987
RESOLUTION NO. 50 - 87
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT
CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT
CITY OF DUBLIN STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. 51 - 87
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING PROTESTS
IN RELATION TO PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS
CITY OF DUBLIN STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
Denied claim submitted by State Farm Insurance, #0008DU, and directed
Staff to notify the Claimant and the City's Insurance Provider.
Authorized the Mayor to execute the Agreement for Distribution of "Measure
B" Funds and appropriate the 1987/88 allocation to the Reserve Fund for
Street Improvements.
Authorized the Recreation Director to attend the National Recreation and
Park Association 1987 Congress for Recreation and Parks to be held in
New Orleans, Louisiana, September 18-21, 1987.
Authorized the Mayor to execute the Addendum to the Kolb Park Landscape
Architectural Services Agreement.
Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $390, 680.95.
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 52 - 87
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT,
CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT
CITY OF DUBLIN LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 83-2
RESOLUTION NO. 53 - 87
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING PROTESTS
IN RELATION TO PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS
CITY OF DUBLIN LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 83-2
At the request of Cm. Hegarty the Minutes for the meetings of June 16,
June 22, and June 23 , 1987, were removed from the Consent Calendar.
CM-6-218
Regular Meeting July 21, 1987
:., ..'w..:.....3..u�L.�:�..`:. .o....L..:._.::......:.'..._..,.....:r•au.....'.au.=.:_• ...:.a....w�..a..M.:..!_..w.a.,.........1... m:,:..a.,.n.._._lir.N4.Cli.6d.Gf..:a:.'.!.�.s._:..,_......., ray.................._....a.w....a.v.,l.,l..w.. .xi.....e_........ ,....._. .....
Cm. Hegarty referred to page CM-6-196 of the Minutes of June 22, 1987, and
stated that he had made a point of emphasizing at that meeting that there
was already a Planned Development for the entire Enea Plaza property.
Therefore, the City Council was acting on a request to amend an existing
Planned Development. Although the new Planned Development request sets
forth rules and regulations for only a portion of the original site, the
new Planned Development request is an amendment to the existing Planned
Development covering the entire Enea Plaza site. This supports the
concept that conditions related to the entire Planned Development
designation are appropriate.
Councilmembers Snyder and Vonheeder indicated that they recalled Cm.
Hegarty' s comments.
Mr. Rankin suggested it would be appropriate to add this statement to page
CM-6-198 of the Minutes.
Cm. Hegarty referred to page CM-6-211 of the Minutes of June 23, 1987, and
said that at the end of the public hearing he had indicated he agreed with
everything presented regarding the budget, with the exception of Staff's
recommendation related to the Engineering Department. He stated that at
that meeting he had asked that his disagreement with the recommendation be
reflected in the minutes.
Cm. Hegarty then referred to page CM-6-206 of the Minutes of June 22,
1987. He noted that he recalled some dicussion over the wording of the
motion related to whether the fireworks issue would be an advisory vote or
an initiative. Subsequent to that meeting Cm. Snyder had requested that
Cm. Hegarty allow for reconsideration of his motion. Cm. Hegarty said the
minutes of the meeting where the motion was made do not reflect the flavor
of what took place.
Cm. Snyder said he thought the Minutes did reflect that discussion. He
referred to the third paragraph on page CM-6-206 of the June 22, 1987,
Minutes and the discussion of fireworks on page CM-6-204 of the June 23 ,
1987, Minutes.
Cm. Hegarty said his concern was that he recalled that he just wanted to
get it on the ballot, and that he didn't think the minutes reflected that
his motion was to put it on the ballot to see what the people would say.
Cm. Moffatt said he would like to see it as an initiative, not as an
advisory action.
Mayor Jeffery referred to page CM-6-206, and suggested that a correction
to the Minutes be added prior to the paragraph outlining the motion by
Cm. Hegarty.
Mr. Rankin advised that a review of the tape recording indicated that
Cm. Hegarty had made a motion to put the issue on the ballot. At that
point Cm. Snyder asked if he would consider having it as a Council
initiative. Cm. Hegarty had responded "yes" and Cm. Moffatt asked if that
was a motion. Cm. Hegarty responded "yes", and Cm. Moffatt then seconded
the motion.
CM-6-219
Regular Meeting July 21, 1987
On motion by Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by a unanimous vote,
the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of June 16, June 22, and June 23,
1987, were approved including the amendments discussed.
PUBLIC HEARING
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND
ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tong said that discussion of the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan and
Associated General Plan Amendment had been continued from the City Council
meetings of May 11 and May 26, 1987. He indicated that the Draft Specific
Plan included a revised Table D, Estimated Implementation Costs, which
specified amounts designated in the City's current Capital Improvement
Program. He reviewed the chart contained within the Staff Report, out-
lining the implementation strategy, the estimated annual dollar costs and
estimated Staff time required. Mr. Tong said it was staff's recommenda-
tion that the Council provide conceptual approval on each section of the
Draft Plan and associated General Plan Amendement, and the implementation
strategy; adopt the Resolution approving the Negative Declaration; adopt
the Resolution adopting the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan and Associated
General Plan Amendment; and direct Staff to bring back to the Council time
frames for conceptually approved implementation strategies.
Mr. Ambrose requested that the Councilmembers reach closure on each
element of the Plan as it is reviewed.
Comments were received on the following elements as indicated:
CIRCULATION ELEMENT:
Cm. Moffatt inquired whether or not consideration had been given to
locating a street running parallel to 1-580, from Regional Street to
Howard Johnson's Hotel.
Mr. Kinzel said tht a street next to 1-580 was not specifically
considered. He indicated that the original goal and purpose of the
proposed street was to allow traffic originating in or distinct to that
area to circulate on a street parallel to Dublin Boulevard. He said any
type of connection would satisfy that goal, including the street suggested
by Cm. Moffatt. He indicated that a street located more to the center of
the block would attract more traffic and pull more traffic off Dublin
Boulevard. The proposed street was also in an area where buildings are
not presently located.
Cm. Moffatt said since there is a great deal of accessible land parallel
to 1-580, he hoped his suggestion would be considered.
CM-6-220
Regular Meeting July 21, 1987
Mr. Cannon stated that if the street were installed as suggested by
Cm. Moffatt, it could disrupt hotel and restaurant parking spaces and the
Enea office buildings. Additionally, he said not too many other
properties would benefit from a street parallel to the freeway.
Mr. Cannon said one of the major considerations is you would be involved
in condemning four buildings in order to obtain the property for the road
suggested by Cm. Moffatt. He said this would be a very expensive
solution, and would not accomplish much more than what has been suggested
in the Draft Plan.
Pat Costello, representing Robert Wolverton of Crown Chevrolet, asked that
the proposed road be moved to the back of the property line. He said
Crown Chevrolet is in a growth mode, and that property would be an asset
to Crown.
Mr. Ambrose said that the street indication was not a precise line. The
City Engineering Department will be studying it this year.
The Councilmembers indicated their concurrence with the Circulation
Element of the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan.
PARKING ELEMENT:
Cm. Hegarty questioned the suggestion that excess parking existed in the
downtown area. He cited the Orchard Supply Hardware parking lot as an
example, and expressed concern that parking lots in the downtown area not
be over-developed.
Mr. Cannon advised that the study was done during the Christmas season,
which is the busiest time of the year. He said the su estion was not
that a blanket action be taken, but that on an indiffu-213basis the
determination be made whether or not to eliminate some of the excess
parking.
Mayor Jeffery pointed out that the Council had the option to consider each
area on an individual basis.
Cm. Moffatt referred to item C. 1) , page 11, of the Parking Element, and
asked if "joint utilization of parking" was a mandate.
Mr. Tong clarified that this would be done by mutual agreement between the
property owners.
The Councilmembers indicated their concurrence with the Parking Element of
the Draft Plan.
LAND USE PLAN:
Mr. Tong explained that the implementation of the policies included within
the Land Use Plan would occur within the General Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance.
CM-6-221
Regular Meeting July 21, 1987
Cm. Hegarty asked what was being proposed to encourage automobile
dealerships to remain within the City. He directed his question to
Pat Costello, representative from Crown Chevrolet.
Mr. Costello said the feeling Crown Chevrolet was receiving was that the
City is very opposed to automobile dealerships. He said they were getting
pinched, both by the widening of Dublin Boulevard and by the installation
of a road in back of their property. He said Crown Chevrolet is a family
business and they want to keep it in the family and pass it on to the next
generation. He said it was not their intent to leave the area or the
property on which Crown currently exists.
