HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.01 Approve 04-18-1990 and 04-23-1990 Minutes ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING (Study Session) - April 18, 1990
An adjourned regular meeting (study session) of the City Council of
the City of Dublin held jointly with the Planning Commission was held
on Monday, April 18, 1990, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic
Center. The meeting was called to order at 7: 03 p.m. , by Mayor Paul
Moffatt.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor
Moffatt and Planning Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Okun and
Zika.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor led the Council, Commission, Staff and those present in the
pledge of allegiance to the flag.
Staff advised that this study session was scheduled to discuss General
Plan Policies and Land Use Concepts for East Dublin.
Mayor Moffatt introduced Project Coordinator, Brenda Gillarde. Ms.
Gillarde advised that this is one of the largest planning projects in
Northern California and that the East Dublin General Plan Amendment/
Specific Plan/EIR Study (GPA/SP/EIR) was initiated by the City in the
fall of 1988, following submission of a request to consider
development of the 930 acre Dublin Ranch. The City Council determined
that prior to acting on the request, a comprehensive study should be
undertaken for the entire East Dublin area. The City retained the
firm of Wallace, Roberts & Todd to prepare the East Dublin GPA/SP/EIR.
Ms. Gillarde introduced Alison Massa with WRT.
Ms. Massa advised •that the study area includes approximately 7 , 400
acres of relatively undeveloped land east of Dublin. The topography
ranges from virtually level land adjacent to I-580 to steeply sloping
hills in the upper, northern portion of the study area. Some grazing
occurs in the hills and there are approximately 35 occupied residences
on the property. Approximately 66% of the study area lies within
Dublin's existing Sphere of Influence. The remainder of the planning
area, including a portion of Doolan Canyon, lies outside the City's
Sphere of Influence.
Ms. Massa presented the Concepts Report which detailed five different
land use options that could be considered for East Dublin. Some of
the land use concepts would require minor modifications to existing
policies; others would involve major policy adjustments to accommodate
the level of development represented by the concept. The concepts
were preliminary only and subject to further refinement. The area is
quite extensive and varied and slides were shown of how the area
currently looks. An underlying vision common to all the concepts was
CM - VOL 9 - 89
Study Session April 18, 1990
----------------------------------------------------------------------
�, COPIES TO:
ITEM NO.
1
that East Dublin is seen as a living and working community. Each
concept contained a substantial amount of retail use.
The five concepts share a common vision of a dynamic community that
provides opportunities for people to live and work as well as
recreational opportunities. Within the community would be one or more
business centers containing a mix of office, retail and other
commercial uses. Residential neighborhoods of different types of
housing would surround each center and would be connected by
landscaped parkways and pedestrian pathways. An extensive system of
open space corridors would provide visual relief from the urban
landscape, as well as outdoor recreational opportunities.
Cm. Zika questioned if, in figuring the housing deficit, does this
assume the number employed compared to the number of dwelling units
available. Where do earnings come into play and whether or not the
units will be affordable.
Ms. Massa advised that the report does not take into account questions
of affordability, but does take into account the number of people in a
household.
Cm. Hegarty stated that if every community would strive to create a
jobs/housing match, we would not have the commute situations that
exist today. If one city accomplishes this and another doesn't, then
one will obviously suffer. You then might develop a concept of one
city creating jobs and letting another city build the houses. He felt
the goal was to have as close a match as possible.
Ms. Massa advised that in putting the concepts together, and in
evaluating them, they looked at a number of factors besides the ratio
of employed workers to housing units. There are some significant
traffic impacts which would require some substantially greater
infrastructure for roads and highways.
Cm. Jeffery advised that one of the reports used in developing the
land use concepts was the Economics Research Associates of 1988. She
questioned who commissioned this report.
Ms. Massa advised that it was a part of the overall East Dublin
contract.
Ms. Gillarde discussed the policy issues raised by the 5 concepts.
Because this is a General Plan Amendment, the possibility of modifying.
some of the policies. can be considered to accommodate different kinds
of development in East Dublin than has occurred elsewhere in the City.
There are 43 policies in the General Plan which can be applied to East
Dublin; however, 6 were selected which most impact development in East
Dublin. The 6 policies were then reviewed.
Cm. Jeffery advised that with Concept 5 she was concerned regarding
the agreement with Alameda County and what will be forced upon us by
legislature regarding jobs/housing balance.
CM - VOL 9 - 90
study session April 18, 1990
City Manager Ambrose advised that this is something we will have to
discuss with the County. There is no question that this is a problem.
Ms. Gillarde advised that the County fully acknowledges their
agreement. The County has rethought their position and are actually
in favor of a more mixed use.
Cm. Jeffery indicated that when the agreement was made, there was no
land that was set aside as a transportation center.
Ms. Gillarde indicated that in discussions with the County, they are
open to considering other uses.
Cm. Hegarty questioned what type of height requirements were being
recommended.
Ms. Gillarde stated she thought it was 200' with regard to the Airport
Land Use Commission referral. They anticipate no conflicts with this.
There is a requirement to forward a developed plan to them and then
they have a chance to comment.
Cm. Hegarty stated he was concerned regarding spreading things out and
using up all the land. Land can be preserved by building upwards.
This is the time to carefully consider heights. When the original GP
was adopted, the Council told people to bring their plans and concepts
in regarding height and the Council would consider how high to go.
There was flexibility built in.
Cm. Mack felt the designation of a 600 acre business park on the Santa
Rita property in Concept 5 was inconsistent with the first 4 concepts.
Mayor Moffatt called a short recess and advised that when the meeting
reconvened, audience members would be allowed to offer comments. All
Councilmembers and Commissioners were present when the meeting was
reconvened.
Mayor Moffatt reiterated that no votes or consensus will be taken at
this meeting, but the purpose of the meeting was for a study session
only.
Zev Kahn, 11708 Harlan Road stated he had concerns regarding parks and
recreation issues. He questioned how the amount of land was figured
and also, how the school yards related to park uses. Schools and
school yards have been indicated as recreational areas. If there are
not enough parks, you will severely restrict the people who will
eventually live there. He did not see any real park areas on the
maps.
