Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.01 Approve 10-10-1991 Minutes REGULAR MEETING - October 10, 1991 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Thursday, October 10, 1991, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7: 33 p.m. , by Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Moffatt and Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery. ABSENT: Councilmember Howard and Mayor Snyder. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (610-20) Second year Webelos Cy Neal and Sean Trundle with Pack 930 led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The Webelos stated they like their Pack because they get to go camping and hiking and do a lot of group activities and have Pack meetings every month which are a lot of fun. They also have lots of games. PROCLAMATION - RED RIBBON WEER (610-50) Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery read and presented a proclamation declaring the week of October 19-26, 1991 as National Red Ribbon Week with activities being sponsored locally by the Dublin Substance Abuse Council. October 25th has been selected as "Wear Red Day" signifying a united stand against illegal use of alcohol and drugs. Karen Seals, with DSAC accepted the proclamation and passed out t-shirts and badges to the Council. DOOLAN CANYON (620-60) Doolan Canyon resident Carolyn Morgan asked if the item on the agenda related to Doolan Canyon was a public hearing. Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery advised that it was not a public hearing, but they would be allowed to speak. Discussion will be limited, however, to the subject at hand. The Council will not get into any lengthy debate with the residents present. A*n*n*n*A*n*n*n*n*A*n*n*n*w*^*n*A*n*n*n*n*A*n*n*A*n*n*A*A*n*n*n*A*A*n* CM - VOL 10 - 368 Regular Meeting October 10, 1991 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: ITEM NO. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Howard and Mayor Snyder absent) , the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session on September 11, 1991 and Regular Meeting of September 23 , 1991 (Cm. Burton abstained on this item only, as he was not present at the September 23rd meeting) ; Accepted two cash contribution gifts donated to the City designated for the Dublin Senior Center and directed Staff to prepare formal acknowledgment to the Women's Club of Dublin (150-70) ; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 102 - 91 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT AND SUPPLEMENT FOR STATE-LOCAL PARTNERSHIP FUNDS (SB300) 600-50 Accepted the City Treasurer's Investment Report for Period September 30, 1991 (320-30) ; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $625,401.76 (300-40) ; Received the Finance Report for Period Ending September 30, 1991 (330- 50) ; Item to be Added to Agenda City Manager Ambrose advised that an item related to the right of entry across the U. S. Army property (820-90) was received after the agenda was published on October 7, 1991. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Howard and Mayor Snyder absent) , the Council agreed to add the item to the end of the agenda. Cm. Burton requested, and the Council concurred that the item related to a revised Consultant Services Agreement with Brenda Gillarde increasing her hourly rate from $45 to $52 retroactive to August 1, 1991 (600-30) be held over until the next meeting when a full Council would be present to discuss the issue; City Manager Ambrose advised that Ms. Texeira would make a report related to the bids received for printing of the 1992 community calendar (150-30) ; Ms. Texeira advised that bids were opened on Wednesday, October 9th and a total of 6 bids were received. The low bidder appeared to be IPI, however, Staff and the City Attorney felt their bid should not be accepted, as they did not respond to the cover Alternate 03 . The second lowest bidder, Advanced Printing, responded to the complete bid specifications. ..*w*A*n*w*w*A*A*n*n*w*n*, *n*n*w*n*n*A*A*n*A*n*n*, *A*n*n*n*n*A*A*A*n*A* CM - VOL 10 - 369 Regular Meeting October 10, 1991 On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by' Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote (Mayor Snyder and Cm. Howard absent) , the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 103 - 91 REJECTING LOW BID AS NON-RESPONSIVE AND AWARDING BID FOR PRINTING OF THE 1992 COMMUNITY CALENDAR TO ADVANCED PRINTING (RANGE OF $10,311.90 - $11,899.92 DEPENDING UPON OPTION SELECTED) Cm. Burton asked if Advanced Printing would be able to meet the schedule. Ms. Texeira advised that the plan is to get the calendars out by the end of November, and the project is pretty much on schedule at this point. TRI-VALLEY AFFORDABLE HOUSING (430-80) Senior Planner Carrington advised that on May 30, 1991, ";',meeting was held at the request of Pleasanton Mayor Mercer to address a joint approach to the provision of low-income housing. Mayor Mercer proposed a joint approach where the participating cities which have similar ordinances, belong to a Joint Powers Authority and jointly provide affordable housing for the entire Tri-Valley area. This group was named the Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Committee. A draft letter was presented for consideration to contact the State Department of Housing and Community Development to request a change in State Legislation to allow cities to provide affordable housing jointly and still get credit toward their "fair share" affordable housing allocation. Mr. Carrington pointed out that to date, the City of Dublin and several other Valley cities have not formally sanctioned the committee or its purpose. Staff had concerns related to the fact that the draft letter mentions some cities that are close to buildout and have only small in-fill parcels remaining for development, while other cities have vast tracts of potentially developable land in their fringes. Staff was concerned that Dublin could be required to provide the sites for much of the proposed housing in eastern Dublin while other cities would