In response to Cm. Hegarty' s question, Mr. Tong said that initially the
City would not implement any policy that would restrict the continued
operation of automobile dealerships in the downtown area.
Cm. Hegarty assured Mr. Costello that the City is not opposed to auto-
mobile dealerships.
The Councilmembers indicated their concurrence with the Land Use Element
of 'the Draft Plan.
Mr. Tong referred to Table C, Development Standards, on page 36 of the
Draft Plan, and said that discussion had been held at the Planning
Commission level regarding the maximum Allowable Building Height. He said
the downtown area is broken into 11 development zones, and that each zone
has been identified with various land uses. He said the particular
dicussion with the Commission related to Zones 3 and 4, in which the
Downtown Committee had recommended an allowable building height of up to
751 . He advised that the Planning Commission recommended the height be
lowered to 451 , and that anything exceeding 45 ' be considered through the
Conditional Use Permit process, with a maximum height of 751 .
Mr. Cannon indicated that a 75 ' building could either be considered appro-
priate for a five-story office building or a seven-story hotel. He said
the number of feet per story varied depending upon the use. Additionally,
he said the properties involved are fairly small, and the taller height
was recommended in order to provide for adequate parking space.
Cm. Hegarty stated that he would prefer not to set a limit on the height,
but that if a proposal is received, it should be presented to the City
Council for review.
Mr. Tong advised that to accomplish what Cm. Hegarty was suggesting, the
Draft Plan could be amended, requiring that a Planned Development be acted
on by the City Council. He said another alternative would be to establish
this as a Conditional Use Permit procedure, but that normally Conditional
Use Permits are final at the Planning Commission level.
The Councilmembers generally concurred with Cm. Hegarty's recommendation
that proposals should be submitted to the Councilmembers for review.
CM-6-222
Regular Meeting July 21, 1987
Cm. Hegarty referred to the letter from Bedford Properties.
Mr. Tong said the suggestion is being presented that page 29 be reworded
to indicated that a mix of uses integrating commercial uses and transit
related parking will be encouraged in this location.
Cm. Hegarty expressed concern regarding Mr. Bedford's desire not to have
the remainder of his property encumbered by that which is proposed within
the Draft Plan.
Mr. Ambrose responded that the proposed new language, which refers to a
mix of uses, would not restrict Mr. Bedford from typical commercial uses
he may desire for that property.
Cm. Hegarty asked for clarification regarding the . 30 or .35 Floor Area
Ratio.
Mr. Cannon said the intent was to limit the intensity of building, but to
retain flexibility if a proposed use would not generate additional
traffic. He explained that most one story buildings average approximately
. 25 to . 31, with very little landscaping.
Mr. Tong cited the Dublin Town & Country Center as one which has a Floor
Area Ratio of .25.
Cm. Hegarty said he was pleased with the appearance of the Dublin Town &
Country Shopping Center, and would like to see the rest of the City look
the same.
Cm. Moffatt said if more landscaping were required, the cost of the
business would increase.
In response to a comment by Mayor Jeffery, Mr. Ambrose said if Mr. Jeha
had built two-story buildings instead of one-story buildings, the
landscaping would be basically the same but the Floor Area Ratio would
have been a great deal higher and more parking spaces would have been
required.
Mr. Cannon said that if the Floor Area Ratio was increased for Bedford,
the City would probably have to deal with other property owners also
requesting increased Floor Area Ratios.
Cm. Hegarty asked about the Planned Development provision.
Mr. Tong said if the City Council wanted to consider proposed projects on
a Planned Development basis, language to that effect should be
incorporated into the Downtown Plan. He stated that the Conditional Use
Permit process could be utilized if the Councilmembers wanted the decision
to be final at the Planning Commission level, or the Planned Development
process could be utilized if the Councilmembers wanted to make the final
decision.
There was discussion regarding the necessity for each project to be
consistent with the provisions of the Specific Plan.
CM-6-223
Regular Meeting July 21, 1987
Mr. Nave recommended that the following statement be incorporated into the
Downtown Plan which would provide the City Council with the option to
increase the maximum height and maximum floor area ratio of Planned
Developments: "Provided, however, that a Planned Development having a
height and floor area ratio greater than set forth in this plan may be
allowed provided that it is otherwise consistent with the policies set
forth in this Plan and provides for additional public amenities such as,
but not lmited to, landscaping, plazas, water elements and street
furniture. "
The Councilmembers indicated their concurrence with the Land Use Element,
contingent upon the incorporation of the statement provided by the City
Attorney.
CENTRAL BLOCK IMPROVEMENT PLAN ELEMENT
Mr. Tong stressed that it would be Staff's desire to work jointly with
property owners and tenants in accomplishing the improvements outlined in
the Central Block Improvement Plan. He advised that most of the items
listed are not public improvements.
Cm. Moffatt asked if an incentive would be provided to obtain the "co-
operation of land owners" .
Mr. Tong said the City would point out to the tenants and -owners ways in
which they would benefit by the implementation of the Plan, particularly
in regards to potentially reducing the parking requirements.
The Councilmembers indicated their concurrence with the Central Block
Improvement Plan.
URBAN DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
Mayor Jeffery inquired about the possibility of listing in priority order
the different aspects of the Urban Design Improvements Plan.
Mr. Tong indicated that Staff would return to the Council with a potential
priority ranking and time frame, which could be modified by the Council.
Mayor Jeffery stressed that she felt the visual changes which would tie
things together should be a priority.
In response to an inquiry by Mayor Jeffery, Mr. Ambrose said the business
license program was purely a regulatory tool and the funds generated by
that would be the actual cost of the business license program.
In response to an inquiry by Mayor Jeffery, Mr. Tong said the Restaurant
Row Strategies would not be totally implemented during the upcoming year,
but owners of the existing restaurants could be encouraged to set up a
restaurant association to actively promote Amador Plaza Road as a
restaurant row.
The Councilmembers indicated their concurrence with the Urban Design
Improvements Plan element of the Draft Plan.
CM-6-224
Regular Meeting July 21, 1987
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
(Business License Program)
Cm. Hegarty said he had a concern regarding the Business License Program,
and referred to previous conversations held several years ago. He said at
that time he stated that if he ever agreed with this concept, it would not
be for the purpose of generating additional funds.
Mr. Ambrose said the proposal covers the direct cost of a business license
program and would not generate additional money.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Moffatt, Mr. Ambrose said a meeting had
been held with representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, who suggested
that a committee be established for the purpose of implementing a business
license program. Mr. Ambrose indicated to them that if the City goes
forward with such a program, the Chamber will be contacted.
Cm. Snyder called attention to the fact that although there may be 1, 600
businesses within the City, only 400 are members of the Chamber of
Commerce, and so we are not really yet tapping the City's resources.
Cm. Vonheeder had long discussions last year with Bill Foster and told him
that the City was more interested in using a business license program as a
way of monitoring this. She said Mr. Foster was positive 'as long as this
was not tied to gross receipts.
The Councilmembers indicated their concurrence with the Business Licenses
Program element of the Draft Downtown Plan.
(Downtown Promotion Program)
Mr. Tong said a fair amount of Staff time would be associated with this
particular item during the first year, and that on-going Staff time both
in the Planning and Finance Departments would occur.
In response to an inquiry by Cm. Moffatt, Mr. Tong said Staff would have
to come back with the particular dollar amount associated with Staff time,
as well as whether or not we factor indirect costs.
In response to an inquiry by Mayor Jeffery, Mr. Ambrose said the person
who would handle this would not be the same as the one who handled the
business license program. He said this person would probably work with
the business associations.
The Councilmembers indicated their concurrence with the Downtown Promotion
Program element of the Draft Plan.
(Parking Lot Landscaping Program and Signing and Graphics Improvement
Program)
The Councilmembers indicated their concurrence with these two elements of
the Draft Plan.
CM-6-225
Regular Meeting July 21, 1987
(Downtown Beautification Awards Program)
The Councilmembers indicated their concurrence with the Downtown
Beautification Awards Program element of the Draft Plan.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
On motion by Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by a unanimous
vote, the Councilmembers conceptually approved each section and
implementation strategy of the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan and
Associated General Plan Amendment; and adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 54 - 87
APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONCERNING
THE DUBLIN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 55 - 87
ADOPTING THE DUBLIN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
AND ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Staff will prepare time frames for the conceptually approved implementa-
tion strategies, and will present them to the Councilmembers at a Council
meeting during the month of September.
REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY ON
SPECIAL ELECTION RELATED TO FIREWORKS
Mr. Nave identified three options available for calling a special election
related to the fireworks issue.