Mayor Moffatt advised that specific questions would not be addressed
tonight, but would be added to the list of concerns to be studied.
Ms. Massa briefly explained that the General Plan says only to expand
park space in the extended planning area. They took the upper end of
the Quimby Act dedication requirement, which is 5 acres per thousand
CM - VOL 9 - 91
Study Session April 18, 1990
residents. They also introduced the notion of school parks. They are
not cutting back on the acreage devoted to parks, but rather
combining. , Another idea common to all the concepts is the idea of a
Citywide sports park, shown in 3 of the concepts on flatland along
Tassajara, adjacent to the proposed Alameda County government center.
Mary Beth Acuff, 8048 Via Zapata expressed concerns that Dublin is
under the gun to produce affordable housing. She felt that of all the
concepts presented, only #4 gives enough flexibility for the City to
negotiate so that some lower income housing is built. It is extremely
important to consider architectural planning for height, open space,
etc. , and flexibility must be built in.
Therese Swan, 6931 Langmuir Lane pointed out that many companies are
laying people off, and questioned why Dublin would want to build
another business park. All this will do is drive down property
values. Not enough businesses are moving into this area.
Larry Anderson with BART stated he was very encouraged by the focus of
the plan on pedestrian network and provisions that will encourage
transit. Park & Ride facilities have been placed near I-580. He was
concerned about the configuration of a roadway, in that Dublin
Boulevard seems to move away from the BART station.
Adolph Martinelli with Alameda County reminded the Council and
Commission that the Santa Rita property has a different status from
the other property. This is subject to an initial agreement which is
very sensitive related to tax transfers and land uses. The County is
not opposed to alternative uses, but it is a very sensitive issue.
The County would support mixed use on the property, particularly to
work toward jobs/housing balance. He felt a policy should be added to
look at vertical land uses, particularly on the western portion of the
study area. He also pointed out that the Triad Business Center in
Livermore is shown on all the plans, but BART is not shown.
Circulation will be a controlling factor, even more than open space
and jobs/housing balance. This is a long term plan which will take
many years to build out. Dublin is blessed with geography and timing
and Dublin can become the focal point of the entire region.
Marjorie LaBar, 11707 Juarez Lane indicated that several assumptions
made in the report jump out at her as being downright dangerous. She
was concerned with water shortage and the fact that we may not be .able
to get all of our allotment from the State of California. To assume
this kind of growth with an unstable water supply is dangerous. She
suggested a concept 6 that would take into affect the airport buffer
zone, amount of water available, and a 30% slope development
restriction. She also felt that the financial figures might need to
be redone. Everyone should know up-front what it will cost to meet
Level of Service D. She was concerned with development height and
conflicts with the flight zones.
Ted Fairfield, P. 0. Box 1148, Pleasanton stated he was glad to
finally be at this point in the process. It appears we are headed
toward the real thing. He represented 2400 acres of the property.
CM - VOL 9 - 92
Study Session April 18, 1990
u �
Concept 3 has been referred to as the developers option. It does have
problems, but overall is a good plan. He discussed the various
concepts and felt that #4 takes away a little of the flexibility. We
must keep in mind that we are looking 20 years into the future. What
is done now will somewhat put a cap on what is ultimately done. We
cannot change our minds years from now. All the infrastructure will
be built as one of the first phases of development. There will be
some very heavy front-end costs. Ownership and use of open space is
somewhat in question. There are a lot of nice thoughts for the land.
This will be an evolutionary process. Putting in a band of 5 acre
ranchettes as a buffer might be desirable. With regard to the
riparian corridors, they hoped that these are counted for density
purposes. This will be a substantial issue as the study progresses.
He felt personally that there are too many schools on the site, and
based this on other communities in which they have done plans. In
summary, he felt that everything is headed in the right direction.
Trevor Patterson, 5661 Doolan Road expressed concern that he was
deleted from the ownership pattern page. He questioned how much area
in width is included in the riparian corridor. He pointed out that
Concept #3 takes out his house completely. He also asked if
Cottonwood Creek had been mapped.
Ms. Massa advised that the riparian corridors were approximately 200'
wide and also that Cottonwood Creek has not been mapped.
Marty Inderbitzen, 62 West Neal Street, Pleasanton stated he
represented Doolan property and Lin properties along with Ted
Fairfield. One of the notable things is that there is a substantial
amount of property owned by a few property owners. This gives a
chance for the property owners to participate in the future
development of the City of Dublin. This area of the Valley represents
Dublin's opportunity to grow to maturity and a chance to become the
real jewel of this Valley. It is exciting. With regard to the ALUC,
Dublin needs to be cognizant of this commission, but he did not feel
that they could impose any restrictions.
Bobbie Foscalina, 5200 Doolan Road quoted various ABAG statistics and
felt that the plans presented would throw Dublin's jobs/housing ratio
out of balance. She questioned if the area could absorb this much
commercial development or housing. The Council should be concerned
because each of the concepts conflict with the General Plan, and all
the plans seem to lead to a LOS D or F, which are unacceptable. She
felt there should be an additional plan which would leave Doolan
Canyon undeveloped which would also keep infrastructure costs down for
the rest of the area. Most of the residents of this canyon are not
interested in being developed into Dublin.
Bill Diehl, 22916 Espada, Salinas congratulated everyone involved in
putting these plans together. He urged Dublin not to be timid in the
future. Developers are becoming very sensitive. It is difficult to
look 20 years into the future, but the key has to be flexibility.
Whatever land concept is chosen, you may discover that some of the
things may .be inappropriate. He urged the City to go forward.
CM - VOL 9 - 93
Study Session April 18, 1990
Doug Abbott, 8206 Rhoda Avenue stated he was troubled by this whole
process. Since he assumed that a lot of thought was put into the
General Plan, why not develop a concept that conforms. Each one of
the concepts presented asks for exceptions to the General Plan.
Dublin's General Plan should mean something and should protect
existing residents.