not, resulting in both an. unfair burden to Dublin and a credit for other cities toward their fair-share quotas. Another Staff concern was that the Tri-Valley Council provides a forum to address regional issues. As an outgrowth, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council was designed to specifically address multi- jurisdictional transportation issues in the Tri-Valley area. Cm. Moffatt questioned the make up of the housing group. w*n*A*A*A*n*A*A*A*A*A*A*n*A*n*A*n*A*A*A*n*n*n*n*n*n*A*n*A*n*A*A*A*A*n* CM - VOL 10 - 370 Regular Meeting October 10, 1991 Mr. Carrington advised that City Planners attend, as do City Engineers on occasion, and typically 1 or 2 elected officials attend the meetings. Cm. Moffatt stated he endorsed going through the Tri-Valley Councils, and expressed concern that another ad hoc committee might be committing the City to things. Cm. Burton stated he had met with the group this morning and there was a different letter proposed to be sent than what was included in the packet. It was apparently Livermore's version of what the letter should state. Authority in crossing county lines was of concern. There was also the concern that Dublin may end up carrying the load for other cities. Mr. Carrington stated this is to enable a joint approach. If San Ramon, for instance, doesn't meet their goals, they would not be able to receive subventions under 'Measure,.C. Cm. Burton advised that Dublin representatives spoke out strongly against this approach. There were about 15 people at the meeting. Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery indicated that the Tri-Valley Council was holding a meeting this evening and they had been asked to set up a special meeting to discuss this. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Howard and Mayor Snyder absent) , the Council determined that this issue should be brought before the Tri-Valley Joint City Councils to develop a committee. Staff was directed to advise the Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Committee. PUBLIC HEARING DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE (430-20) Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Carrington advised that on September 23 , 1991, the City Council re-introduced the Density Bonus Ordinance with revisions related to 1) concessions and incentives, waivers and modifications; and 2) recovery of the value of improvements. Cm. Burton expressed concern that we will be establishing the price of the rentals based on 50% of the Alameda County median income. Valley prices are considerably different. Mr. Carrington indicated that there are 3 means of determining the price of the units; market value being one and rise in the CIP being another. Cm. Burton questioned if there would be any additional bonus if 100% of rentals were provided for senior housing. w*w*w*w*w*w*w*w*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*w*w*A*A*A*A*A*�*w*A*A*A*^*A*A*A*A*A* CM - VOL 10 - 371 Regular Meeting October 10, 1991 Mr. Carrington advised that there would not. Cm. Burton stated he wished the Council to hear of an opportunity to provide senior housing. Geri Verdusco stated she and her husband Tony own a piece of property on Starward Drive containing a 5, 000 square foot professional building plus vacant land. Tony has had an interest for many years in developing a senior complex. Today, it seems much more feasible. This ordinance would allow them to put more units on that site. It is basically in a very preliminary stage, but they will be investigating it further. This is a very centrally located site in Dublin. They are prepared to go forward and develop this entire site for senior housing. Cm. Moffatt asked if it would be rentals. Ms. Verdusco responded that they would be rentals because they feel this is the need of older people who are healthy and want to be on their own. It is extremely difficult in today's economy for seniors to be independent. Hopefully, this will also be a plus for the City. Cm. Burton pointed out that they couldn't have made it without the bonus, so this ordinance makes it possible. He felt this ordinance will bring people forward who want to develop these units. Ron Nahas stated he is in favor of incentive programs. He was confident that this will be attractive enough to some property owners. He also voiced caution, however, for the Council to not underzone, thereby making the bonus become compulsory. This program should not affect the land planning side of things. The current ordinance provides that all units must be across the board in all 4 plans. He questioned if this was really important to the program and felt it may not be. One of the principle benefits is the ability to get relief in areas other than density, open space, parking, etc. The problem is, there is a huge penalty to get these benefits. Going from 10 to 30 years is a big jump and might be a disincentive. He felt that amenities should be left open. The City should sit down with people who run rental units to work out how units are actually rented. Mr. Nahas stated he understood concerns regarding resale restrictions to make sure that people don't profiteer, but this seems so strict that people would be hesitant to make improvements to their house. There should be some mechanism or a way of saying how this will be allowed. Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery stated with regard to Mr. Nahas' comments about under zoning, the City Council is sincere about providing affordable housing and she did not feel that this would occur. Mr. Carrington stated the Council had previously discussed how an individual could best recover improvements made to their house. Most of the units will be condominiums, so you can't make any changes. The Council discussed this at length in previous meetings and a compromise A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A* CM - VOL 10 - 372 Regular Meeting October 10, 1991 was reached that says you can recover up to the value of where the unit was assigned. Mr. Nahas felt it was important to ask why .people buy a house. The major incentive is appreciation, so it's important not to take away all the incentives. Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery felt that a lot of people need to get into a home to build some equity so that they can buy a more expensive home. The intent is to turn these over. Cm. Moffatt felt that because this is a new concept, there will probably be modifications necessary over the next 10 years. No one does things perfect the first time. Mr. Nahas felt it would take all the incentives that the City could possibly muster in terms of fees, adjustments in parking, densities, and flexibility of the units themselves to overcome the impact of this. If it is 10 years, the likelihood is considerably more attractive. Mark Steckbart with Industry Home Builders Association stated moderate housing income is not addressed. The market is marching away from affordable. Most people who rent or buy try to get the most possible for their money. Funding sources must be there. Severance tax would do this. This would give the City a rollover fund. Home builders should not have to maintain their own eligibility list. The Dublin Housing Authority should be doing this with the oversight of the City Manager. The 10 to 30 year lock-in could be feathered. There could be a 15-20 year lock-in based on incentives. He felt there will come a time when Dublin will be housing employees of Hacienda. It's more important for the City to handle this to assure that needs are met. Mr. Steckbart felt the $1, 000 figure on Page 7 (b) was unreasonable. We should encourage people to be able to take as much equity out of these units as possible. If you can't get any equity out of the units, people will be trapped in them forever. They will never be able to step up in the housing market. He felt the ordinance could be worked out with staff and felt there should be some wiggle room. Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Burton indicated that it was mentioned that the City could contract with the Dublin Housing Authority to manage some of these properties. He felt that the first and second sentences in Paragraph (d) on Page 6 should be changed from saying "project owner" to "City" . Mr. Ambrose advised the Council that 3 votes would be required to ­ adopt the Ordinance and also that he felt substantial changes were being discussed. Cm. Burton questioned if, on Page 8, Paragraph (e) , the offspring would have to qualify. A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A* CM - VOL 10 - 373 Regular Meeting October 10, 1991 Ms. Silver stated she did not feel this was required as part of State Law. It still remains subject to the affordable agreement. It could be given to the children. Since this is not a requirement of the State Law, it could be changed. Cm. Burton felt the full Council should again review the Ordinance. Cm. Moffatt felt that some of the amenities listed on Page 2 , Section (b) would actually be a detriment. Mr. Carrington advised that the City Council directed Staff at a previous meeting to delete the limitation of amenities, so this section would be deleted. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Howard and Mayor Snyder absent) , the Council directed that the changes be made to the Ordinance and that it be considered again when there is a full Council present. PUBLIC HEARING DUBLIN CINEMA FREESTANDING SIGN VARIANCE APPEAL (400-30) Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery opened the public hearing. Planning Director Tong advised that this appeal was noticed for public hearing at this Council meeting; however, the property owner has submitted a written request to reschedule it to the November 12 , 1991 City Council meeting. No comments were made by members of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery closed the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery announced that this item was continued to the November 12 , 1991 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT SOURCE REDUCTION RECYCLING ELEMENT (SRRE) (810-60) Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery opened the public hearing. Assistant City Manager Rankin presented the Staff Report and advised that in accordance with State Law, the City must conduct a public hearing to obtain input on the Preliminary Draft SRRE. Copies of the document were mailed to. adjacent cities, the Alameda County Integrated Waste Management Plan Local Task Force (LTF) and the State Integrated Waste Management Board. Mr. Rankin advised that Staff prepared a response to concerns raised by the LTF. These concerns fell generally .into 3 categories: 1) the n*n*n*A*A*A*w*A*A*A*n*n*A*A*A*A*^*^*�*�*�*n*n*A*n*n*A*n*n*n*n*A*A*n*n* CM - VOL 10 - 374 Regular Meeting October 10, 1991 LTF overlooked the location where Dublin's Plan addressed the issue or they were merely seeking clarification; 2) City Staff does not concur with the recommendation of the LTF; and 3) Staff recommends that the City Council include the recommendation. The majority of the comments fell into the first category. Mr. Rankin advised that the LTF incorrectly commended the City for including a requirement which was not a part of the City's SRRE. The LTF has suggested that there be a requirement for new development to identify methods of obtaining the diversion required by AB 939. Dublin City Staff recommended that the Consultant incorporate language in the appropriate section which identifies that the City will consider adoption of an appropriate policy to obtain this information on new developments. Additional evaluation will be necessary to identify the appropriate time in the development process to obtain this information. Mr. Rankin discussed the 8 areas addressed by the LTF in which Staff did not concur. These include: Inclusion of Inerts; Support of Landfill Development as Integrated Waste Management Facility; Require Space for Recyclables in Building Code; Develop and Implement a Junk Mail Reduction Program; Specific Use of Recycled Products by City; Linkage of Fee Structure with Illegal Dumping; Public Information Program