Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.1 Approve 12-11-1989 Minutes REGULAR MEETING - December 11, 1989 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, December 11, 1989, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7 : 35 p.m. , by Mayor Paul Moffatt. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Moffatt. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Ahmanson Development - Environmental Concerns Jim Hensen, 11529 Padre Way, questioned what he felt was an inappropriate location for a boundary fence which backs onto Dolan Park. The hillside is very steep and there is a herd of about 6 Does that come down into this canyon to have their Fawns. The creek at the bottom of the canyon is now dry. He requested that the City Council look at the encroachment into their environment. He felt the fence would have been more appropriately located higher on the hillside. Planning Director Tong advised that the Planning Department investigated this complaint. Ahmanson Development constructed fencing on their property with the necessary permits. It was reviewed and approved. The creek and canyon is on property owned by the Nielsens and is covered by the Williamson Act. Mayor Moffatt explained that the City Council cannot go out and remove a fence that is on someone's own property. Great consideration is given to the problem in its entire magnitude. Cm. Hegarty felt that Mr. Hensen should understand that no one wants to deprive animals of their homes. These things do take place, however, and the City does the best it can to preserve nature. Development does take place and the Council tries to preserve life for everybody. There are thousands of remaining acres where the animals can roam. Mr. Hensen clarified that the issue is the location of the fence. It will be more of a nuisance having the fence where it is, and he suggested that some judgement could be used. Susan Alves, Padre Way, questioned if the property owner has a choice of the type of fence and asked if there was any way that the fence could be kept as an open type fence rather than enclosed. An open CM - 8 - 1 Regular Meeting December 11, 1989 r ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: ITEM NO. fence will not restrict anyone's view. She felt that the City Council and the Planning Commission should make an on-site visit. She felt it to be unfortunate that no one cares about how the animals get -to water. The creek no longer runs and this is the only natural supply of water for them. People now need to put out water for the animals. Cm. Hegarty stated that if the water flow has changed in some way, the City should know why. At one time there was a barbed wire fence there. Mr. Tong advised that Ahmanson Development is putting up fences about 30' above the creek bed. They back onto an open space area and on the other side of the creek are the houses along Padre Way. They are constructing fences that have a relatively open design. After initial construction, the choice of fencing materials goes to the homeowner. Public Works Director Thompson advised that Ahmanson did a minor amount of grading within the watershed. The bulk of the creek runs quite a ways up from the developed area and there has been no change. Two or three years of drought has caused the creek to dry up. Ms. Alves asked about the garbage and also the bright lights from the model homes. Mayor Moffatt advised that he would be happy to look into Ms. Alves' other concerns. Mr. Tong advised that there was a permit issued related to lighting the models. The lights were not to shine off-site. Mr. Thompson advised that when they were building the model homes, there was some debris that blew on the hills and Dublin Inspectors called this to their attention. Also, some haybails remain which are to be picked up. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved the minutes of the Regular Meetings of November 13 , 1989 and November 27, 1989; Authorized Staff to issue an encroachment permit to the Dublin Little League, once fee has been received. Authorized Staff to issue an encroachment permit to the Tri-Valley Haven for Women, once fee and insurance certificate have been received; Accepted the City Treasurer's Investment Report for Period Ending November 30, 1989 CM - 8 - 2 Regular Meeting December 11, 1989 Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 131 - 89 ESTABLISHING POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND RENTAL RATES FOR THE USE OF THE DUBLIN CIVIC CENTER Authorized Staff to advertise Contract 89-13 (Catch Basin Grate Replacement Program) for bids; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 132 - 89 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH DUBLIN FINE ARTS FOUNDATION AND E. L. SMYTH, INC. Because he serves on the Board of this Foundation, Cm. Snyder abstained from voting on this item. Accepted the November Financial Statement; Authorized a budget transfer of $2, 083 from the Contingent Reserves for the Livermore Amador Valley Childcare Services; Approved the Warrant Register in the amount of $249,541. 