Carolyn Morgan speaking for Donna Ogelvie, 5184 Doolan Canyon felt it
was premature to have these meetings since LAFCO has not made their
decision and won't until next month. The costs for infrastructure are
staggering. She questioned how this will be funded and who is going
to pay for it. The drought of the last few years is a major concern.
Why not leave Doolan Canyon as 5 and 10 acre parcels and use them as a
buffer. She also was very concerned regarding traffic circulation.
Carolyn Morgan felt that Dublin was leaving itself open for tons of
complaints regarding schools and other proposed uses under an airport
path. She also pointed out that she saw no reference in the report
related to the transfer of development credits. About 4 months ago,
they asked permission to submit their own plans. She questioned the
percentage of costs for infrastructure compared to the percentage of
housing for just Doolan Canyon. The newspaper reported that housing
in Doolan Canyon would be under $200, 000. She did not feel this could
be done. She questioned Congressman Stark's proposed legislation and
also the County's policy. She also questioned why Doolan Canyon was
even included in the plan.
Ed Freiling, 7773 Woodren Court stated that it appeared that the
Council and Commission is finetuning and he questioned if he was even
on the same channel. He asked what these plans will do to property
values. Also, what will an influx of 40, 000 to 80, 000 people have on
the drug situation, the water supply, and various other health issues.
He felt that that many people will bring social diseases.
Glenn Brown, Stedman Associates, 1646 North California Boulevard,
Walnut Creek stated he wanted to make a pitch for higher use of the
flatlands, as this allows more preservation of the land. Some high
rise development will pull people off the freeway and get them into
the office uses. He questioned the 400' noise buffer zone as it
distracts visibility from the freeway. High density residential might
be better kept closer to the freeway as a way of keeping
infrastructure costs down. Dublin needs to have freeway visibility.
Don Redgwick, 1632 Loganberry Way, Pleasanton (Dublin Ranch owner)
stated he was the owner of 160 acres in the Sphere of Influence. He
felt the proposed Doolan Canyon Road should be moved to the east and
the existing road could be left in a rural sense which would leave
them out of the costs of infrastructure. He discussed the economics
of housing versus jobs market. The housing element can pay for itself
quite easily if it is a mixture of low cost as well as upscale
housing. Mr. Redgwick passed out 2 letters to the Council and
Commission and stated he favored Concept #3 as having a higher
percentage of single-family residences and lower percentage of
CM - VOL 9 - 94
Study Session April 18, 1990
multiples. It also has a better jobs/housing ratio than the others.
He felt that Concept #3 was clearly the best choice.
John DiManto, San Jose Construction advised that he represented
property at the northeast corner of Tassajara Road and I-580. His
company has been business park commercial developers for many years.
Combinations will ultimately be appealing to developers. If you
create a high profile area, you can mix sizes, shapes and heights
along the freeway all the way to Livermore. He felt it was important
to show the connection to Santa Rita Road on future plans.
Harvey Scudder, 7409 Hansen Drive advised that traffic is absolutely
solid on the freeway from Tracy into Dublin. If you place this many
additional cars on the freeway, plans need to be done to accommodate
all these cars. He felt that everyone on the Council and Commission
should observe this traffic volume on a weekday.
Bob Beebe, General Manager of DSRSD stated he felt it would be quite
straight forward to serve this area from an engineering standpoint.
Zone 7 is now serving the area and does not feel that water will be a
problem for many years.
Mayor Moffatt announced that the public comment portion of the meeting
was closed.
Ms. Gillarde stated General Plan Policy #1: Consider residential
development proposals (including support facilities) on moderate
slopes, with multi-family densities typically considered on flatter
land.
Cm. Snyder felt that if we change the concept to preserve the land,
then densities must be reconsidered.
Cm. Vonheeder felt this is one of the ways in which we can work toward
achieving a greater housing balance.
Cm. Zika felt the policies should be compared to the various concepts.
Cm. Hegarty stated the City had talked extensively about the 30%
slopes. If there were pockets that could be developed, the Council
would consider this. He felt there was nothing wrong with the
existing General Plan as it provides flexibility. He expressed
frustration at seeing all the colors on the map, when in actuality,
when the development plans come in, these will change. He felt the
policy related to the 30% slopes should be maintained. On a case-by-
case basis, some modifications could be made.
Cm. Vonheeder felt that there could be an increase in density on
moderate slopes of up to 30%.
Cm. Jeffery stated she had no problem considering higher densities on
other than flatlands, provided there was a right place for it. We can
preserve the look of the Valley and still allow for some development.
She indicated no problem with height, unless it blocks the hills.
CM - VOL 9 - 95
Study Session April 18, 1990
1 M
Ms. Gillarde stated General Plan Policy #2 : Approval of residential
development in the extended planning area will require determination
that . . . proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure
the ridgelands.
Cm. Jeffery stated that in some areas, you have to do some cutting for
roads, but disfigurements can be mitigated and put back to a natural
state.
Cm. Hegarty mentioned that he liked a term that he had once heard John
DiManto use, and that was to "sculpture the hills" . Often times,
development can actually improve the visual impacts.
Ms. Gillarde stated Policies #3 and #4 : Maintain slopes predominantly
over 30% (disregarding minor surface humps and hollows) as permanent
open space for public health and safety. Prior to planning and/or
building permit approval of more than 9, 000 (22%) of the potential
jobs in the Extended Planning Area, one or more Specific Area plans
shall be developed to designate sufficient land for housing in
reasonable relationship to existing jobs and jobs being proposed; and
to demonstrate how needed municipal services will be provided.
Ms. Gillarde indicated that before you can approve x number of square
feet, you must have housing for the workers.
Acting City Attorney Silver indicated she was not aware of any
specific legislation regarding jobs/housing requirement balance.
Cm. Zika asked what is reasonable and who determines this.
Mr. Tong indicated that this is a policy decision. The City needs to
make a good faith effort to obtain a balance.
Cm. Vonheeder felt the law was that you should strive for a 1/1 ratio.
Cm. Mack indicated she would like to see the policy changed.