Encouraging Gardeners to Leave Yard Waste at Work Site; and Special Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection. Mr. Rankin pointed out that the August 26, 1991 Staff Report identified the programs which are proposed to be undertaken to fulfill the requirements of the legislation. The SRRE identifies short term and long term efforts required to meet the requirements of the law. The State Law will require the City to monitor and evaluate each program which is selected. Therefore, it is important that the City obtain a significant quantity of diversion in order to justify the ongoing monitoring costs associated with selected programs. With regard to landfill, the Consultant found that adequate landfill capacity is available provided the required diversion rates are achieved. Mr. Rankin advised that Chapter 9 of the SRRE identifies the funding required for the implementation of all identified programs. Programs such as the expansion of curbside recycling will be funded through user fees, which is the method currently used. With some of the regional programs administered by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority, it may be possible to obtain Authority funding. Mr. Rankin pointed out that it is important to note that the Authority funds its operations through a tipping fee at the landfill. Adjustments to the tipping fee have the same impact as a user fee, since it is eventually passed on to the consumer. Updated cost figures will be presented to the Council as new programs are presented for approval. Mr. Rankin summarized that pursuant to pending legislation, the City is attempting to adopt a final SRRE prior to January 1, 1992 . Staff will be working with the Consultant to prepare a Final Draft SRRE. CM - VOL 10 - 375 iff tiff .f li if Regular Meeting October 10, 1991 The City Council will need to conduct a public hearing on the Final Draft and will also be required to adopt the appropriate CEQA findings. State Law requires a 45 day review period for the document to be reviewed by the LTF. Once a Final Plan is adopted by the City, it must be provided to the County. Each City Plan will then become a component of the Alameda County Integrated Waste Management Plan. The County must submit the plan to the State Board by January 1, 1994 . Mr. Rankin advised that Phil Wheeler with Brown & Caldwell was present in the audience to answer any questions the Council may have. Cm. Moffatt asked if his understanding was correct that Alameda County Waste Management will send to the State a plan that will either be approved or disapproved. He questioned if comments at this time were even germane to the new plan. Mr. Rankin explained that Dublin's plan has gone to the State and we have received 4 general comments on the draft. It will eventually go to the State as part of the overall County Plan in 1994 . The County Plan will become each city's SRRE. Cm. Moffatt felt that when you start to reduce junk mail volume, you might violate some First Amendment rights. Mr. Wheeler commented on the differences in the County's Plan before this law. When AB 939 was adopted, the old law was thrown out. The County Plan must consist of 17 city plans. What the Council was reviewing was actually about 90% of what will be in the County's Plan. The other issue covered will be landfill capacities. Mr. Rankin advised that there is a separate plan dealing with industrial hazardous waste. This one deals only with household hazardous waste. Cm. Burton questioned if we made a mistake in separating out the cement and asphalt, as we seem to be the only ones to make an issue of this. Mr. Ambrose stated this is an issue across the board; not just us. Mr. Rankin stated it is a statewide issue. There were efforts to tie this to a bill, as Sacramento has not been able to come up with the rules. The law now allows us to include this amount. Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Moffatt stated he understands that we are required to attempt to resolve some of the deficiencies. Alameda County is going to develop a plan which will cover these items and it seemed to him that we are duplicating efforts. Mr. Ambrose advised that this becomes part of the Alameda County Plan. n*n*n*A*A*A*n*A*A*n*w*n*w*n*n*n*A*w*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*^*A* CM - VOL 10 - 376 Regular Meeting October 10, 1991 Mr. Rankin stated that each community can list things they feel are appropriate. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Howard and Mayor Snyder absent) , the Council directed Staff to finalize a response to the comments raised by the Local Task Force. RECYCLED WATER USE FOR DUBLIN SPORTS GROUNDS (1000-80) Public Works Director Thompson advised that due to the continuing- , drought, the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) has begun investigating the feasibility of using recycled water. They undertook a feasibility study to evaluate the potential to supply recycled water to the Sports Grounds for irrigation. The findings were that the costs to undertake such a project and amortize it over 10 years were more than twice the cost of the current potable water rate. DSRSD feels, however, that this would be the most economical project for the use of recycled water and that new sources of water must be found to supply the Valley. The DSRSD Board submitted a proposal to the City of Dublin which would split the cost of the project in half between DSRSD and the City. The City's costs would be partially offset by the normal water charges and the savings in park fertilization as the recycled water provides nutrients in excess of those presently manually spread in the park. Mr. Thompson explained that DSRSD's proposal includes: 1) providing the DSG with recycled irrigation water of a quality to meet Public Contact Standards and a quantity to equal Dublin's current use; 2) the cost to Dublin to be $40, 072 per year, to escalate at one-half the rate of the potable water increases, and Dublin would be charged for water quantities in excess of the current use at 90% of the normal potable