On motion by Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by a four-to-one
vote (Cm. Moffatt opposed) , the Councilmembers agreed to reconsider the
motion originally made by Cm. Hegarty on June 22, related to a special
election on the sale and use of fireworks.
Cm. Hegarty moved to present the issue of fireworks to the public as an
advisory election, which would enable the Council to retain the authority
to establish a Council Initiative related to the sale, use and possession
of fireworks. Cm. Vonheeder seconded Cm. Hegarty's motion.
Cm. Moffatt expressed concern that if the election were an advisory
action, at any time down road the Council could take an action which may
not coincide with the desires expressed by the public. He said he would
prefer this issue to be submitted to the electorate for a vote as an
amendment to the Ordinance, and that if, in the future, the Council wanted
to consider a change to the Ordinance, it could be presented to the
electorate for another vote. He said the responsibility for the decision
related to the fireworks issue would then be removed from the Council-
members and given to the electorate.
CM-6-226
Regular Meeting July 21, 1987
Cm. Snyder said his original preference was to adopt an Ordinance drafted
by the City Attorney, and then if the community was not in agreement with
the Ordinance, the referendum process could have been utilized by those
opposing the law.
Cm. Hegarty indicated that he would agree with an advisory election, that
his main concern was to give the community an opportunity to indicate
their opinion related to fireworks. He said five or six people had
already spoken before the Council.
Mayor Jeffery called for the question. By a unanimous vote, the Council
agreed that an advisory election would be pursued.
Cm. Hegarty moved, Cm. Vonheeder seconded, and by a unanimous vote, the
Council adopted Option 3 , calling a special election and placing the
measure on the ballot with the statewide election in June 1988 .
The City Attorney' s Office will prepare appropriate resolutions related to
the special election and will present them at a future City Council
meeting. The City Attorney was also directed to determine the possible
effective date if the measure is approved by the voters, and the impact on
fireworks sales permits issued for 1988.
1987 DUBLIN SHAMROCK FESTIVAL
Diane Lowart updated the Councilmembers on the status of the Shamrock
Festival, and said Staff was recommending the Council authorize a budget
transfer in the amount of $2, 500 from the Contingent Reserve to fund the
costs related to traffic control, public works assistance, and a meal
allowance for reserve police officers.
Ms. Lowart discussed a problem which had arisen related to insurance
coverage. She said that, with the exception of only two, the insurance
certificates received were incorrect in that they did not name DSRSD as
the primary insured. She advised that DSRSD stipulated unless the
appropriate certificates are received by Wednesday, they will revoke the
Festival.
There was discussion related to the insurance needs. The City Attorney
suggested that it may be possible for the City to loan the necessary funds
to the Festival to obtain the necessary insurance.
Cm. Vonheeder moved that Shamrock Festival, Inc. be loaned enough funds to
secure the necessary insurance. Cm. Hegarty seconded the motion. The
motion failed by a one-to-four vote.
On motion by Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by a unanimous
vote, the Council authorized a loan to Shamrock Festival, Inc. for a sum
of up to a maximum of $10, 000. 00 for the purpose of securing the necessary
insurance.
CM-6-227
Regular Meeting July 21, 1987
Cm. Hegarty moved, Cm. Vonheeder seconded, and by a unanimous vote, a
budget transfer in the amount of $2,500 from the Contingent Reserve was
approved.
DUBLIN/BRAY SISTER CITY ASSOCIATION VISIT
Mayor Jeffrey advised that 18 people would be visiting from Bray, Ireland.
She reviewed the activities planned during their visit.
TRI-VALLEY COMMUNITY T.V.
Cm. Hegarty updated the Councilmembers of the status of the Tri-Valley
Community T.V. He also stated that due to his current work schedule, a
new representative will need to be appointed.
AREA AGENCY ON AGING
Mayor Jeffery advised that at the Mayors' Conference Martha Banner was
appointed to replace Alice Pitchford on the Area Agency, on Aging.
SB 407
Mayor Jeffery said it may be appropriate prepare a letter regarding SB 407
requesting an amendment which would make the bill applicable to the City
of Dublin. Staff indicated that the League of Cities will be contacted
regarding the best approach.
CLOSED SESSION
At 10: 45 p.m. the Council recessed to a closed executive session to
discuss pending litigation, City of Dublin vs. BART and City of Dublin vs.
Pet Prevent-A-Care, Inc.
CM-6-228
Regular Meeting July 21, 1987
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-6-229
Regular Meeting July 21, 1987
REGULAR MEETING - July 27, 1987
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on
Monday, July ,27, 1987, in the -meeting room of the Dublin Library. The
meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Mayor Linda Jeffery.
* * * *
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty; Moffatt, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor
Jeffery.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of
allegiance to the flag.
ALAMEDA COUNTY SENIOR HOUSING NEEDS TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT
City Manager Richard Ambrose introduced this item, in which the Alameda
County Senior Housing Technical Advisory Committee requested that the
City Council adopt a Resolution endorsing in principle 'a---general'
obligation bond issue to finance construction of housing in Alameda
County for seniors and the disabled. Presentations were made by Ms.
Sara Conners, Chairperson of the Senior Housing Needs Task Force, and
Mr. Jack Shepherd, Alameda County Housing and Community Development,
Coordinator.
Ms. Conners stated that the Task Force had been initiated 2-1/2 years
ago when she heard of a plan for senior housing that was put into effect
in Seattle, and she went to Mel Hing (Alameda County Administrator) to
request assistance in developing a plan for Alameda County. During the
ensuing period, she and the others on the Task Force worked with
volunteers, the Mayors' Conference, and the Board of Supervisors toward
solving the problems seniors have with finding and keeping apartments.
The ultimate recommendation is for construction of 5,900 housing units
in Alameda County; the short-range goal is for 1,900 units, which will
be spread throughout the County. The Task Force is working with Jack
Shepherd and will be coming back in December or January with more
details.
Mr. Shepherd said that he would be adding more detail to the work
already prepared by the Task Force in order to develop the ballot
measure. They will come back with a complete proposal, and a political
committee will be formed. They expect the measure to be on the June
ballot. The housing distribution will be County-wide, and views of the
various City Councils are being solicited at this time in order to
obtain all the needs of the community.
CM-6-230
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
Cm. Hegarty asked whether the report would include more detail regarding
the number of housing units to be located in Dublin. The seniors who
were asked previously indicated a preference for mobile home parks over
apartments. He suggested that Mr. Shepherd refer to the notes of the
previous hearings. The current need for the entire County is 1, 800
units, and input needs to be gathered from each city so that each city
can be addressed separately. The report should show the differences
among all cities involved. If the Task Force is looking for money, they
should make sure the distribution extends to all.
Mr. Shepherd stated that the study recognizes that needs are diverse and
that these items would be discussed in the future report.
Cm. Moffatt asked what the Seattle concept was.
Mr. Shepherd answered that in 1981 the City of Seattle approved a
general obligation bond issue of $50 million for 1, 000 units of senior
housing. The actual production was 1,250 units. Requests for proposal
were sent to private developers for construction of the housing, which
was spread throughout the city in smaller complexes. After
construction, the housing was turned over to the Seattle Housing
Authority.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 56-87
ENDORSING IN PRINCIPLE A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ISSUE
TO FINANCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING IN ALAMEDA COUNTY
FOR LOW-INCOME SENIORS AND THE DISABLED
* * * *
CONCRETE ON DOLAN PARK/SAWMILL SIGN
Mr. Mel Luna, a resident of Padre Way, asked whether anything could be
done about concrete being dumped on the Dolan Park site and also whether
the Sawmill sign was legal.
City Attorney Michael Nave stated that the Sawmill sign was still in
litigation. An agreement was reached with the Sawmill that solves the
City' s problem; however, that agreement is contingent upon the Sawmill ' s
resolving litigation with the owner of the shopping center. The dispute
between the property owner and the Sawmill is currently under appeal.
Once the City/Sawmill agreement goes into effect, the sign will be
lowered and changed.
CM-6-231
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
City Manager Ambrose stated that Staff would contact the developer
regarding the dumping problem.
* * * *
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous
vote, the Council took the following actions:
Approved Amendment No. 1 (regarding Village II improvements) to the
Tract 5511 Developer Agreement and authorized Mayor to execute the
amendment.
Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $255,932 . 13 .
Authorized Mayor to execute an agreement with Alameda County for Animal
Control Field Services.
Approved Financial Report for period ending June 30, 1987.