Cm. Zika felt the policy is vague enough that we can do what we want.
Cm. Jeffery stated she did not see a problem with the way it is
written.
Cm. Snyder felt this was a statement that Dublin may never even have
to deal with, if housing is in place before the jobs are created. The
area needs to be economically viable and this allows for flexibility.
Cm. Mack asked if the City had ever considered trailer parks as a way
of providing affordable housing.
Mayor Moffatt indicated that specific uses were not being discussed,
but this type of comment would be more appropriate at a later time.
Cm. Okun felt that other types of housing must be considered.
CM - VOL 9 - 96
Study Session April 18, 1990
1 M
Ms. Gillarde stated General Plan Policy #5: Regulate grading and
development on steep slopes.
Cm. Snyder indicated that there were extensive discussions during the
development of the General Plan relative to this. There is a
possibility that there may be ridgelines that would be more attractive
developed than undeveloped. Some can be enhanced.
Cm. Vonheeder stated that another issue that comes into consideration
is that ridgelines are not clearly defined; and from what locations.
Some can be enhanced by grading.
Cm. Jeffery felt that defining ridgelines is almost as difficult as
defining affordable housing.
Cm. Hegarty added that basically, he saw nothing wrong with a house on
a hill, if it is done correctly.
Ms. Gillarde stated Policy #6: Strive to phase development and road
improvements outside the Downtown Specific Planoarea so that the
operating Level of Service (LOS) for major street intersections shall
not be worse than LOS D.
Cm. Vonheeder indicated she had a problem with the policy beginning
with "Strive" . She felt it should simply being, "Phase
development. . . "
Cm. Snyder advised that Pleasanton has a stipulation in the NPID that
does not allow anything beyond LOS D. If it is worse than this, it
restricts future development.
Cm. Jeffery discussed the BART station location.
Ms. Gillarde advised that Staff will next find common threads and come
back to the City Council and Planning Commission regarding land use.
The final plan will be a synthesis of all the plans.
Cm. Vonheeder indicated she liked the parks concept.
* * * *
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 10: 00 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CM - VOL 9 - 97
Study Session April 18, 1990
REGULAR MEETING - April 23, 1990
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held
on Monday, April 23 , 1990, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic
Center. The meeting was called to order at 7: 34 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.
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, the Council took the following actions:
Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 9, 1990;
Authorized Cm. Jeffery to attend the FAIR Steering Committee Meeting
in Jackson, Mississippi on May 10-13 , 1990 at an approximate cost of
$650;
Authorized Staff to advertise Contract 90-07 City Entrance Signs and
Facilities Identification Signs for bids;
Received the Winter 1990 Recreation Report;
Accepted the NEC Telephone System and Voice Messaging System and
authorized release of the final payment in the amount of $10, 526. 53 ;
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 45 - 90
APPROVING THE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT
AND A MUTUAL RELEASE AGREEMENT WITH DICKMAN-NOURSE, INC. AND
AUTHORIZING STAFF TO MARE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION
Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $363 , 733 . 10.
* * * *
CAMP PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA - CLOSURE & CONVEYANCE
City Manager Ambrose advised that the City had received a letter from
Congressman Pete Stark indicating that he is interested in introducing
some legislation to close Camp Parks and to relocate it to an area in
the hills to the north or east of its present location. The land
would then be conveyed for public purposes only to other agencies. Of
CM - VOL 9 - 98
Regular Meeting April 23, 1990
the 2 , 268 acres indicated in the draft legislation, approximately 750
is located in the City of Dublin, with the remaining acreage located
in Contra Costa County.
Staff identified 7 possible public uses in addition to the uses
identified in the draft legislation. In addition to considering
public uses, Staff felt the legislation should also provide for use of
a portion of land for private purposes. Since nearly 3/4 of the Camp
Parks facility is located within the City of Dublin, the location of
only public uses which require municipal services may place a drain on
the City financially. Staff recommended that a mixture of public and
private uses be considered. Private uses would generate the tax
revenue needed to serve not only private land uses, but also public
land uses where required.
Mayor Moffatt questioned if under the federal use, they supply the
fire and police services themselves.
Mr. Ambrose advised that this was correct. We are not responding as a
primary responder on any calls on the Camp Parks property. The County
property is outside of the Camp Parks ownership.
Cm. Jeffery indicated she thought the Council had taken a stance
against locating a national cemetery and felt this should be restated.
She also had concerns by what they mean by armory.
Cm. Snyder stated it is currently on Dougherty Road and this would
just allow it to continue. It doesn't have any connection to Camp
Parks and it functions as a separate operation.
Cm. Jeffery felt that if we suggest certain uses, perhaps an armory
would not be appropriate to be located so near.
Mayor Moffatt felt that if a cemetery were located closer to the
Contra Costa County line, it would be more appropriate.
Mr. Ambrose advised that the original issue came up when there was a
property exchange contemplated with San Leandro.
Cm. Jeffery expressed a more general concern over what the land should
be used for. The Valley needs so many kinds of things. Also, there
is not land available for affordable housing and this would be a
possible way of putting some in. With our national debt, perhaps the
Federal Government would be willing to let some of this land go to
private uses in order to get some money.
Cm. Vonheeder stated that while it would be nice, we can't
realistically have it as a big park. She felt that it must have some
kind of mixed uses to be viable. If it is all public uses, it will
have a major drain on Dublin.
Cm. Hegarty felt we should make our response very strong. This land
has a great deal of potential and the right things must be put in the
proper places. They could bankrupt us by putting in the wrong kinds
CM - VOL 9 - 99
Regular Meeting April 23, 1990
7 y
of uses. We must make absolutely certain that what comes out of the
legislation is beneficial to Dublin, as we have to protect ourselves.
It is a good move, but it must be monitored very closely.
Cm. Jeffery opened for discussion the possibility of some potential
land exchanges or trades.
Mr. Ambrose felt the closest potential would be in the East Dublin
planning area.
Cm. Snyder felt you would get a better mix of uses if you could work
out some kind of a trade.