51. PUBLIC HEARING HANSEN HILL RANCH/BREN COMPANY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Staff advised that on November 27, 1989, the Council introduced an Ordinance amending the Zoning and adopted Resolutions approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Planned Development Prezoning and Tentative Map for the Hansen Hill Ranch/Bren Company project. The PD Prezoning would allow for 51 acres (180 units) of single-family residential development and 96 acres of open space. Consideration of the annexation request will occur at the December 21, 1989 City Council meeting. Zev Kahn, 11708 Harlan Road, stated he had questions related to public access along the creek. While he realized that there is a plan on the Gleason, Blaylock property for open space, he saw no connection on the plans. How will a regional trail system be able to connect? Mr. Thompson advised that this is not directly related to the Zoning Ordinance issue, but the Applicant and Staff are looking at the provisions of offering the creek area for dedication to the City. No formal indication of dedication has yet been made by Bren. CM - 8 - 3 Regular Meeting December 11, 1989 i Cm. Hegarty stated that the emergency road for maintenance was discussed which runs along the creek area and will be for easement purposes. This could provide access. Mr. Tong stated that if it is going to be for private access, it would need to be of a certain width and design or if for public access, it will be different. Cm. Hegarty asked if pedestrians will be prohibited from walking up there. Mr. Tong indicated that if it is a private road, pedestrians would not be allowed. Cm. Hegarty felt the City should make sure that it is conditioned properly. He had no problem imposing a condition that it be accessible for people to walk up there. Since he is now aware of this, he will act accordingly at the proper time. This area, however, does not belong to the City, but rather to private property owners. No one has any business up there until it is dedicated to the City. Mr. Thompson stated that in the Developer's proposed plan, the road only goes half way; it then follows another piece of property. Mr. Ambrose stated that if the property is dedicated to the City, it is the City's option to use it for park and recreational purposes. Cm. Vonheeder clarified that it has not gotten to the point of being decided whether it will be public or private yet. Marty Buxton, Bren Co. , indicated that these are tentative map issues. They have every intention of dedicating this as a nice amenity to the City. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. Cm. Hegarty felt that the Council needed to take action at this time. Acting City Attorney Silver stated that the condition for the access road was part of the tentative map approval and action was final at the last City Council meeting. The discussion has been academic this evening. The issue before the Council at this time is the Zoning Ordinance which deals with use of the land. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 20 - 89 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE PREZONING OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF SILVERGATE DRIVE, NORTH OF HANSEN DRIVE, SOUTH OF WINDING TRAIL LANE CM - 8 - 4 Regular Meeting December 11, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE WHICH ADOPTED THE 1988 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1988 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1988 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE AND 1988 UNIFORM HOUSING CODE Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Chief Building Official Taugher advised that State Law requires that the City adopt new editions of the Uniform Codes within 6 months after the State has adopted the new codes. This Ordinance repeals existing Ordinance No. 58-87 and then readopts those provisions with minor modifications, along with amendments to the Uniform Codes that are required by the State. No comments were made by members of the public. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and on an urgency basis (to become effective January 1, 1990) , adopted ORDINANCE NO. 21 - 89 REPEALING THE CITY OF DUBLIN BUILDING REGULATIONS AS CONTAINED IN ORDINANCE NO. 58-87, AND READOPTING THE BUILDING REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN ORDINANCE NO. 58-87 WITH MINOR REVISIONS THEREIN, AND ADOPTING THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1988 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1988 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, 1988 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1988 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, 1988 UNIFORM HOUSING CODE AND THE 1987 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE AND ADOPTED AS AN URGENCY MEASURE and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 133 - 89 MAKING FINDINGS AS TO WHY AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFORM CODES ARE NECESSARY DISPOSITION OF RASMUSSEN HOUSE (ON SAN RAMON ROAD) Recreation Director Lowart advised that on July 24, 1989, the City Council authorized Staff to initiate the Specific Plan Amendment process for the 1.45 acre Moret property on San Ramon Road north of Amador Valley Boulevard. The Planning Department is currently working with Public