Approved the City's participation in the State and Local Legal Center
through payment of a one-time assessment of $250.
* * * *
REQUEST FOR STOP SIGNS ON VILLAGE PARKWAY AT HASTINGS WAY
Chris Kinzel of TJKM, the City' s Traffic Engineer, presented the Staff
report which stated that the City had received a request from Mrs. Mary
McHugh, a resident of Canterbury Lane, regarding three traffic-related
items. Two of the items had already been addressed by Staff: (1) red
curb on Brighton Drive opposite Lucania Street, and (2) pavement markers
installed at the curve on Canterbury Lane to help prevent motorists from
"squealing" their tires and increased enforcement of the speed limit by
Dublin Police Services.
Mrs. McHugh's third request was for installation of STOP signs on
Village Parkway at Hastings Way as a measure to protect pedestrians
using the crosswalk. TJKM performed a study on the intersection which
involved vehicle and pedestrian counts, field review, and accident
review. The vehicle count was not sufficient to meet minimum warrants
for all-way STOP sign installation. A review of the accidents which
occurred at this intersection was not conclusive with regard to a need
for STOP signs. The field review indicated that the signing and
striping may be inadequate warning to drivers approaching the
intersection. TJKM recommended two alternatives: (1) removal of the
crosswalk, as this intersection is not on a designated route to school;
or (2) enhancement of the crosswalk and relocation of the warning signs
CM-6-232
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
l
and markings. A further recommendation was for bicycle and safety
instruction in Dublin schools. The STOP signs were not recommended
because non-compliance could cause an increase in accidents.
Cm. Snyder asked whether Mr. Kinzel foresaw the problem being relieved
when the other intersections were signalized in a few years.
Mr. Kinzel said that the reason children cross the street at Hastings is
the attraction of the commercial areas and that signals north of
Hastings would not necessarily help. Also, he stated that speeds would
not be likely to decrease when signals are installed.
Mayor Jeffery asked whether the City would incur increased liability if
the City Council authorized removal of the crosswalk and an accident
occurred subsequently.
City Attorney Nave replied that the liability would not increase, but
exposure could be greater.
Cm. Moffatt asked whether this crosswalk was ever a designated school
crosswalk.
Mr. Kinzel replied that it was not.
No members of the audience wished to speak on this matter'.
Cm. Snyder made a motion for Alternate 1, removal of the crosswalk. The
motion was seconded by Cm. Vonheeder. Cms. Hegarty and Moffatt and
Mayor Jeffery dissented on the vote, and the motion failed.
Cm. Hegarty asked whether Mr. Kinzel felt if the crosswalk were not
removed, if enhancement of the crosswalk and moving the signs so they
were not obscured by trees would help.
Mr. Kinzel stated that motorists tend to react more to the pedestrians
themselves than to signs; however, the signs and markings serve to warn
motorists that are not familiar with the area.
Cm. Moffatt questioned whether there was a mandatory speed limit of 25
mph at a crosswalk.
Mr. Kinzel replied that there was not, and added that the CVC specifies
that a pedestrian shall not step into the street if it is not safe to do
SO. A motorist is required to yield to a pedestrian who is already in
the crosswalk.
Mayor Jeffery stated that she preferred Alternate 2 because people are
accustomed to having the crosswalk and would continue to cross at the
intersection.
Cm. Vonheeder stated that she felt that removing the crosswalk would
reduce exposure because it would be an acknowledgement that this is not
a safe place to cross.
CM-6-233
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
Cm. Moffatt said that the crosswalk is a tradition because it has been
in place for 25 years.
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majority vote,
the City Council approved Alternate 2, for enhancement of the crosswalk
and moving the signage and pavement markings closer to the crosswalk.
Cm. Vonheeder voted no on the motion.
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING: INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS ON HANSEN DRIVE AT AMARILLO
ROAD
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Chris Kinzel of TJKM presented the Staff report, which stated that the
City had received a request for STOP signs on Hansen Drive at Amarillo
Road from Mr. James Jones of 7349 Hansen Drive. Mr. Jones felt that
there was a sight-distance problem at the crosswalk on the east leg of
the intersection. This crosswalk is used by children going to Nielsen
School and also pre-school programs at Knox Presbyterian Church.
TJKM performed a study which included the following items: traffic
counts, speed survey, field review, and stopping distance calculations.
The study concluded that the 85th percentile speed at this intersection
is 34 mph, and at that speed, vehicles traveling east on Hansen do not
have time to stop for pedestrians when their view of the crosswalk is
obscured by cars parked along the curb. On that basis, TJKM recommended . •
installation of STOP signs at this intersection.
Pat Godkin of Hansen Drive stated that she has young children at Nielsen
School and commented that young children on bicycles do not tend to
follow safety rules. Motorists turning right on Amarillo could hit a
child. She supported installation of the STOP signs.
Ruth Chin, Hansen Drive, stated that she lives in one of the two houses
at which parked cars obscure the crosswalk, and that there will always
be a car parked there. She has three children and would not let her
children cross at this intersection. She felt that the speeds cited in
the report were conservative and that there had been a lot of
construction traffic on Hansen. Also older kids speed down Hansen and
cut across the corner at Amarillo when turning.
Mayor Jeffery said that she felt the Staff recommendation for safety
instruction in schools mentioned in the previous item should also be
applied to this item.
Ms. Chin said that she had a problem teaching her children to cross the
street because there was too much traffic and that if a STOP sign were
installed, the child would have time to judge whether it were safe to
cross.
CM-6-234
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
Mr. Spade of 7330 Hansen said that his house was a good spot from which
to audit the situation and that the STOP signs would have to be
enforced. He felt that a large percentage of motorists either did not
stop at all or made "Hollywood" stops at the existing sign on Amarillo,
especially in the morning when parents drive children to school.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous
vote, the City Council waived the reading and adopted on an urgency
basis
ORDINANCE NO. 34-87
ESTABLISHING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
(Installation of STOP Signs on Hansen Drive at Amarillo Road)
and emphasized the need for greater enforcement.
PUBLIC HEARING: SAN RAMON BRANCHLINE/I-680 CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION
STUDY
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tong presented the Staff report, which stated that the City Council
had heard a presentation by Mr. Bud Murphy of Contra Costa County at the
meeting of June 8th regarding alternative transportation uses for the
Southern Pacific Right-of-Way. The City Council continued this item in
order to provide an opportunity for residents to voice their concerns.
Mr. Murphy was not able to attend the meeting but indicated a
willingness to respond to any questions verbally or in writing or to
attend another City Council meeting.
Mr. Tong further stated that the Steering Committee had suggested not
using the SP right of way in Northern Contra Costa County but using the
1-680 alternate. He presented some background on the issue which stated
that the transportation study was developed by the Contra Costa Public
Works Department and that the Technical Advisory Committee met between
September of 1984 and September of 1985. The intent of the study was to
look for alternate alignments and modes of transportation. Four
technologies and two alignments were selected as being the most
promising for more detailed study by the Contra Costa Board of
Supervisors. The four technologies are BART type trains, light rail
transit (LRT) , busway, and AT (Advanced Technology) . The AT vehicles
are a grade separated system. There are no examples locally. The light
rail would be powered by overhead electricity. The busway system could
include other vehicles such as carpools or vanpools. If 1-680 is used,
the system would probably run along the east or west side, as the median
is proposed to become additional traffic lanes. The report of the
Steering Committee suggests emphasizing light rail transit or the busway
concepts and focusing on using the SP right of way but looking at 1-680
as an option. A revised recommendation is being prepared to go back to
CM-6-235
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
the Steering Committee, which will then make a recommendation to the
Contra Costa Board of Supervisors. The City Council previously adopted
a resolution regarding interim use of the SP right of way, which
preserves the City's option to use it as a transportation corridor. The
Dublin General Plan also has policies regarding the transportation
corridor.
Floyd Chavez of Stagecoach Road asked whether the SP right of way would
be used as far north as Rudgear Road and then I-680 or if I-680 would be
used as the full thoroughfare. He also asked if the system would extend
to the I-580/680 interchange.
Mr. Tong answered that the Committee is looking at using I-680 south of
Rudgear but that this would have to be clarified. The City of Dublin is
not doing the study but is gathering comments to send back to Contra
Costa County.
Mr. Chavez stated that he felt the entire system should be on I-680 and
that the SP right of way should be used for another purpose. He also
felt that there would be a problem with cross streets if the SP right of
way were used and that he didn't like the idea of having the system in
his back yard.