Mayor Moffatt questioned if the intent in the draft was to reverse the
process. Would Dublin have first choice of any property expendable?
Mr. Ambrose advised that this was his understanding. The other
condition is that Stark proposes the development of a committee to
determine the amount of land to be conveyed to the communities. He
wasn't sure how the committee would work. It could be very
cumbersome.
Cm. Jeffery felt that with all the potential agencies involved, it
would take a long time to get results. She felt perhaps we should
just suggest how the land in Dublin is to be used.
Cm. Snyder discussed Delaware Senator Roth's bill which does a
reversal of the current Federal Law. It gives rights to local
agencies.
Mr. Ambrose advised that with regard to land conveyed to any other
agency, Dublin should have a voice because we will be impacted.
Mayor Moffatt questioned how agencies could make trades.
Mr. Ambrose discussed the case of the Dublin Sports Grounds. If we
wanted to trade for another facility, we could not do this because we
would have to pay full market value. You would almost have to put
together some future land use plan and then work from that.
Cm. Vonheeder felt that the Federal Government does not convey land
without holding onto some kind of a string.
Cm. Snyder discussed Land Transfer Development rights.
Mr. Ambrose advised that the comments would be forwarded and requested
clarification that a cemetery might be okay somewhere else.
Cm. Snyder felt the only thing the Council was saying is that it is
not appropriate at this location. They are not against a cemetery,
but not in a prime location.
CM - VOL 9 - 100
Regular Meeting April 23, 1990
Bill Meyers with the Presidio commented on the issue of the cemetery
and advised that the current position is that Camp Parks is not a
viable location for a cemetery.
Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff will draft an appropriate letter
stating the Council's comments and concerns.
PUBLIC HEARING - VILLAGE PARKWAY @ POST OFFICE
REPEAL 94' PASSENGER LOADING ZONE & ESTABLISH 20-MINUTE PARKING ZONE
Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing.
Staff advised that April 9, 1990, the City Council conducted a public
hearing regarding the removal of the passenger loading zone on Village
Parkway in front of the Post Office. The Council directed Staff to
prepare a draft Ordinance establishing a 20-minute parking zone at
this location.
No comments were made by members of the public relative to this item.
Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous
vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an Ordinance
repealing a passenger loading zone and establishing a 20-minute
parking zone on Village Parkway.
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDING CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE RELATING TO SOILS REPORTS
Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing.
Public Works Director Thompson advised that Senate Bill 423 , which
became effective January 1, 1990, allows a City to reject soils
reports that are felt to be inadequate or to require corrections or
amplifications to the reports. This power was not part of California
Law prior to the passage of SB 423 .
The proposed new amendment is more detailed than the existing City
regulation and also mimics the new State Law. Staff time involved in
the review of soils reports is paid for by the developer. The City
Attorney has confirmed that the City can also require review by a
consultant hired by the City and can require that the developer pay
that cost under the City's adopted fee schedule Ordinance.
No comments were made by members of the public relative to this item.
Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing.
CM - VOL 9 - 101
Regular Meeting April 23, 1990
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an Ordinance
amending certain provisions of Chapter I of Title 8 of the City of
Dublin Subdivision Ordinance No. 19-83 .
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING-PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
ORDINANCE ENABLING A CURBSIDE RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM
Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing.
Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that State Law requires cities
to develop a recycling plan and to reduce the amount of waste
generated from the City. The law currently contains strict penalties
for cities which do not divert 25% of the solid waste now collected by
January 1, 1995. The law identifies source reduction, recycling, and
composting as methods of achieving the goal. In order to implement a
residential curbside recycling program, it is necessary to amend the
City's Solid Waste Management Ordinance. The amendment will establish
reporting requirements and protect recycling transporters from
unauthorized scavengers. In addition, it will allow for the
collection of a fee by recyclers.
Mr. Rankin advised that under the proposed Ordinance you will still be
able to address those situations where an operator was not a recycler.
A recycler would be required to get a permit and therefore, no matter
what they are hauling, without a permit they would not be authorized
to operate within the City. Also, the Ordinance very clearly states
that a recycler is only authorized to transport source-separated
recyclable materials. Staff had concerns that in the future, the
economics might not be the same if the market changes. Mr. Rankin
advised that it would be 210 days into the agreement before they would
be required to develop a commercial program. At that time, the City
could discuss any Ordinance modifications.
Mr. Dave McDonald advised that Mr. Rankin had correctly explained
their position and that they will abide with Staff's recommendation.
Mr. Frank Ruskey, Dublin resident, advised that he was all in favor of
recycling, but he should not have to pay. Cans and paper are worth
money and if the City went out to bid, the City would be paid, instead
of paying. Newspapers are a big program for the Boy Scouts. The City
should go out to bid to individual companies, as it is a highly
competitive field and cans would bring in $ . 20 per pound. Mr. Ruskey
stated he could suggest more than one name of companies who would do
this. He felt that Staff should do more homework and find out whats
the best situation for Dublin. There are a million things that the
City could use the money for.
City Manager Ambrose advised that the Ordinance under consideration is
an enabling Ordinance, and public comments such as Mr. Ruskey's would
be more appropriate under the next item of business when the Council
CM - VOL 9 - 102
Regular Meeting April 23, 1990
discusses the actual implementation of a recycling program. This
Ordinance only enables the City to develop a recycling program.
Mr. Brian Tyme, Dublin resident, stated he had been here for about a
year and a half. When he used to rent a home, he got to participate
in the free garbage pickups. He now lives in the Cottonwood
Apartments, and stated that it was his understanding that he would not
be included right off the bat in a recycling program. He felt that
since he is included in the population, he should be included from day
one. Recycling is a great idea which should have been done a long
time ago. He felt that perhaps separate bins could be included in
complexes such as his. He felt people who reside in apartment or
condominium complexes should not be treated like second class
citizens. Everyone who lives here contributes in one way or another
to the tax base.
Mr. Ambrose advised again that this comment would be more appropriate
under the next item of business.