Storage, Inc. , to develop a plan which would allow for the construction of a retail shopping facility on the front portion of the property facing San Ramon Road, and a self-storage facility on the rear of the property. This property is vacant with the exception of the Rasmussen House, an outbuilding and an old barn. The Rasmussen House, which was built in approximately 1913, is one of the oldest structures in Dublin. CM - 8 - 5 Regular Meeting December 11, 1989 Alternatives have been considered, including: 1) incorporate the house into Public Storage development plans; 2) move the house onto public property; or 3) move the house to the Rasmussen property on Tassajara Road. Public Storage, Inc. , feels that it would not be feasible to incorporate the house into their development. The City's Park & Recreation Commission is in favor of saving the house and moving it to public property if possible. A suggestion was to move it to Mape Park to be utilized by the City for recreation programs. Another alternative would be to move it to the 90 acre Dougherty Hills Park where it could be used as an interpretive center. Staff also contacted the Dublin Historical Preservation Association (DHPA) , to solicit their input. DHPA has indicated that they would like to see the house preserved and moved to City property. Members of the Rasmussen family desire to see the house preserved and one family member has volunteered his Tassajara Road property as a site for the house, provided proper clearances and permits can be easily obtained from the City of Dublin and Contra Costa County. In researching the historical significance of the house, Staff obtained an Environmental Assessment that was done for the San Ramon Road Phase II project. Excerpts from this report were discussed. The house does not appear to be eligible for any historic or architectural designations. Mr. Taugher inspected the house and advised that if the house were to remain on the present site, it would require extensive structural rehabilitation, as it is supported on unbraced foundation studs and is located within 25 to 30 feet of the Calavaras Fault. Mr. Taugher discussed the necessary requirements if the house were to be moved and used for any purpose other than residential use. Although detailed cost estimated had not been developed, Staff anticipated that these costs associated to do this would be in excess of $50, 000. The preliminary estimate to move the house within 1 mile of the present site ranges from $20, 000 to $24, 000. Ms. Lowart advised that there are currently no grant funds available. There is, however, some discussion of a 1990 park bond act for historical preservation purposes. Cm. Jeffery felt that some national historical grants are available for use in California, but she was told that people who own property in the earthquake zone will be given preference. Cm. Hegarty stated that the Green Store has far more historical significance and we were unable to get any grants for that restoration. CM - 8 - 6 Regular Meeting December 11, 1989 Cm. Jeffery indicated that there are so few buildings that are pre-San Ramon Village in Dublin that it does have some historical significance to the community. Cm. Hegarty felt that the City needs to be realistic. Zev Kahn stated that back in the days of planning parks in Dublin, it was suggested to use this as an interpretive center in the Dougherty Hills Park. If we move it to Mape Park, trees would have to be removed. He questioned how much money it would cost to build an interpretive center from scratch versus moving and renovating this house. Steve Tangney with Public Storage indicated they have met with Staff several times. Their initial understanding was that the house would not have any significance. They are willing to cooperate where they can and have offered some funding to move it. It may be more trouble than it is worth to save the house. They hope this house will not become a ball and chain to the rest of the proposed project. With regard to a timing factor, Cm. Vonheeder questioned how long it would take to move it. Mr. Tangney felt that to move it would require a project engineer type person to coordinate and that it would take about 2 months. The physical moving is only a 10 day to 2 week process. Mr. Ambrose advised that it would take the City longer than 2 months to move it to public lands. We must go out to bid and allow 3 to 4 weeks, plus the time it takes to prepare the plans and specifications, noticing, etc. The timing was further discussed. Public Storage has not yet closed escrow on the property. They are about 2 or 3 months away from being able to start grading. Mr. Ambrose advised that all tonight's action will do is assist Public Storage in moving through the process. Zev Kahn did not feel that it was necessary for utilities to be in place to move the house. A fence could be put around it and it could stay on blocks. It won't be necessary to outfit it right away. Ms. Lowart advised that development of the Dougherty Hills Open Space has been taken out of the current 5 year CIP. There was concern related to having the house sit vacant for over 4 years. Cm. Hegarty discussed current historical buildings in the City. When