water charges; 3) Dublin would be committed to a 10-year time frame; and 4) DSRSD would be responsible for the permitting, construction and maintenance of the system. Mr. Thompson advised that after an analysis by Staff, it was felt that the annual savings related to fertilizer would be $2 , 333 instead of $7, 000. Staff also estimates that the frequency of turf mowing would need to be increased by 50%, or an additional $17, 000 per year. The DSRSD Board has discussed the possibility of a levy of $1 per equivalent single family meter for all customers in the District to help pay for DSRSD's one-half share of this project. If this goes into effect, the City would be assessed $2, 754 per year, based on the 47 meters owned citywide. Mr. Thompson explained that the benefit to the City of entering into this project is that, should mandatory rationing go into effect, the City would be allowed a potable water allotment transfer from the DSG 4" meter to the City's other parks and medians to help keep the landscaping and turf alive. The project also has the benefit of reducing the dependency of the Valley on State-supplied water. The A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A* CM - VOL 10 - 377 Regular Meeting October 10, 1991 project would also serve as a visible demonstration to the community of the use of recycled water. Mr. Thompson advised that Staff had developed a counter proposal and discussed the 8 elements of this proposal. Once both parties agree to the elements of a proposal, formal documents will need to be drafted for approval by the DSRSD Board and the City Council. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the fertilization could be injected at the beginning of the pipeline. Mr. Thompson advised that Staff would need to check on this from an environmental standpoint. It would get in all the shrubs and could possibly kill them. We currently use it on the lawn to kill broadleaf. Cm. Burton questioned if there was any limit to the amount of water. Bob Beebe, DSRSD General Manager advised that the proposal was for facilities that would meet the need at the Dublin Sports Grounds. A facility will be set up for double chlorination. The original offer was made in May. They were in agreement that they should look for some other users. They will need to have permission from Zone 7 related to the scale of this project. Mr. Ambrose stated he had spoken with other City Managers and they were amazed at the high cost of this project. If we find some other users, we can achieve some economy of scale. Cm. Burton asked if there was any chance the City could use it at Shannon Center instead of a digging a well. Mr. Thompson advised that it would be very expensive to extend a pipe that long. Consideration is being given to extending it to the Civic Center if it works. Cm. Moffatt stated he was in favor of the idea, but concerned about the costs. Cm. Burton felt it was important to look at this from the standpoint of what happens if we don't have water. This is a good project to start the ball rolling. Margaret Tracy advised that a $250, 000, 000 study regarding the protection of ground water is due out in February of next year. It takes a reverse osmosis process to remove viruses. Mr. Beebe advised that the project would meet Department of Health standards. Viruses are deactivated through a rechlorination process. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Howard and Mayor Snyder absent) , the Council directed Staff to present the counter offer to DSRSD and to work with DSRSD to further refine the costs. ^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^* CM - VOL 10 - 378 Regular Meeting October 10, 1991 Cm. Moffatt asked if the Council was approving the project in concept. Mr. Ambrose advised that a formal agreement would be developed and brought back to the Council after meeting with the District. NIELSEN SCHOOL PLAY AREA RENOVATION (600-30) Recreation Director Lowart advised that funds were included in the Fiscal Year 1991-92 Budget for the renovation of the Nielsen School Playground. This project will be partially funded by Dublin Unified School District and the Nielsen School Parent Faculty Club who have agreed to contribute $21, 000 toward the project. Singer & Hodges, Inc. , has been contracted by the City to prepare the design and construction documents for the project. The preliminary cost estimate for construction of the play area as currently designed is $44 , 160, which is within the amount budgeted for construction. The preliminary design was reviewed and approved by the Park & Recreation Commission on September 24, 1991. Dave Evans made a presentation of the preliminary design for the play area which includes a modular play system with metal components finished with a powder-coat paint. The equipment will be installed on a "Fibar" base contained by a concrete curb. Cm. Burton questioned why they recommended using concrete instead of wood. Mr. Evans advised that concrete will be around a lot longer. It is a question of stability and longevity. There is always a risk in play areas; however, the art of playground design has focused on safety. Setbacks are intended so that you reduce the risk of a child jumping and hitting their head. Cm. Moffatt asked if there was any play equipment that kids in wheel chairs could use or if it was just designed for them to be with the group. Mr. Evans advised that a metal grate gives the child more access to the structure. It is geared toward elementary age children. Cm. Burton stated he would like to see the project stay within the amount budgeted. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Howard and Mayor Snyder absent) , the Council approved the design and directed the Consultant to proceed with preparation of construction documents which include a ramp. A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A* CM - VOL 10 - 379 Regular Meeting October 10, 1991 CRONIN PLAY AREA RENOVATION (600-30) Recreation Director Lowart advised that funds were included in the Fiscal Year 1991-92 Budget for the renovation of the play area at the former Cronin Park. The City has contracted with Singer & Hodges, Inc. , to prepare the design and construction documents for the project. The preliminary design was reviewed and approved by the Park & Recreation Commission on September 24, 1991. Dave Evans made a presentation of the preliminary design for the play area which includes a modular play system with metal components finished with a power-coat paint. The equipment will be installed within the confines of the existing play area and the base material will be sand. The preliminary cost estimate of $45,737 is approximately $737 over the budgeted funds available for this project. It is possible that the estimate can be refined and modified during preparation of the construction documents in order to fall within the funds available. Cm. Moffatt stated because this area is out by itself, he was concerned with people who might break bottles and put them under the sand. Halloween pranksters who are sickies sometimes do things like this. He questioned if there is any way this type of thing could be eliminated. Mr. Evans stated he felt this might be more of a police problem. As the area is improved and the neighborhood starts to use it, it might become a self-policing situation. This is not an easy problem to solve, but he felt it was more of a police situation than a design issue. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Howard and Mayor Snyder absent) , the Council approved the design and directed the Consultant to proceed with preparation of construction documents. PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF DOOLAN CANYON AREA BY CITY OF LIVERMORE (620-60) Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery announced that this item would be moved forward on the agenda. Senior Planner Carrington advised that in response to a request from approximately 18 residents in the Doolan Canyon area, the City of Livermore has initiated a General Plan Amendment, Prezoning and Annexation Program to annex a part of the lower Doolan Canyon area into the City of Livermore. The Livermore public hearing notice indicates that they will be considering a rural residential land use designation with densities ranging from 1 dwelling on 5 acres to 1 dwelling on 10 acres, depending on the slope. In areas exceeding 30% slope, the density would remain 1 dwelling unit per 100 acres. A*n*A*n*A*n*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*w*A*A* CM - VOL 10 - 380 Regular Meeting October 10, 1991 Livermore Staff is preparing an initial study to determine what type of environmental review and environmental document is needed. On November 8, 1990, LAFCO found that the upper and lower portions of Doolan Canyon should be treated as a single planning unit and detached the upper portion from Dublin's Sphere of Influence and left the upper portion, as well as the lower portion of Doolan Canyon unallocated. Mr. Carrington advised that some of the major property owners in the proposed Livermore Annexation Area have indicated that they are adamantly opposed to the annexation of their properties by Livermore with the land use designations that Livermore is presently considering. These property owners have continued to support the inclusion of their properties in the City of Dublin's Sphere of Influence and ultimate City boundaries. The City of Livermore has commenced this annexation process in advance of its completion of its North Livermore General Plan Study. Cm. Burton asked if this was what Dublin had originally. Mr. Ambrose advised that the City had upper Doolan Canyon. LAFCO did not adopt the City's request in 1983 when we requested our sphere to go all the way to Collier Canyon. Cm. Moffatt asked if we would be asking LAFCO to reconsider our 1983 . proposal. Mr. Ambrose responded more or less. The area we would identify is that area included in the General Plan Study. Carolyn Morgan stated she hoped to persuade the City Council not to take Staff's recommendations. The Staff Report states that the major property owners of Doolan Canyon are opposed to annexation by Livermore. She questioned the definition of major property owners: Does this refer to land speculators? She questioned if a property owner who owns more land or has a bigger bank account have the right to dictate to those who have less how they will live? The majority of property owners do not live on the property, nor do they live in Dublin. They need water and they need it bad. Livermore is willing to make water available to them and as residents of Livermore, they can pay for it over a period of time. When they moved to the Canyon, it was agricultural land and not slated for development. Things have changed. They recognized that Doolan Canyon will develop. Dublin can't give them services and some of the Council doesn't even want them, so she questioned why Dublin is fighting so hard to hurt them. They felt that the Dublin City Council was a caring group and would not ignore their pleas just so developers can put more money in their pockets. Cm. Moffatt corrected the assumption that people who own land are not all necessarily greedy landowners. What people want to do with their land is their prerogative. Her generalization that all large land owners are greedy is not true. It will take the City of Livermore a n*n*A*A*A*A*A*w*A*A*^*^*A*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^* CM - VOL 10 - 381 Regular Meeting October 10, 1991 year or more to go through the annexation process. He felt the residents should go to the Livermore Water Department or Zone 7 with their request. He felt this could happen very quickly, probably within months. Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery stated she wished to clarify that the discussion was not to be one of Livermore versus Dublin. Cm. Moffatt stated Carolyn made some comments on which he wished to respond. Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery stated perhaps they could discuss this at another time and further that the Council Chambers was not an appropriate place for debate on this other issue. She requested that only the subject at hand be discussed. Margaret Tracy addressed the Council and stated she loved to talk about water. She distributed documents to the Council and stated she felt it was necessary to discuss a definition of sustainable supply. It is very difficult to ascertain the future. There has been several years of a deficit in ground water. All agencies in the Valley considering growth should consider the situation very carefully. Cm. Moffatt asked if Zone 7 would give these people water within the next month. Ms. Tracy advised that Zone 7 is scrimping to meet its current demands. They have asked for conservation Valleywide of 25% through October and they are not yet there. Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery stated she felt the discussion was getting side-tracked. Doug Abbott, a Rhoda Avenue resident stated he had always been taught that the very essence of American democracy was one person one vote, with the emphasis on people. It's not one acre one vote and it's not one dollar one vote. If the Council has any concern about Doolan Canyon, they should be concerned about the people living there. As a resident of Dublin, he would rather see the City Council concentrate on managing the City for the current residents and not waste time and his tax dollars going to bat for out of town speculators and the front men for Asian investors. This is not what the Council was elected for. Bobbie Foscalina asked Staff if Dublin's General Plan Study had been completed for east Dublin which would allow Dublin to go back to LAFCO to ask for a sphere change. Cm. Moffatt asked if Livermore had completed their plan. Mr. Ambrose responded that it had not and neither has Livermore's. Livermore has raised the issue so Dublin feels it should be brought back to LAFCO. ^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*k *A*A*A*A*^*^fit^*^fit^*^*^tk^*^*^*^*^ ^* CM - VOL 10 - 382 Regular Meeting October 10, 1991 Ms. Foscalina stated that servicing an area is one of LAFCO's criteria for including it in a city's sphere of influence. Dublin has agreed that it will be years before they can provide services to Doolan Canyon. They urgently need water. Her well produces approximately. 250 gallons of water per day. The recovery time of her well is 5 to 6 hours. Growth in the Valley and the drought has necessitated Zone 7 to pump more ground water. Dublin will not be able to service them for years and she didn't consider the City Council to be heartless. Dublin should not pursue Doolan Canyon in its sphere of influence. She couldn't believe that Dublin would totally embarrass themselves by ignoring their need for water. Donna Ogelvie stated she confirmed and agreed with her 2 neighbors and felt their appeal to LAFCO has been met with a challenge and their challenge is to annex to Livermore. Ed Clutinger stated he is a property owner and resident of Doolan Canyon. His well is producing great and he has no insufficient supply. They have had no loss of supply whatsoever. He had the honor of having a letter published in the Valley Times and Independent recently and suggested that it be read for it explained a number of things regarding the water issue and the petition that was circulated. He did not see the petition, nor was he even made aware of it. The Dublin City Council is eminently fair and responsive to regional needs. He urged the Council to proceed in every effort to acquire a sphere of influence over Doolan Canyon. Martin Inderbitzen commented that he wished to correct a statement made by Mr. Carrington in his Staff presentation. He indicated that Livermore was responding to a request by 18 property owners in the Doolan Area. By his count, there are about 7 properties represented; and 18 individuals who signed the petition. The original petition did not include all the property that is being responded to by Livermore. He stated he spoke for almost all of the other property owners. They oppose the application by Livermore and are very much in support of Dublin's recommendation. Dublin's position was well stated last year to LAFCO. The validity of the points made are probably even more founded at this time as the City proceeds through its planning studies. Mr. Inderbitzen stated it was clear to him that both legally, practically and factually you can separate the issues of sphere of influence, annexation and supply of water. Jurisdictions are able to supply water outside their City limits. If Livermore wishes to be a good Samaritan, they can certainly do that. The issue of annexation should not be made a condition preceding that supply of water. Joanne Clutinger stated because of the action on the part of Livermore, she asked Dublin to pursue action to acquire a sphere of influence. She felt this would benefit and well serve the entire Tri- Valley area. n*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^* CM - VOL 10 - 383 Regular Meeting October 10, 1991 Cm. Burton stated the City is only applying for a sphere of influence. It is important that Dublin do it at this time because of the situation with Livermore. LAFCO should have an opportunity to discuss it. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Howard and Mayor Snyder absent) , the Council directed Staff to apply to LAFCO to adjust the Dublin Sphere of Influence to include the upper and lower Doolan Canyon areas. ALAMEDA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY VOTING SYSTEM (1060-40) Public Works Director Thompson advised that the Mayor of Emeryville recently requested that Alameda County and Cities in the County amend their Joint Powers Agreement which formed the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) to change the existing voting representations. Mr. Thompson explained that CMA was created as a requirement of Proposition 111 (gas tax) and became the successor to the Alameda County Transportation Plan Commission. The current CMA voting system gives the County 2 votes, cities 1 vote per 100, 000 population and all cities less than 100, 000 receive 1 vote