Mr. Tong said that the recommendation from the Contra Costa Public Works
Staff to the Steering Committee was for consideration of both alignments
and that the precise recommendation needed to be clarified by the Contra
Costa Public Works Staff.
Mr. Chavez said that he had checked into possible future uses for the SP
right of way when he purchased his home but was told it would not be
used for light rail.
Sandra Chavez of Stagecoach Road said that if the system used I-680, it
would help downtown Dublin as well as the mall and people who were
working at Hacienda Business Park.
George Fricke, Pearl Place, said that he had grown up near BART and
moved to Dublin for peace and quiet. He had asked his realtor what was
planned for the right of way and was told that it wouldn't be used for
anything. He is opposed to using the SP right of way for a
transportation system and feels it would devalue his home.
Doug Abbott, Rhoda Place, asked what the system would cost and who would
pay for it.
Mayor Jeffery said that had not been determined yet.
Cameron Raether, Turquoise Street, said it appears residents to the
north have convinced the committee that the system should be on I-680
and asked whether there would be a stop in Dublin. He is concerned that
he and his neighbors will appear to be "second class citizens" if the
system is adjacent to their back yards.
CM-6-236
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
.i.n ..:....5+....1.:.. ..0..:...1.:;�.. ,. .........1.. ... ., :.l,:r...,:..:...'wi:nw:.:.a.:s,:.e.. ........a✓W ...... ....:.. .... ...nn.. •..,. ,i.,.. •w.. .A..+u..........,...... �..ur.a.+a..c..a....`....a..� ................ c,,.......,.».._ ...
John Marker, Stagecoach Road, said he had attended two meetings in
Contra Costa and had learned that the average speed of the light rail
would be 35 mph. He remarked that the current bus system does not have
much ridership, and he felt that the population was looking for another
north-south access. In order to move a lot of people another corridor
is needed between I-680 and I-5. He further stated that he was
concerned about his property value and that he could not see how the
City would benefit from a transportation mode on the SP right of way.
Mayor Jeffery stated that other studies were being performed on north-
south corridors.
Mr. Marker stated that I-680 was already scheduled to be widened.
Mayor Jeffery responded that the studies concerned Hwy. 84 and other
thoroughfares.
Robert Mines, Turquoise Street, said that he had recently purchased his
home and asked why the City had not told them previously about the
possibility of using the SP right of way for transportation. His
realtor told him the corridor would be used as a jogging trail. He
asked how appointments to the Steering Committee were made and who
determined that the SP right of way was zoned for transportation.
Cm. Snyder said that Supervisor Schroeder had suggested to the Steering
Committee that any transit facility should be taken off the SP right of
way in the north, as far as Crow Canyon Road. Cm. Snyder had told the
Committee that I-680 should be considered for the entire length of the
line rather than making two turns to get to the SP right of way. Cm.
Snyder indicated that his comments were not included in the motion acted
on by the Committee. He further stated that the appointments to the
Steering Committee were made by the County and that since the County of
Alameda owned most of the SP right of way property within Dublin, the
County determined the zoning and would make the final decision as to its
use. The City has no direct control over the County's use of the right
of way.
Mr. Mines stated that the people of Dublin should have the same rights
as the people in Danville and Alamo with regard to protesting the right
of way' s being used as a transportation corridor and said that the City
Council should take a stand on the issue.
Cm. Snyder responded that the SP right of way has been designated as a
transportation corridor in the City' s General Plan and that the General
Plan is public record.
Russ Bebout, Bloomington Way, asked whether BART was scheduled to come
through Dublin and if the light rail would be outdated when BART
arrived. He further stated that he felt the system shouldn't be
instituted at all.
Charlie Ryan, resident of Dublin, asked where the line would be in
relation to the roadway if I-680 were used.
CM-6-237
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
Cm. Snyder stated that there had been no discussion on the subject as
yet and that the decision would ultimately be a political one.
Mr. Ryan asked how the residents could be asked for input if the
location had not been determined.
Mayor Jeffery responded that part of the study involved looking into
different options.
Mr. Ryan asked which technology would pay for itself.
Cm. Snyder stated that no public transportation mode would pay for
itself.
Mr. Ryan said that he recommended not instituting it.
Brad Chapman, Stagecoach Road, said that there are many children in the
area and that it would be difficult to keep them from climbing the
fence; therefore, locating the line at the SP right of way would not be
safe. Conversely, children do not have access to a freeway and would
not be inclined to play there.
Neal Barnes, Pearl Place, said that he was against using the SP corridor
and preferred using 1-680 or another alternative. He agreed with Mr.
Chapman regarding the safety issue and also felt that property values
would be lowered and there would be an increase in transients. The
community would be better served by a park or recreational use.
Ms. Chavez stated that she had called the County Planning Commission
when they purchased their house in December and also had talked with Cm.
Hegarty and was told that a transportation use was not likely.
Mike Trolls, Turquoise Street, said that the report states that 1-680 is
the preferred route near Rudgear Road because the SP corridor narrows in
that area. It would cost a lot to put transit on the freeway because of
the slopes in that area but would be easier south of Sycamore Valley
Road. He asked why Dublin could not do the same and develop the SP
corridor as a golf course or park. He felt that a resolution of the
City Council would have no effect on Contra Costa County.
Mayor Jeffery said that the SP lands were owned by the two Counties.
Cm. Vonheeder stated that the Board of Supervisors could vote any way
they wish and that only one of the Supervisors represents the Dublin
area.
Mr. Trolls asked how the City of Pleasanton was reacting.
Mr. Snyder said that the concern was not as strong. The important thing
is that both Counties want to preserve the corridor and not let is be
sold piecemeal. He further stated that, in his opinion, there would not
be a rail transportation use along the SP corridor; however, some type
of trail use may be possible.
CM-6-238
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
Mr. Trolls asked when the decision would be made.
Mr. Snyder said that he did not have a feel for it.
Mr. Trolls said that a house is typically sold every five years and that
a person purchasing a home along the SP corridor in five years still
might not know the future use. He felt it would be better to decide
now.
Cm. Snyder asked whether Mr. Trolls were able to purchase his home for a
lesser amount because it was next to the SP corridor.
Mr. Trolls stated that he was not; however, he said that he felt better
about using I-680 and that at least people who live along I-680 know
they are next to a transportation corridor.
Mr. Mines asked how the General Plan could be changed.
Mayor Jeffery said that a General Plan Amendment is necessary and that
it would be necessary to look at the study results to know what is
appropriate for the City.
Gary Gessler, Turquoise Street, asked if the facility were elevated, how
great the distance would be between where the elevation starts and ends.
He also asked, if buses were used, where the stops would be - at every
intersection or not at all. He also questioned where parking facilities
and access to same might be located.
Jill Barnes, Pearl Place, said she was uncomfortable with not making a
decision and asked for advice regarding other meetings to attend.
Mayor Jeffery stated that this hearing was for the purpose of taking
information and questions that need to be addressed by Contra Costa
County.
Cm. Snyder suggested attending the Steering Committee meetings and said
that the strongest voice at the last meeting was that of approximately
100 Danville and Alamo residents.
Ms. Barnes asked how to be notified of the meetings.
Mr. Tong suggested contacting Bud Murphy at the Contra Costa Public
Works Department.
Mr. Chavez asked whether the property purchased within Pleasanton and
donated to the County was purchased by Prudential for the benefit of
Hacienda Business Park. He felt that Dublin would be a through-way
serving Pleasanton and would therefore not benefit. He suggested making
the SP right of way a park for children.
Mr. Trolls asked whether the Steering Committee had recommended
abandoning the corridor.
CM-6-239
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
Li..:.ar._....LM.:_...:.........•....a:wd-..w.r.J4.S.r..r,.+..•..F.lu.r.u.rau:w..:.'•A. ... .:.�..,s....]Y ew...,,.r ,� iS.e.Y.-!F.w ,lFt..d..w......I....:iJw«w<:.....tiV.e•f.:..r.�..r..1 LY:u.w�dla..... .d... .i..a4e...t..s..w._.... . i.
Cm. Snyder stated that the only vote taken was regarding the SP corridor
north of Crow Canyon Road. The City of San Ramon proposed review of the
Dougherty Valley as an alternative.
Mr. Ryan asked what the cost difference would be between a new highway
and this transportation system.
Mayor Jeffery said that the study was not at the point of determining
costs yet and that input was being taken for future study. She said
that her understanding from testimony was that the I-680 alternative
should be pursued.
Mr. Ryan asked about a study for another north-south highway.
Mr. Mines asked if there would be another study.