Zev Kahn stated he wished to comment on the portion of the amendment
allowing collection of a fee for recyclers. He requested that this be
delayed until after the next item was considered because he felt that
the die would be cast. As a homeowner, he felt that if he has to pay
a fee, commercial users should also pay. It is not fair for
businesses to not take their share of the responsibility.
Mr. Ambrose again stated that all this Ordinance does is allow for
collection of the rate.
Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing.
Cm. Snyder referred to Section 5-415 of the Ordinance related to
ownership of source separated materials. He felt the wording reminded
him of the warning on pillows that say, "remove under penalty of law" .
He felt this should be clarified. As long as the material is at their
home, they own it.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous
vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an Ordinance (with
Cm. Snyder's clarification) amending Ordinance No. 2-86 related to
Solid Waste Management.
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING
IMPLEMENTATION OF RECYCLING PROGRAM MANDATED BY STATE LAW
Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing.
Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that pursuant to City Council
direction, Staff has solicited a comprehensive proposal from the local
garbage company for the provision of recycling services. The report
includes a proposed agreement which would provide for the implemen-
tation of residential curbside recycling beginning in September, 1990.
It is proposed that the recyclables be collected on the same day as
CM - VOL 9 - 103
Regular Meeting April 23, 1990
the customer receives their regular garbage service. The customer
will be required to place the recycling bins at the curb, whereas
regular garbage service does not require cans to be placed at the
curb. Bins will be used to allow customers a convenient way to
separate clear glass, mixed color glass, and PET/Plastic/tin/aluminum.
Customers will either bag or tie newspapers next to the bins.
Phase Two will be for Livermore-Dublin Disposal (LDD) to research a
program designed for multi-family and commercial/industrial users.
Due to the configuration of these units, a different type of
collection bin would need to be utilized and the project would require
working with the property owners or landlords to implement the final
program.
LDD has also agreed to evaluate the provision of a residential waste
oil collection program as part of the recycling services.
Mr. Rankin advised that it is anticipated that compostible materials
comprise a large volume of the trash now generated from the community.
LDD has agreed to work with the City to evaluate the addition of this
type of program in the future.
LDD has recommended proceeding with the implementation of the
recycling program in September even though the actual increase in the
garbage rate would be effective July 1, 1990. The Contractor will use
this additional time to procure the necessary equipment and to develop
public information items.
In December of last year, the Council requested that Staff evaluate
the implementation of garbage rate collection on the property tax
bill. Staff considered this option, however, given that the recycling
provider has access to the garbage billing system, it is not
advantageous to further complicate the matter with a separate billing
through the property tax system.
Mr. Rankin indicated that in discussions with LDD, Staff has been
advised that approximately 8% or 435 single family residents do not
currently have garbage service. These residents would not receive the
recycling service, nor would they be assisting the community in
addressing the State mandated requirement to reduce solid waste. One
method of addressing the issue of nonsubscribers would be to develop a
mandatory garbage service ordinance. Staff noted that in some cases
where property maintenance complaints related to garbage have come in,
many times the individuals do not have regular garbage service.
Mr. Rankin advised that it does not appear that a program can be
operated solely on the scrap value. LDD is assuming the market risks.
The company can modify the agreement on an annual basis, based on the
CPI. LDD initially proposed an agreement which would be in effect
through September, 1995. Due to the significant capital investment,
they were not receptive to a shorter term. Staff suggested that the
term be extended to March 31, 1996 which coincides with the expiration
of the City's current ten year garbage franchise agreement. The
intent is to have consecutive terms for both agreements.
CM - VOL 9 - 104
Regular Meeting April 23, 1990
1 �
Mr. Ambrose advised that City Staff had talked a lot with other
communities. Some have gone out to bid and most are still paying for
picking up recyclables.
Mayor Moffatt asked if the $1.25 was a monthly fee.
Mr. Rankin responded that the $1. 25 is per month, per single-family
residence.
Cm. Jeffery questioned why it was so difficult to determine a program
for multi-family residents.
Mr. Rankin advised that LDD has some idea about how to implement the
program, but no one else has developed this type of a program. They
must check space available, and this would have to be done with a
number of property owners or homeowners associations. The truck to be
used in single-family pick-ups is being proposed to be used 100% of
the time. They must look at what type of vehicle they will be able to
use and if it is possible to share a truck with another operation
within OSC.
Cm. Jeffery asked if Staff had considered the option of having large
bins located somewhere in the City.
Mr. Rankin advised that there are currently bins within the City.
This type of a program would offer convenience and hopefully help the
City to meet the required goals.
Mayor Moffatt asked what happens when people overfill the containers.
Mr. McDonald advised that they have not found this to be a problem.
If someone has extras, they would pick them up and work with the
customer. They would not leave. a mess on the street. With regard to
the Boy Scouts collection bins, they have found from experience that
this has very little impact on these types of programs. People who
support the Boy Scouts tend to continue to support them.
Frank Ruskey questioned what the 25% reduction figure related to.
Mr. Rankin advised that the yardstick was developed by the State
Legislature and they are still working on the requirement. They
anticipate that there would be growth and would allow you to reduce
the waste stream based on that growth. This is just a first step in
meeting the goal.
Richard Heckler, Jade Circle felt that success is dependent on a
painless process and if a fee is required, then so be it. He felt the
City should be realistic, however, in that a certain amount of people
will find this objectionable and will not participate. Placement of
large bins should be done to allow people to take their stuff for
recycling. Also, he pointed out that it is very difficult to get rid
of motor oil.
CM - VOL 9 - 105
Regular Meeting April 23, 1990
Eliot Healy questioned the capacity of the bins and if any assistance
would be offered to the elderly.
Staff advised that they are 12 gallon bins and measure 20" x 15" x 12"
high. The bins are small and stackable.
Mr. McDonald advised that they have provisions for handicapped
assistance.
Dr. Kahn advised that grant dollars were mentioned, but with no
details. He questioned if Dublin had looked into this.