each. Also, Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority, Union City Transit, AC Transit and BART are allocated 1 vote each. The proposed voting system would be based on 1 vote per 50, 000 population and all cities with less than 50, 000 would receive 1 vote. It would also eliminate votes of LAVTA and Union City Transit completely, the argument being that the boards of those 2 agencies are made up of appointed representatives from the cities and that would give those cities "double votes" . The City of Oakland has stated that they will take legal action if the voting system is not changed. City Attorney Silver has reviewed this and feels that the City of Oakland does not have a basis for legal action based on representation by population. Mr. Thompson stated that Staff feels that the existing voting makeup is a reasonable approach for the CMA and further, that all transit agencies should be represented, regardless of who sits on the boards. Cm. Burton indicated that he did not see the Air Quality Control Board involved in any of the memberships. Mr. Thompson advised that they are non-voting members and are consulted with and participate. Mr. Ambrose pointed out that Section 65089 stated the program shall be developed in consultation with all the other groups. n*A*n*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A* CM - VOL 10 - 384 Regular Meeting October 10, 1991 Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery advised that Oakland has already agreed to the current voting system, but they changed their minds. She felt it was a power play on the part of Oakland, particularly by Elihu Harris, who has threatened a lawsuit. The last time they were polled, most everyone felt that what we have is fair and works. Mr. Ambrose advised that this agency will have considerable power in distributing funds, and Oakland has a history of trying to control agencies that distribute funds in order to push more of the funds toward Oakland. Cm. Moffatt felt that the Tri-Valley Transportation Council should discuss having a representative sit on this board. Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery advised that the request to look at the funding options was on the last TVTC agenda and Staff has been directed to look at the possibility of portioning out funds for separate studies out in the sub-regional areas. This will probably come up at the next meeting. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Howard and Mayor Snyder absent) , the Council rejected the proposed voting changes for the CMA and directed Staff to send a letter to the Chairman of CMA expressing Dublin's position. Item Added to Agenda (See Page 369) RIGHT OF ENTRY FOR EXTENSION OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD ACROSS U. S. ARMY PROPERTY (820-90) Mr. Ambrose advised that Alameda County, the East Bay Regional Parks District and the U. S. Army are in the process of finalizing a land swap which will result in the conveyance of a 12 acre parcel to the City of Dublin for the extension of Dublin Boulevard. The final paperwork is being processed through the Army. Since the City is uncertain how long it will take to finalize the land swap, the City requested a right of entry from the U. S. Army across Army property for the purpose of extending Dublin Boulevard. This right of entry would allow the construction of Dublin Boulevard in advance of the conveyance of the 12 acre parcel to the City. On October 9, 1991, the City was notified by the Army that it would like to have the City approve the right of entry before the October 24 , 1991 ceremony which the Army is planning to commemorate the land swap. Cm. Burton offered congratulations on this event. Cm. Moffatt asked if the City would have any liability on the land. A*A*A*A*w*A*A*A*n*A*n*w*A*n*A*A*A*w*n*A*A*A*n*w*A*w*n*w*A*w*A*^*^*^*A* CM - VOL 10 - 385 Regular Meeting October 10, 1991 Mr. Ambrose and Ms. Silver advised that the City would accept this responsibility. It is less than an ownership interest, but we would have liability. This triggers the agreement with the County and Pleasanton for the extension of Dublin Boulevard. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Howard and Mayor Snyder absent) , the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 104 - 91 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT FOR THE EXTENSION OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OTHER BUSINESS Upcoming Meetings (610-05) City Manager Ambrose advised that on Thursday, October 24th at 10: 00 a.m. , the Army will hold a celebration ceremony at Camp Parks. Also, BART will be having a ground breaking followed by a luncheon on Friday October 25th from 9: 30 a.m. to 11: 00 a.m. on Owens Drive. Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery advised that LAVTA will be dedicating its new bus facility on October 28th from 4 : 00 p.m. to 7 : 00 p.m. Invitations will be sent out soon. Cm. Moffatt advised that there will be a liaison meeting with the East Bay Regional Park District on Monday, October 14th at 7 : 30 a.m. League of CA Cities (140-20) Cm. Jeffery indicated that she has been serving on the League's Revenue and Taxation Committee. She has been asked to continue to serve on this Committee, but not as Chair. The meetings switch between Northern and Southern California. Cm. Burton stated he had no problem since the meetings are all held within the State. A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A* CM - VOL 10 - 386 Regular Meeting October 10, 1991 CLOSED SESSION At 10: 35 p.m. , the Council recessed to a closed executive session to discuss: (640-30) 1) Pending Litigation, Measure D, in accordance with Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) ; 2) Potential Litigation - GCS 54956. 9 (c) ; 3) Potential Litigation - GCS 54956.9 (c) ; (deleted & not discussed) ; 4) Potential Litigation - GCS 54956.9 (c) . ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11: 15 p.m. Mayor Pro Tempore ATTEST: City Clerk A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A* CM - VOL 10 - 387 Regular Meeting October 10, 1991