Cm. Snyder stated that the process was that comments from this hearing
would be forwarded to Bud Murphy and would become part of the record and
be responded to by Staff. The decision would not be Mr. Murphy' s but
would be with the Board of Supervisors. If the Committee feels that I-
680 is a better alternative, or if neither alternative is viable, they
will look at that possibility. The Steering Committee makes
recommendations, but it must be recognized that the County owns the
property and that the County should be told if the people don't want the
transportation facility.
Mr. Mines asked for the names of people to contact.
Cm. Snyder suggested Bud Murphy at Contra Costa County.
Cm. Hegarty suggested contacting Ed Campbell, the Alameda County
Supervisor for this District. The other Supervisors could also be
contacted.
Mr. Luna asked why the Councilmembers didn't contact the Supervisors.
Cm. Vonheeder stated that this hearing had been continued from a June
meeting in order to find out what the residents think.
Mayor Jeffery stated that copies of the minutes would be available at
the City Offices.
Ms. Chavez stated that Pleasanton was not concerned as residents were
not affected there.
Cm. Snyder said that there were residences on the other side of Hacienda
Business Park and that the reaction had been negative.
Mayor Jeffery asked whether it would be necessary to remove homes if the
I-680 alternative were used and whether it would be necessary to rebuild
any overpasses.
CM-6-240
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
Cm. Vonheeder asked what would happen to the current plan for the I-
580/680 interchange.
Mayor Jeffery stated that she would be watching the issue and suggested
that all concerned watch the papers and go to the Policy Committee
meetings.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing and directed Staff to forward
all comments to Bud Murphy.
* * * *
RECESS
A five minute recess was called at approximately 9: 15 p.m. The meeting
was reconvened at approximately 9:20 p.m.
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING: PA 87-018 ENEA PLAZA - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING
REQUEST
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tong presented the Staff report which stated that, at'-the meeting of
June 22nd, the City Council had clarified the condition regarding a road
parallel to Dublin Boulevard, adopted a Resolution approving the Enea
Plaza PD, Planned Development Rezoning request, and introduced an
Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance. The application rezones
approximately 5. 0 acres to allow a range of retail shopper, office,
personal service, and financial uses. The requested PD, Planned
Development District designation amends the existing PD District applied
by Alameda County, which allowed C-0, Administrative Office District
uses, and 'a limited range of C-1, Retail Business District uses. Staff
recommended that the City Council waive the second reading and adopt the
Ordinance.
There was no public comment on this item.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous
vote, the City Council waived the reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 35-87
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE REZONING OF REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF THE INTERSECTION OF
AMADOR PLAZA ROAD AND DUBLIN BOULEVARD
* * * *
CM-6-241
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
PUBLIC HEARING: SPARK ARRESTORS
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Building Official Vic Taugher presented the Staff report which stated
that the proposed ordinances had been introduced at the City Council
meeting of June 22nd. These ordinances require installation of spark
arrestors at the time property is sold or whenever work exceeding $1,000
in value is done. These ordinances are part of the implementation of
the Planning Commission recommendation relating to the Fire Safe Roofing
Ordinance. It is anticipated that said installation of spark arrestors
upon sale of property will be accomplished in the same manner as the
current requirement for installation of smoke detectors, in which the
seller discloses that a spark arrestor is necessary and that
installation is required prior to close of escrow. In the case of work
exceeding $1, 000, the Building Inspection Department would assure
installation of the spark arrestor. Staff recommended that the City
Council waive the second reading and adopt the ordinances. Staff also
advised that adoption of a Resolution of Findings of Necessity would be
required in order to institute local building regulations that differ
from State regulations.
Cm. Moffatt asked if a permit would be required to install a spark
arrestor.
Mr. Taugher stated that the Building Inspection Department did not
intend to require a permit. As a practical matter, there is nothing to
inspect. The code on exceptions for permits would be amended to state
that a permit is not required to install a spark arrestor.
Mayor Jeffery stated that in the case of work exceeding $1, 000, a permit
would be required anyway.
Doug Abbott, Rhoda Avenue, asked what constitutes a spark arrestor.
Mr. Taugher said that the approved type had 12-gauge mesh and would
permit passage of 3/8" diameter particles but not 1/2" diameter. Spark
arrestors are available from hardware stores or building supply houses.
A copy of the standards would be circulated to vendors.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
Cm. Hegarty stated that he wished to make certain that the record showed
he favored requiring installation of spark arrestors on all dwellings in
Dublin within a 6-month period, as discussed at the first reading of the
proposed ordinance, and that he was voting in favor of adoption of these
ordinances because they were better than nothing. He further stated
that he still felt all houses should be required to have spark arrestors
at least within a year.
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous
vote, the City Council waived the reading and adopted
CM-6-242
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
ORDINANCE NO. 36-87
AMENDING ORDINANCE 02-84 ESTABLISHING FIRE HAZARD AREAS
AND REQUIRING THE INSTALLATION OF SPARK ARRESTORS ON EXISTING CHIMNEYS
WHEN ALTERATIONS, REPAIRS, OR ADDITIONS REQUIRING A PERMIT HAVING A
VALUE IN EXCESS OF $1, 000 OCCUR
ORDINANCE NO. 37-87
REQUIRING THE INSTALLATION OF SPARK ARRESTORS ON EXISTING CHIMNEYS ON
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY BY SALE OR EXCHANGE
and adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 57-87
FINDINGS AS TO WHY AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFORM CODES ARE NECESSARY
(Spark Arrestors)
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING: FIRE SAFE ROOFING ORDINANCE
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Mr. Taugher presented the Staff report, which stated that this item had
been previously heard at the City Council meeting of April 27th, at
which time Staff was requested to investigate the feasibility of
requiring spark arrestors to be installed within a specified time and, to
review the standards for spark arrestors. The spark arrestor issue was
resolved separately.
Section I of the Fire Safe Roofing Ordinance deletes the provisions that
exempt single-family dwellings and accessory buildings from the
requirement that permits be obtained for re-roofing. Section II
establishes roofing areas and requirements as follows: Area 1: Class B
roof covering or non-combustible roofing material. Any re-roofing must
comply with requirements for new construction (all buildings in this
area have concrete tile roofs) . Area 2 : Class C roof covering or non-
combustible roofing material. Any re-roofing must comply with
requirements for new construction. Any re-roofing of buildings with
wood shingles or shakes would have to be Class C or better. Materials
available for Class C are fiberglass shingle, metal tile, perlite tile,
pressure treated wood shingles and shakes, and concrete or clay tile.
Area 3 : Buildings are currently roofed with either wood shakes or
composition asphalt shingles. These buildings may be re-roofed in kind;
however, a composition asphalt roof could not be replaced with wood
shakes.
The intent of requiring a permit for re-roofing is that applicants would
be advised of the material requirements. Inspection would be limited to
verifying that the property material had been used. In addition to
introduction of the Ordinance, Staff recommended adoption of a
CM-6-243
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
Resolution of Findings of Necessity and also a Resolution establishing
permit fees for reroofing, which would become effective on the effective
date of the Ordinance.
Cm. Moffatt asked what class a tar and gravel roof was .considered.
Mr. Taugher replied that a tar and gravel roof could be either Class A,
B, or C, depending upon the number of plies and amount of gravel used.
There was no public comment on this item.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote,
the City Council waived the reading and introduced an Ordinance Amending
Ordinance No. 02-84 Establishing Fire Hazard Areas and Establishing
Various Requirements for Fire Retardant Roofs in Those Areas, and
adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 58-87
FINDINGS AS TO WHY AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFORM CODES ARE NECESSARY
(Fire Safe Roofing)
RESOLUTION NO. 59-87
FEE SCHEDULE FOR BUILDING REGULATION PERMITS
(Re-roofing)
These Resolutions will become effective on the date that the Ordinance
becomes effective.
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE OPERATION OF TAXICABS
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
City Manager Richard Ambrose presented the Staff report which stated
that this Ordinance is part of the Municipal Code revision and regulates
the operation of taxicabs, including meters, insurance, rates, and
permit application procedures. This Ordinance was introduced at the
City Council meeting of June 22nd.