discussing a 1913 building, this is not really historically significant, but rather has a lot of sentimental attachments. If the family has such sentiments about it, they never should have sold the property. The $75, 000 minimum figure is a lot of money. He felt the Developer would have to pay at least $7, 500 to demolish the building. CM - 8 - 7 Regular Meeting December 11, 1989 He felt that the building should be preserved and that everything within reason should be done to save it, but no one should get unreasonable about it. The people who asked for it to be preserved should be allowed to move it. He indicated he would like to move it and just leave it up on beams and let it sit for 4 years. John Donahoe stated the major concern with moving it and leaving it on blocks is that you encounter other problems with exposure that you don't currently have. Also, you have to worry about whether it will still be there to do something with in 4 years. Cm. Vonheeder indicated her father purchased some old buildings in the past and understood problems with exposing them to the elements. Mr. Donahoe advised that house movers recommend having a house back on a foundation within 90 days. Cm. Jeffery questioned if the cost of moving would still be $24, 000 if you just move it a short distance. Mr. Donahoe stated that the biggest concern in moving is whether it will fit on City streets and do you have to go under an overpass, etc. It is conceivable that a move of 30' could be more difficult than going a mile. The Council discussed moving the house to the Rasmussen property. Acting City Attorney Silver advised that the Council needed to determine whether or not the house has cultural or historical significance. Mr. Tong advised that with regard to the Public Storage project, Staff has tentatively indicated that it does not and that a Negative Declaration would be adequate. If the Council feels that it does, then Staff would need to adjust the process accordingly. Cm. Hegarty did not feel that it has cultural significance to the City. All it has is sentimental significance. He questioned where the people who are on the Historical Society were. Cm. Jeffery indicated that they sent a letter stating they would like to see it saved. Cm. Snyder felt the issue was one of an emotional nature rather than any cultural or historical significance. The Rasmussen family raised the question of preserving the building and this is the only reason the City Council is discussing it. The Developer could offer it to the Rasmussen family. Cm. Hegarty summarized by saying that once it is gone, it's gone forever and you never have a chance to bring it back. Cm. Jeffery expressed concern in that if the Council commits money to this project, it will have to take money from other projects. CM - 8 - 8 Regular Meeting December 11, 1989 On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by majority vote, the Council determined that the house does not have cultural or historical significance and that the developers and/or land owners should offer it to the Rasmussen family, along with assistance in moving it. Cm. Hegarty voted against this motion. EAST DUBLIN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY (HEINDEL REPORT) Public Works Director Thompson advised that this study identifies possible funding mechanisms for 3 freeway interchanges, as well as the Dublin Boulevard extension. The study also assigns financial responsibility for these improvements between Pleasanton and Dublin. This Eastern Extended Planning Area study was precipitated by a request from the City of Pleasanton through its North Pleasanton Improvement District (NPID) for Dublin to pay its fair share for improvements to the interchanges on I-580 with Dougherty Road, Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road. Some of the proposed developers on the Dublin side of the freeway recognized that they, too, would need these improvements in order to develop, and they agreed to match Pleasanton's contribution of $10, 000 to undertake a study to determine what the cost sharing should be. John Heindel was hired as an assessment district expert. Mr. Heindel explained that from the original request to study 3 interchanges, the scope of the study was 1) expanded to include the Dublin Boulevard extension, as its construction was a requirement of the FHWA to have frontage roads on both sides of the freeway when the new Hacienda Interchange is constructed; 2) reduced to exclude the Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road interchange improvements, as Dublin and Pleasanton had a previous agreement covering this work; and 3) expanded to include the E1 Charro/Fallon Road interchange improve- ments, which were not funded by would be needed to develop properties on both sides of the freeway. Mr. Heindel established an "area of benefit" for the improvements on both sides of I-580 and distributed the freeway improvement costs based on estimated traffic generated by the assumed uses. For the extension of Dublin Boulevard and the streets connecting Dublin Boulevard to I-580, he is recommending that the property owners fronting these streets be responsible for the cost of 1/2 of a standard 60 foot collector street