Mr. Rankin advised that there was a program on the Peninsula which
turned out to have a very low cost and had grant money from San Mateo
County. Each community is now required to do this. The grant dollars
were used for pilot programs. During the last 5 years, there have
been a number of pilot programs, so it is pretty well established on
how to do a program.
Dr. Kahn indicated that he would be opposed to having to pay to give
someone else a chance to make money. He wished the Council could find
a way of crediting the resident to offset some of the costs. Hand
held scanners with bar codes on bins could be considered; then those
who don't recycle would be the ones who have to pay the fees. It is
not fair to have to pay to recycle. With regard to oil, all the car
shops and oil changers have their oil picked up, so their must be some
kind of deal that we could make to allow citizens to take theirs there
also. Dr. Kahn pointed out that trash compactors save volume.
Mr. Ambrose stated that the City has been concerned regarding motor
oil for a long time. No one who takes it will allow the City to
publish their telephone number.
Mr. Ruskey advised that his company has to pay $ . 08 per gallon to
have their oil picked up.
Mr. Rankin advised that local providers have a concern regarding
liability. They become the waste generator of record. We hope to
develop a program that won't require a second vehicle. Regarding the
concept of a credit, the entire community does benefit and it is an
expense to the program. The landfills have only a limited number of
years left.
Mr. Ambrose advised that communities which don't have landfill space
are paying infill fees in order to transport their garbage to Alameda
County.
Mr. Tyme asked about the possibility of using separate bins for multi-
family units. They could possibly be separated into 4 categories. He
questioned if Staff had considered this.
Mr. Rankin advised that it had been considered conceptually only.
Initially they considered a smaller 90 gallon bin because space is
typically limited. Trucks are designed for a smaller area.
CM - VOL 9 - 106
Regular Meeting April 23, 1990
Mr. McDonald advised that there are a number of approaches for multi-
family units. You can go with a front loader or you can divide the
container into 3 slots and divide the truck into 3 bins. There is a
lot more to getting the multi-family situation going. Cooperation is
needed. In particular, it is an education process to make sure
tenants separate the material.
Mr. Ruskey felt that with regard to capitalization of the equipment,
it should be spread to other users than just the City of Dublin. It
is not fair that a special vehicle gets charged only to Dublin.
Mr. McDonald advised that it is a $100, 000 vehicle, which will be
dedicated for exclusive use in the City of Dublin. They will be
serving about 1, 000 homes each day.
Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing.
Cm. Snyder advised that Staff had been working on this for a long
time. He was glad that at least some of the community was present to
voice some of their concerns. Without some form of a subsidy, this
type of a program cannot work. Markets have to be developed, and
there just isn't enough space to get rid of all this stuff. We are
only talking about a 5% reduction and we are mandated to increase this
to 25%. We must look at reality in order to get a program started.
Cm. Snyder discussed the Union City and Albany programs. He stated he
understood the concerns about multi-family pick-up, but it is a very
difficult thing to deal with. With regard to the oil collection, the
City is mandated to find the sources of waste oil which finds its way
into the storm drains. We must develop a program to develop catch
basins, which will cost communities substantial dollars. Most waste
oil collectors now pick up the oil and test it for any signs of
contamination. If even a little anti-freeze is found in it, it must
then be handled as hazardous material. $250, 000 has been budgeted by
the Alameda County Waste Management Authority for education programs.
It is very important that all of us get behind this program.
Cm. Jeffery complimented Staff on the timing of this issue being right
after "Earth Day" .
Cm. Vonheeder felt that households that are already recycling will not
get any additional recognition. Their profits will simply be reduced
by $1. 25 per month. Unfortunately, not everyone recycles now.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 46 - 90
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH LIVERMORE DUBLIN DISPOSAL
AND OAKLAND SCAVENGER COMPANY TO IMPLEMENT THE
DUBLIN RECYCLE AMERICA PROGRAM
With regard to the issue of mandatory garbage service, Cm. Snyder felt
that this is appropriate under these conditions.
CM - VOL 9 - 107
Regular Meeting April 23, 1990
Cm. Jeffery advised that speaking from experience, it is not pleasant
to live next door to someone who doesn't have garbage service.
Cm. Vonheeder felt this was something that must be considered.
Mr. Rankin advised that Staff would review this with the City
Attorney's Office.
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE RATES TO
IMPLEMENT RECYCLING & HHW COLLECTION PROGRAMS MANDATED BY STATE LAW
Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing.
Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that in accordance with City
Council direction, Staff has negotiated an agreement with Livermore-
Dublin Disposal for a Household Hazardous Waste collection day. The
intent was to recover the cost through an adjustment to the garbage
rates by a rate adjustment of $0. 20 per month per single-family
customer for household hazardous waste collection and $1. 25 per month
for curbside residential recycling. Rates would take effect July 1,
1990.
No comments were made by members of the public relative to this item.
Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 47 - 90
AMENDING A SCHEDULE OF SERVICE RATES FOR
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT STATE MANDATED
PROGRAMS AND DESIGNATING THE POINT OF COLLECTION FOR
SINGLE FAMILY COLLECTION
* * * *
DUBLIN HIGH SCHOOL STADIUM RENOVATION - AWARD OF BID
Public Works Director Thompson advised that on March 12 , 1990, the
City Council authorized Staff to advertise Contract 90-05, Dublin High
School Stadium Renovation for bids. The City received 2 bids, with
the low bidder being Collishaw Construction with a base bid of
$660, 510 and a total bid, with alternates, of $1, 032 , 010. In
reviewing the bid results with the School District, the School
District Staff felt that the bid cost of the track resurfacing
($275, 000) could not be justified compared with the anticipated amount
of use the track would receive.
The total bid price excluding the track surface and including a 10%
contingency is $832 , 711, with the City's share being $559 ,775 and the
CM - VOL 9 - 108
Regular Meeting April 23, 1990
School District's share being $272 , 936. The City is also responsible
for all design and inspection costs, which are estimated at $81, 520.
Mr. Thompson advised that Staff will delay the baseball fields until
later in the year.
Cm. Vonheeder questioned if at some future point they could go back
and put in the all weather track.