There was no public comment on this item.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
CM-6-244
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous
vote, the City Council waived the reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 38-87
RELATING TO TAXICABS
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SECTION 1205(a) OF THE BUILDING
CODE RELATING TO BATHROOM VENTILATION
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Vic Taugher, Building Official, presented the Staff report which stated
that Mr. Bebout of 11318 Bloomington Way had been issued a building
permit for construction of patio roof. The original plans 'called for
enclosing the ends but leaving the long wall open. Subsequently, the
applicant requested approval to completely enclose the patio. As a
result, the window of the bathroom, which originally opened into the
open patio, now opened into the closed structure. The Building Code
requires that such windows must open onto a street or yard or a porch
that is open at least 65% on the long side. If this requirement is not '
met, a bathroom must have an exhaust fan. The plans prepared by the
applicant did not indicate the presence of the window; its existence was
discovered upon inspection after the permit had been issued. At that
time, the applicant was advised of the requirement for the exhaust fan.
Mr. Bebout requested a variance to this section of the Code to waive the
requirement for the fan and indicated he felt that the screen door on
the left side of the patio structure was adequate for natural
ventilation.
In order to approve the variance, the City Council must find that the
granting of the variance is consistent with the purpose of the Building
Code and will not lessen the protection to the people of the City of
Dublin or property situated therein. Mr. Taugher stated that he felt
those findings could not be made.
An additional issue raised in the Staff report regarded preparation of
plans by a professional. The applicant had prepared his own plans,
which is permitted by the Building Inspection Department. However, the
applicant had omitted a detail which showed the sills, and consequently,
the Building Inspection Department was not able to advise him of the
proper material for construction. The Building Department has typically
not required professionally-prepared plans for minor construction
because Staff is available for consultation several hours per day. Mr.
Taugher requested that the Council provide appropriate direction if more
explicit plans should be required.
Russ Bebout, Bloomington Way, stated that he knew that Building
Inspector White had inspected the houses in the Tract when they were
being built and had been at his specific house on several occasions and
therefore should have known the bathroom window was there. Mr. White
CM-6-245
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
..;t..: .s:.:.....s.:ra....:.H•a •sa.:.r,:..:.s... .:✓ w.: a...s.:x.:.s.,.,:�.< ,..�:..:.•w...a. ,: .... .aJ......,.. ,. .. .-ur:srv,,+.urn.......eve.:.:r. ::.0 .�,....w».bst:.,..i:.�..: .... .f..:.-•A✓a..._............. ..._.
had approved his original drawings for the patio structure. The
inspector for his patio addition was Earl DeRoque, who brought up the
issue of the sills. Mr. DeRoque had told him that he felt the screen
door was adequate ventilation for the bathroom but that he wanted the
sills done according to code. The fan was discussed at that time. The
following day, the sills were approved, but Mr. Taugher determined that
the fan would be required. Mr. Bebout noted that he had an approved
building permit and that he would like to have the variance granted.
Charlie Ryan stated that he felt the variance should be granted and that
the same issue has come up before on the question regarding whether
pressure treated redwood should be required.
Cm. Hegarty stated that the sills were not the issue.
Susan Alves, Padre Way, said that she had had a problem with the
Building Department and that she sympathized with Mr. Bebout. She felt
that the applicant was under the influence that what he was doing was
correct. She further stated that perhaps the Building Department wanted
residents to go to school or have an architect prepare the plans.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous
vote, the City Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 60-87
DENYING VARIANCE TO SECTION 1205 (a) OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN CIVIC CENTER
Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tong presented the Staff report, which stated that an Environmental
Assessment must be completed prior to beginning construction on the
proposed Dublin Civic Center. Staff has completed an Initial Study and
found that this project, inclusive of the appropriate mitigation
measures, will not have a significant effect on the environment, and
therefore a Negative Declaration has been completed. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the draft Negative
Declaration/Initial Study on July 6th and voted to adopt the Resolution
recommending that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance.
A review of the Initial Study indicates several items of concern that
have been or will be addressed by appropriate mitigation measures.
These are: soils, traffic, and noise. Staff recommendation was for
adoption of Resolution approving the Negative Declaration.
CM-6-246
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
E'1YifSSCI�`LL'ft&'Xic4S'2.'ti.G4"i— =,.-.L'aYlM1w'+•a'.,'^•u,°:.iS.'::;'�amra "5"�'ia•i•°°°• •••,:r.: ;^xaa:ova+c.uaiinaumxare:u..wa:e.:,rua'u. a yu:. 'aawz.:ru.:owe:saassW^s+s[a::.4.uN.xs+r. +u>...+
There was no public comment on this item.
Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous
vote, the City Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 61-87
APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED 52,000+ SQUARE FOOT CIVIC
CENTER FACILITY ON AN 11. 6+ ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND SIERRA COURT.
PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSINGS ON SAN RAMON ROAD
City Engineer Lee Thompson presented a Staff report which stated that
the Murray School District Board of Trustees had submitted a letter
requesting that the City look into the feasibility of installing
pedestrian overcrossings at two intersections on San Ramon Road, Amador
Valley Blvd. and Shannon Ave. TJKM, the City's Traffic Engineer,
advised Staff that the cost of a study of these two intersections
relative to pedestrian overcrossing structures would cost approximately
$3 ,500. The structures themselves range in cost from approximately'
$200, 000 each for stair-accessed to $400, 000 each for ramp-accessed.
All the warrants for pedestrian separation structures specified by the
Caltrans Traffic Manual have not been met at these intersections, and it
is likely that a study would not recommend the structures. Staff
recommended that the City Council respond to the Board of Trustees'
letter with cost figures and warrants and ask for a commitment toward
partially funding the study and, if ultimately constructed, the
structures themselves.
Cm. Hegarty stated that even if the school district did agree to pay the
cost of the study, the study would only conclude what is already known:
that the structures are not warranted. The City already has a crossing
guard, traffic signals, and so forth, and has already done everything
reasonably prudent for the protection of children. Installation of the
structures would not guarantee that the children would use them.
Mayor Jeffery commented that the structures would have to be the ramped
type for handicapped use and asked how long the ramp would have to be.
Mr. Thompson said that the ramp would need to be twelve feet long for
every one foot of height, and that the structure would be approximately
16 feet high. The ramps would extend alongside San Ramon Road.
Cm. Snyder stated that the Caltrans warrants should be included with any
communication with the School Board and that more cost-effective methods
such as crossing guards and busing could be utilized.
CM-6-247
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous
vote, the City Council directed Staff to respond to the Board of
Trustees that the City was not interested in pursuing the study and to
submit a copy of the Caltrans warrants with the letter.
* * * *
PA 87-091 GREGORY GROUP, INC. - REQUEST FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY
Mr. Tong stated that the applicant had called the City Offices that
afternoon and verbally requested to continue the item, and that the
Council could determine to hear testimony and then continue the item or
could determine not to continue it. Staff did not see any gain in
allowing the continuance. Mr. Tong also said that a letter had been
received from Zev Kahn which opposed the study.
Rick Angrisani of the Gregory Group said that he had received the Staff
report on Friday and was surprised by the negative recommendation. He
felt that changes in the surrounding property justified a General Plan
Amendment Study and requested the continuance in order to have time to
prepare testimony.
Cm. Hegarty asked what was going to happen between this meeting and the
next that would change the outcome.
Mr. Angrisani said he thought he would be able to get an informal
indication and that he was not asking for a commitment. He wanted to
perform the study in order to see if he was off-base in wanting to
develop the property.
Mayor Jeffery stated that Mr. Angrisani's letter requested to change the
General Plan land use designation to single-family.
Mr. Angrisani said that they needed authorization for the study to
proceed.
Mr. Tong said that it was appropriate to ask the Council whether they
wished to hear testimony and act or whether they wished to continue the
item.
Cm. Vonheeder said that she had no problem with the continuance.
Cm. Hegarty stated that the report specifies the lot to be permanent
open space and that the applicant had a right to ask, but that the
answer was obvious and it would be a waste of time to continue the
matter. He said further that he had a problem with changing the
designation and wanted the audience to know that any change would be an
uphill battle.
Cm. Vonheeder stated that the applicant was only asking to do a study,
not necessarily to change the General Plan.
CM-6-248
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
Cm. Hegarty said that under present conditions, the developer could come
back again and ask for another study after a decision has been made, and
that he felt that there should be some type of covenant that would stay
with the deed.
City Attorney Nave said that the best way to insure the land would
remain open space is to obtain an easement in favor of the City. On
another point, he stated that it is possible to deny the request for
continuance.
City Manager Ambrose commented that this item was not a public hearing
and that the Council has the right to authorize the study or not. If a
General Plan Amendment was filed, due process would occur at that time.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by majority vote,
the City Council denied the applicant's request to continue the item.
Cm. Vonheeder voted no on the motion.
Mr. Tong presented the Staff report which stated that the Gregory Group
had requested authorization for a General Plan Amendment Study to allow
review of a 10+ acre hillside property located in the western hills.