and that the oversizing of these streets be the responsibility of those properties north of the freeway, again based on traffic generation. Based on assumed land uses for Dublin, Mr. Heindel estimated that the City of Dublin would owe the City of Pleasanton approximately $8, 591, 000 for the portions of the freeway improvements already funded by NPID. This amount will not be known until the improvements are completed and the land uses have been established, so this amount could increase or decrease. CM - 8 - 9 Regular Meeting December 11, 1989 Mr. Heindel discussed 4 potential methods of financing and recommended a fee benefit district (one or multiple) as the method of financing. Improvements could be staged, and developers could build portions of the improvements to offset their fees. Staff recommended that consideration of this type of funding mechanism be deferred, because it has become apparent that the developers and property owners do not want to be assessed until they have entitlements to their property so that they are assured of recovering these infrastructure costs. Staff had discussions with property owners within the area bounded by Dougherty Road, I-580 and the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) right- of-way, regarding the extension of Dublin Boulevard. Because the General Plan land use studies have not been completed and the costs of improvements still being in preliminary stages, Staff recommended that the City Council acknowledge that East Dublin property owners will be responsible for funding these improvements, but only if they develop their properties. Cm. Hegarty questioned who started this study that estimates the benefit to Dublin as being $99 million. Mr. Heindel advised that it was started by Pleasanton, whose obligation has been $26 million thus far. Construction costs have been about $34.4 million. Cm. Vonheeder indicated that the logic only holds true if Dublin agrees with the way they calculated the benefits. Mr. Heindel explained that there is a difference between the character on the north and on the south sides of the freeway. One reason that Pleasanton's share is less is because of building Dublin Boulevard through in order to tie into the overpass. The State requires a frontage road of some sort. Discussion ensued related to units of benefits and number of trips. One unit of benefit equals 10 trips. Mayor Moffatt asked what benefit Contra Costa County will receive from this. Mr. Heindel stated that it would be very difficult to drag anyone in Contra Costa County into this benefit district. The land owned by governmental agencies cannot be involuntarily assessed. Mayor Moffatt indicated that the City of Livermore has approximately $2 million in benefit. He questioned if their sphere increases would their benefit increase. Mr. Heindel responded that it would. They divided it between the 3 spheres. Livermore's would go up significantly and Dublin could go down by a like amount. CM - 8 - 10 Regular Meeting December 11, 1989 Cm. Vonheeder indicated a discussion of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council whereby we might have to buy into off-site traffic mitigation impact fees. Cm. Hegarty felt there were many assumptions made in the report on the Pleasanton side. Nothing, however, in the way of development proposals has come before the Dublin City Council to date. Discussion has been only what might take place. The key to the whole process is the extension of Dublin Boulevard. Since the $99 million benefit is on the Dublin side, when it comes time to pay, everyone is bucking against this. A great deal of money is being discussed. Dublin has problems even now with improper roads. Mistakes were made back in 1958 and he felt the City needs to know what developers are going to do in the eastern area. Cm. Snyder felt it was important to develop a plan and that Cm. Hegarty was putting the cart before the horse. Mr. Thompson stated that Staff has met several times with the property owners and they have indicated they don't want to be assessed until they have their entitlements on the property. A small triangle of property was discussed bounded by Dougherty Road/Southern Pacific Railroad/Dublin Boulevard. They tried to form an assessment district. The recommendations tonight would not prohibit Staff from going after different kinds of funding mechanisms. A fee district could be set up. A letter was received from Livermore and they are also recommending that the City Council adopt this in principle only. Mr. Ambrose stated that there was concern expressed sometime ago that Pleasanton was paying for all the freeway improvements and Dublin wasn't paying its fair share. Meetings took place and Dublin decided to look at whether there was any benefit to the north side. Does future Dublin benefit to a certain extent? At some point in the future, Dublin should reimburse Pleasanton for its fair share. All this action would be is to approve a concept. Cm. Hegarty asked if Dublin gets any money from I-580. The only portion Dublin receives is at the intersection of Hopyard Road. He stated he just wants to make sure that Dublin doesn't end up with a plan where there is improper ingress and egress with our eastern plan. Mr. Ambrose stated that Dublin has 2 General Plan Amendments underway which will include roadway alignments. Donna Ogelvie, Doolan Canyon Road stated she was happy to hear that the assessment district seems to be premature at this time. They are the only residents in this area currently. They realize that Dublin needs to grow, but feels that it must be done in a more logical and slower manner. Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff has been trying to work with property owners in the Scarlett Court area and hoped that the City Council would consider a means of advancing Dublin Boulevard prior to some of these land use plans and that direction this evening would not CM - 8 - 11 Regular Meeting December 11, 1989 preclude Staff from developing some alternatives. There is benefit to . existing development within the City. Cm. Vonheeder felt that no matter how much is funded, Caltrans will not proceed until there is a parallel road in place. Mr. Ambrose advised that it has to be a minimum of 2 lanes for the interchanges to be functional. Bobbie Foscilina questioned the process in dealing with the 150 acre Camp Parks property. The report states that with regard to the federal land, it could take up to 2 years to go through the process. Mr. Ambrose gave an update on the land swap. Alameda County, the City, the East Bay Regional Park District and the Department of the Army entered into discussions related to transportation objectives. Also discussed were a future rail transit station, and right-of-way through the Army property for the extension of Dublin Boulevard. The 4 parties reached agreement and legislation was signed into place which calls for certain actions to occur regarding the Buenas Vidas area. As soon as the details are worked out, the land swap will become effective under federal law. The City of Dublin will end up with 12 acres for the extension of Dublin Boulevard. Before Dublin Boulevard can be constructed, however, a General Plan Amendment must be adopted by the City Council for the exact alignment between the Southern Pacific right-of-way and Tassajara Road. The right-of-way will enable us to build a 6 lane arterial, plus have space available for light rail at some point in the future. Ms. Foscilina asked about the need for another road going east and west other than Dublin Boulevard, and criticized what she felt was a poor circulation pattern. Carolyn Morgan asked since all this refers to the infrastructure of Dublin, why Doolan was even shown on the map. Mr. Heindel indicated that it was put on as a possible street pattern within that part of Dublin. They used an alignment which showed what it might look like. The street designations do not affect the City one way or another. Mr. Ambrose clarified that this roadway was not included in the cost estimates. Ms. Alves indicated she did not understand how people living in Livermore affect Dublin. Mayor Moffatt advised that Doolan Canyon is within the area that is being studied for long range planning. Following discussion of this item, on motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council 1) acknowledged that Dublin's Eastern Planning Area, when developed, will benefit from the new interchange work being funded by Pleasanton through the North CM - 8 - 12 Regular Meeting December 11, 1989 Pleasanton Improvement District (NPID) ; 2) accepted the concept of assigning cost sharing on the basis of benefit to the traffic generated on both sides of I-580; 3) determined that Dublin's contribution be subject to actual development taking place north of I-580 and within Dublin; and that funding mechanism(s) be established within the Dublin Extended Planning Area. RECESS A short recess was called. All Councilmembers were present when the meeting was reconvened. SMOKING POLICY FOR CITY FACILITIES Staff advised that a Resolution has been prepared which would prevent smoking within any enclosed City public facility. In 1986, the City Council adopted an Ordinance which addresses Smoking Pollution Control and includes provisions for smoking restrictions within places of employment, as well as public buildings. Should there be disputes regarding an employer's smoking policy, the Ordinance indicates that precedence must be given to the health concerns of the non-smoker. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 134 - 89 ESTABLISHING A POLICY PROHIBITING SMOKING WITHIN ALL ENCLOSED CITY FACILITIES APPOINTMENT TO ALAMEDA COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY City Manager Ambrose stated that since Councilmember Hegarty has advised that he will no longer be able to serve on the Alameda County Housing Authority Board, it is necessary for the Council to make a recommendation related to this appointment to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors, which actually makes the appointment, will consider the Council's recommendation. Since no one on the Council was able to assume this appointment, Cm. Hegarty suggested advising the public of the opening. Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff could develop an ad. Cm. Jeffery requested that an additional appointment on the Alameda County Transportation Committee also be advertised. CM - 8 - 13 Regular Meeting December 11, 1989 By a Council consensus, direction was given to Staff to advertise these 2 openings and bring back a list of those persons interested in serving at the first Council meeting in January. PROCUREMENT OF EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE COVERAGE Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that the financing documents for the Civic Center project include minimum property insurance coverage requirements. The procurement of earthquake insurance is optional in the event that it cannot be obtained at a reasonable cost. Staff obtained a coverage proposal from the City's current property insurance provider and identified that costs would be approximately $25, 500 to $39, 000. Mr. Rankin indicated that Staff believes that the premium compared to the basic property insurance results in an unreasonable cost. Mayor Moffatt asked if there is a guarantee on the building regarding earth movement. Mr. Rankin advised that there is a 1 year warranty on the construction. This building exceeds what a standard office building would have to comply with. An unidentified member of the audience felt the City should carefully read and review the fine print, as some earthquake companies will only cover certain things. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to decline the coverage. THE BROWN ACT - ALAMEDA COUNTY GRAND JURY INTERIM REPORT Acting City Attorney Silver advised that the Alameda County Grand Jury has issued an interim report related to compliance with the Brown Act Open Meeting Law. They request that all cities pass a resolution directing their respective legal counsel to at all times interpret Government Code Section 54950 through 54961 in favor of open meetings and against closed door meetings. The City Attorney's Office, after consideration of this report, does not feel a need for such a resolution in the City of Dublin. Legal Counsel has historically advised the Council correctly on those issues that are appropriate closed session issues for discussion under the Brown Act. This is only a recommendation, but Ms. Silver advised that the City Council must respond. Cm. Jeffery stated that the purpose of a Grand Jury is to take action and call attention to wrong doings. She felt we should advise them that we are already following the guidelines of the Brown Act. CM - 8 - 14 Regular Meeting December 11, 1989 By a consensus, the Council stated that the Grand Jury's comments were duly noted in the minutes of this meeting. OTHER BUSINESS National League of Cities Conference Report Cm. Jeffery reported that she had recently attended this Congress and everyone there felt that education is something that has been really neglected and this is why we are unable to solve a lot of problems. School boards tend to get very political and in some eastern states, some school boards are being taken over by City Councils. She also attended a meeting related to sister city benefits where there was discussion of economic exchanges. She felt Dublin should look into the National Sister City Organization at some of the things they are doing. With regard to housing issues, Jack Kemp spoke regarding the intention to cut through some of the bureaucratic tape when looking at what might be done related to housing. Tri-Valley Transportation Council Cm. Vonheeder provided an information report that the Tri-Valley Transportation Council is trying to look at a lot of transportation issues. There is strong pressure to formalize as a JPA coming from San Ramon and Pleasanton. She feels it is premature to form a JPA at this time. Commission Compensation Cm. Vonheeder indicated that she thought that the Commissioners compensation was to have been effective at the beginning of the fiscal year. Mr. Ambrose advised that the Ordinance which was adopted did not become effective until mid-September. Their first payment included any retroactive pay, but they were only paid if they attended the meeting. Cable Television Franchise Cm. Hegarty advised that some very complicated legislation just passed regarding cable tv service which will affect the Valley. It relates to blacking out certain duplicate programming channels because of advertising. Also, Viacom rates have increased 68% in the last 4 years. As a comparison, solid waste payments have gone up only 16%. The Community TV Board is concerned that there are certain things that CM - 8 - 15 Regular Meeting December 11, 1989 Viacom must do to continue their agreement; i.e. , equipping the Civic Center facility with cable tv. Mr. Ambrose advised that we are equipped. Dave Adams from Livermore has sent them a letter asking for certain clarifications. Cm. Hegarty advised that the public will probably start calling because of the rate increase and blackouts can occur in certain areas starting January 1st. Mr. Rankin advised that the only way they could add additional services for the community is to add channels. They currently are utilizing all 40. Mr. Ambrose advised that some of the other cable systems in the area are providing people with 54 channels. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CM - 8 - 16 Regular Meeting December 11, 1989