Mr. Thompson advised that they could do this. We will leave the base
work and they could rebuild it, but it would still be pretty
expensive.
Cm. Jeffery advised that the track is used by local runners.
School Board Trustee Barr advised that they will be looking at the
priorities at their next meeting.
City Manager Ambrose advised that the City is working against a tight
timeline; we want to get it done before football season.
On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 48 - 90
AWARDING CONTRACT 90-05 TO COLLISHAW CONSTRUCTION, INC.
DUBLIN HIGH SCHOOL STADIUM RENOVATION ($832,711)
authorized the Mayor to execute the Agreement; and authorized transfer
of funds in the amount of $250, 421 to this project from unallocated
reserves, of which $75, 126 will be offset by a contribution from the
Dublin Unified School District.
* * * *
COMMUNITY GIFT CATALOGUE 1990-91
Administrative Assistant Texeira advised that Staff had developed a
Community Gift Catalogue with the purpose being to provide citizens,
community service clubs and/or local businesses an opportunity to make
a special contribution to the community. Donations are tax deductible
and would be formally received by the City Council and appropriately
recognized.
City Manager Ambrose advised that the Dublin Fine Arts Foundation is
putting together a program to recognize doners who give $100 with some
type of a plaque displayed at the Civic Center.
Cm. Snyder advised that it will be an engraved ceramic tile.
Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that a concept will be presented
at the next City Council meeting with a location outline.
CM - VOL 9 - 109
Regular Meeting April 23, 1990
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 49 - 90
PRE-ACCEPTING GIFTS RECEIVED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 1990-91
CITY OF DUBLIN COMMUNITY GIFT CATALOGUE
and agreed to give recognition to donors: $199 and under - a thank
you letter from the Mayor and certificate acknowledging the gift;
$200-$999 - a thank you letter from the Mayor and commemorative
plaque; $1, 000-$4 ,999 - a thank you letter from the Mayor and large
plaque to be presented at a City Council meeting; and $5, 000 and up -
a large plaque presented at a City Council meeting and a permanent
plaque at the site of the donation.
* * * *
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION FOR 2-LANE ACCESS ROAD
CONNECTING TO THE HACIENDA INTERCHANGE AND PARALLEL TO I-580
Senior Planner Carrington advised that in order to facilitate the
opening of the Hacienda Road interchange and to expedite additional
access from the downtown areas of Dublin to Tassajara Road, a 2-lane
access road has been proposed from the Southern Pacific Railroad
Right-of-Way east to Tassajara Road. The Hacienda Interchange is
partially constructed at this time and Federal Highway and CalTrans
regulations require that a road parallel to I-580 north of the
Hacienda Interchange running from Tassajara Road to Dougherty Road
must be construction and open to traffic prior to the opening of the
interchange.
The 2-lane road will offer several benefits to Dublin's circulation
and traffic flow. No precise schedule has been established for
construction of the road although through a cooperative effort between
Alameda County and the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, it may be
possible for the road to be constructed within the next 2 years.
Preliminary costs for design, improvement and environmental mitigation
of the road will be approximately $3 million, including the 2-lane
roadway link between this access road and the Hacienda Interchange.
Financing agreements between the various parties will require separate
action by the City Council.
Public Works Director Thompson showed slides of the alignment, a 2-
lane 40' paved street with most of it being in a 55' right-of-way.
Cm. Snyder questioned if there was a reason for not doing a plan lane
for the full width.
Mr. Thompson advised that we would get into a lot more environmental
issues with a 6-lane road. We want the land use to eventually guide
where the streets will go.
CM - VOL 9 - 110
Regular Meeting April 23, 1990
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 50 - 90
STATING INTENTION TO ESTABLISH A RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR A
2-LANE ACCESS ROAD CONNECTING TO THE HACIENDA INTERCHANGE AND FROM
DOUGHERTY ROAD TO TASSAJARA ROAD AND SETTING A
PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 14, 1990
. OTHER BUSINESS
Alameda County Transportation Plan Commission
City Manager Ambrose reminded the Council of the Transportation Plan
Commission meeting on April 26, 1990 at 4 : 00 p.m. , in the County
Public Works office.
* * * *
Alameda County Fair Parade
Cm. Vonheeder advised that the Exchange Club is organizing the Fair
parade on June 23rd. She asked that the City Council consider if
there is anything special they want to do.
* * * *
Post Office
Cm. Vonheeder advised that she had been contacted by Paul Cooper,
former Mayor of Pleasant Hill related to a similar situation that
exists in his community regarding the Post Office. Their problem
relates to Concord/Pleasant Hill. They had problems similar to ours
with Pleasanton with the census. He suggested the possibility of
jointly pursuing this with the legislators.
Mayor Moffatt advised that he had contacted Carol Miller, Field
Director of Operations. He understood that the Post Office does have
a method of developing criteria for a Post Office within a city. It
was felt that there was no problem getting Dublin recognized, but we
need to contact the right people.
Cm. Jeffery suggested that we outline the steps we have taken and
forward them to Pleasant Hill.
Mayor Moffatt felt we should wait until we have results to share with
Pleasant Hill.
* * * *
CM - VOL 9 - 111
Regular Meeting April 23, 1990
Civic Plaza No Parking zones
Cm. Vonheeder questioned why "no stopping" signs were put up on the
Civic Center driveway.
Public Works Director Thompson advised that Staff is currently
reviewing this to see if they are needed on the east side. We would
retain them on the Civic Center side due to safety concerns.
* * * *
Alameda County Housing Authority
Cm. Hegarty stated that since his former position on the Alameda
County Housing Authority had not been filled, he would be willing to
resume serving on this Authority due to the change in his job
situation. He would resume service in June.
* * * *
CLOSED SESSION
At 10: 10 p.m. , the Council recessed to a closed executive session in
accordance with Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) to discuss pending
litigation, City of Dublin vs. Alameda County (Open Space Element &
Livermore-Amador Valley Planning Unit) .
* * * *
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 - VOL 9 - 112
Regular Meeting April 23, 1990