This lot, identified as Lot 41 of Tract 4077, lies west of the cul-de-
sac termini of Padre Way and Via Zapata. The Gregory Group wished .to
obtain approval for residential development of this lot, which is '
designated open space, along with an adjacent parcel on' Bloomington"Way
which is designated for single-family residential use. When the Gregory
Group developed Tract 4077, Lot 41 was ultimately committed as permanent
open space, as indicated in condition 39 of the Tract Conditions of
Approval, and a deed restriction was placed on the parcel.
The road network and site grading for Tract 4077 reflect the agreement
that the parcel would remain open space, and homeowners purchased their
property with that understanding. Mr. Tong further stated that approval
of the request could set a negative precedent for future requests to
consider overturning commitments to reserve areas for open space use.
Staff recommended denial of the request for a General Plan Amendment
Study and stated that if the City Council wished to authorize the study,
they provide direction regarding the scope.
Mayor Jeffery pointed out that residents of the area had submitted a
petition dated September 8, 1986, which objected to development of this
lot.
Mel Luna, Padre Way, said that when he purchased his home, he was told
that this area would remain open space. He also remarked that there had
been landslides in that area and that the land was not suitable to build
on.
Chuck Pendell stated that he bought his house as a resale and was shown
a letter two years ago that the property would not be developed.
CM-6-249
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
Susan Abbott, Rhoda Avenue, said that her view of the property was a
lovely ridge and that it was extremely important to maintain open space.
Land is disappearing, and this area is a nice buffer zone.
Jim Hanson, Padre Way, expressed a concern regarding drainage into the
creek south of Padre Way. He said that the creek had flooded previously
and that any more structures in the area would cause more water to come
down the hill into the creek, which would endanger homes and the future
park.
Dennis McCann, Via Zapata, said that his lot was under three to five
inches of water when he purchased the house and that even moderate
development would add to the water problem. He is still getting water
under his house even though he has put in drains and landscaping.
Dan Steele, Beckett Way, stated that he had the same sentiments
regarding the aesthetics of the area. He chose his home with great
deliberation and feels compromised by the possibility of development.
He was not aware of the petition and felt that other residents would
have signed it if they knew about it.
A resident of Via Zapata stated that his property faces Lot 41 and asked
whether a decision to deny the request for a General Plan Amendment
study would be permanent or if someone else could come in with the same
request.
Doug Abbott asked if the applicant could request a General Plan
Amendment if the request for the study was denied.
City Attorney Nave said that applicants could keep coming back with a
request for the study.
George Butler said he was concerned about the applicant coming back
every year and wanted to know if he could go to the County or if there
was a way to prevent ongoing requests to develop.
Mr. Nave responded that the County could have requested an open space
easement but did not. The City cannot do that now. The only way to
ensure that future applications would not be received is to exercise
eminent domain proceedings against the Gregory Group and pay fair market
price for the property.
CM-6-250
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
A resident stated that this should not be too expensive and that the
property owners might chip in.
Susan Alves, Padre Way, said that her children were attending the
meeting because they understood the deer and foxes might be gone and
that she hoped the Gregory Group's request would be rejected.
Charlie Ryan asked whether there was a covenant that says this will
remain open space.
Mr. Nave said that a Condition of Approval for the Final Map provided
that it remain open space.
Mr. Ryan asked what procedure was used and if one had the right to
change it.
Mr. Nave stated that he could not provide a legal opinion at the meeting
but would have to respond at a later date.
Mayor Jeffery asked that the legal opinion be provided at the August
10th meeting.
Mr. Ryan asked what good a study would do if a change cannot be made.
Randy Livingston, Bloomington way, said that he lives across the street
from the lot proposed to be part of the development and asked how it
came to be transferred from Estate Homes to the Gregory Group. He
expressed concern regarding a foundation that was built on the lot and
also a sign as being a hazard and eyesore.
Mr. Tong said he believed that the Gregory Group had purchased the
property from Estate Homes and that there is nothing that forces a
property owner to construct a house.
Mr. Livingston asked how to get the foundation and sign removed.
Mr. Tong said that an applicant typically had a year to finalize a
building permit or request a continuance. If the Building inspection
Department determined the structure to be a nuisance, it could be
required to be removed. He agreed to check with the Building Inspection
Department and respond to Mr. Livingston.
Katy Spencer, Bloomington Way, said she had understood an access road
was to be built on that lot.
Susan Abbott asked if the City would consider purchasing the land for a
park.
Mayor Jeffery stated that the Council had the right to consider it.
CM-6-251
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
Mr. Angrisani said that the Tentative Map required that the parcel
remain open space. When the Gregory Group purchased it, they were
forced to accept the condition. The soils report did not say they could
not build, and the reason for limiting development was that there was no
water service over 520 feet and no access for grading and also to
preserve the ridgeline. The water problem has been solved, there is now
access for grading, and others have built on the ridgeline. He said
that he therefore felt there was adequate reason to come in for a study
and that a few houses would not block anyone's view. His firm wishes to
get the land off their books.
Cm. Hegarty stated that the applicant knew of the conditions when the
land was purchased. It was studied prior to the Nielsen development.
He said further that he had a problem going against something that was
already agreed upon.
Mayor Jeffery said that something that was approved by the County was
not necessary approved by the Dublin city Council.
Cm. Vonhedder said that she wanted to make sure the record showed that
she agreed with the motion to deny request for study and that she had
only had a difference of opinion on the continuance issue.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by, unanimous'
vote, the City Council denied the applicant' s request for a General Plan
Amendment study.
REPORT ON TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
City Manager Richard Ambrose presented the Staff report which stated
that representatives from the City Councils of Dublin, Danville,
Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon had met on June 18th to discuss
transportation issues. The representatives were presented with goals
and objectives which proposed the development and implementation of a
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. The representatives agreed to discuss
the proposed objectives with their individual City Councils and
recommended that the Tri-Valley Transportation Subcommittee meet during
the summer to establish a scope of work to accomplish Action Item 1A
(Share transportation information among Tri-Valley jurisdictions/
including General Plans, Capital Improvement Programs, and current
development activities) . The work of the Subcommittee and action by
individual City Councils would be presented at the next Tri-Valley
Council meeting which will be held in September. Staff recommended that
the Council receive the report and consider the recommendations.
CM-6-252
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
Ui�17::k:."�`ds'.tGeill6L1.2dC�7duiWS+la:.wC:YA+:ISG:M1.'WY4LOW6iuFt%: ..".y a++ cu.wrawrmxwwa •rte°i.s�silalarr,v.
Cm. Vonheeder said that the subcommittee had not met again other than
the original presentation and that there had been a problem with trying
to determine objectives. They needed to get the goals lined up and
wanted all five cities working toward the same goals.
Mayor Jeffery said that she had a problem with Objective 2 and wanted to
add the phrase "voluntarily coordinated. "
Mr. Ambrose said that different cities would pursue the objectives at a
different pace, partly due to funding capabilities.
Cm. Vonheeder said that either Jim Walker or Rich Bottarini had
developed the wording. The idea was to let people know so that if
alternatives were available, priorities could be changed. The object
was to improve coordination.
Cm. Snyder said that he agreed with Mayor Jeffery, there was no
mechanism to force coordination. The cities will always operate at
different paces. He said further that he saw coordination as a positive
step.
Mayor Jeffery said that she agreed at least with Action 1A.
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and- by urrianimouS
vote, the City Council determined to support at least Action lA and
requested that the wording "voluntarily coordinated" be incorporated
into Objective 2 .
OTHER BUSINESS
Measure B
City Manager Ambrose said that he had received a letter from Mayor
Turner, representing Measure B, with regard to local match funds and how
the City would participate. The letter requested that the City Council
designate a representative for their next meeting. Mr. Ambrose said
that he would need to supply the date but that it would be the third
week in August. Mayor Jeffery said that she would attend if she did not
have a conflict. Mr. Ambrose said he would supply the date at the next
meeting, and a decision could be made at that time.
Councilmembers Absent at Next Meeting
Cms. Vonheeder and Hegarty stated that they would be out of town on
August 10th and would not be able to attend the meeting.
CM-6-253
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987
* * * *
Farewell to Billy Allstetter
Cm. Snyder suggested that the meeting be adjourned without additional
discussion in honor of Herald reporter Billy Allstetter, who is leaving
the area to go the the Columbia University Graduate School of
Journalism.
* * * *
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting
was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
* * * *
Mayor
ATTEST: `
City Clerk
* * * *
CM-6-254
Regular Meeting July 27, 1987