Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.1 Approve 10-28-1991 Minutes REGULAR MEETING - October 28, 1991 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, October 28, 1991, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7: 34 p.m. , by Mayor Snyder. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. ABSENT: None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (610-20) Frederiksen Junior Girl Scout Jennifer Stokely with Troop 239 and Brownie Girl Scout Kimberly Stokely with Troop 547 led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Jennifer stated she likes to go camping. Kimberly stated she likes to belong to Brownies because you get to be with your friends. INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEE (700-10) Planning Director Tong introduced Delmar Thompkins, the City's new Planning Intern in the Current Planning Division. Delmar has several months of experience as an Intern with LSA Associations, a Consulting Firm, and recently received his BA degree in Landscape Architecture from the University of California at Berkeley. The Council welcomed Delmar aboard. CUSTOMER SERVICE AWARD FOR NOVEMBER (150-90) City Manager Ambrose presented the November Customer Service Award to Sandie Hart, Secretary in the City Manager's Office. Mr. Ambrose advised that Sandie was nominated by her peers for demonstrating exemplary ongoing customer service skills not only internally to her fellow employees, but also to the City's external customers. Sandie was presented with a gift certificate to The Fishery and a t-shirt displaying the City's customer service motto. 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 1 0 - 38 8 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES T0: ITE�Y NO. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 105 - 91 ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS IN TRACT 5388 RILDARA (600-60) Approved Change Order No. 9 ($40, 581.73) to Contract 90-01 (Redgwick Construction Co. ) for San Ramon Road Phase IV Improvements and authorized the Mayor to execute same (600-30) ; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 106 - 91 ADOPTING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION GUIDELINES (670-10) Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 107 - 91 AWARDING CONTRACT 91-07 ANNUAL SIDEWALK SAFETY REPAIR/HANDICAP RAMP CONSTRUCTION TO B & B CONCRETE ($47, 651.50 600-30) and authorized the Mayor to execute the Agreement; Authorized Staff to advertise Contract 91-09 Sidewalk Safety (Grinding) for bids (600-30) ; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 108 - 91 ESTABLISHING A SALARY PLAN FOR FULL-TIME PERSONNEL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERSONNEL RULES and RESOLUTION NO. 109 - 91 ADOPTING A BENEFIT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERSONNEL RULES and RESOLUTION NO. 110 - 91 FIXING EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION UNDER THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 139-90 and authorized the City Manager to 1) undertake all steps necessary to change Life Insurance and Long-Term Disability Insurance carriers; 2) take all steps necessary to renew the contract with Delta Dental w*n*w*A*�*A*A*A*A*�*A*A*A*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*�*^*^*^*^*�*^*^*^* CM - VOL 10 - 389 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 pursuant to renewal letter dated July 15, 1991 and to extend employee only coverage to regular part-time positions; and 3) transfer funds not to exceed $6, 000 from the Contingent Reserve into the appropriate accounts (700-20) ; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 111 - 91 ESTABLISHING A SALARY PLAN FOR PART-TIME PERSONNEL (700-20) Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $436, 031. 03 (300-40) . Cm. Moffatt requested that a correction be made on Page 386 of the October 10, 1991 minutes. The last sentence under upcoming meetings should be East Bay Division of the League of California Cities rather than the East Bay Regional Park District. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 10, 1991 (Mayor Snyder and Cm. Howard abstained from voting on this item. ) Cm. Moffatt requested that the Bike Path item be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. The Tri-Valley Transportation Council will, at its next meeting, be requesting that we give them an indication of where our bike paths are going to be located so that there can be a synchronized and unified path through Dublin, San Ramon and Danville. He requested that Staff come forth with the concept of where Dublin's bike paths will be. Public Works Director Thompson advised that we have been using the County bike path adopted alignments since we became a City. That information was given to the committee a couple of months ago. Canals and creeks are being looked at as part of the parks masterplan and the City Council will be reviewing this in the future. Cm. Moffatt asked if this would go before the Park & Recreation Commission. Mr. Ambrose advised that it will go before the Park & Recreation Commission and also the City Council. Cm. Moffatt should tell the TVTC that Dublin anticipates that through the process, there could be some modifications, but they have yet to be reviewed by the Commission and the Council. Cm. Burton indicated the question is just, will the paths meet? Mr. Thompson stated the ones that we have adopted do meet. Cm. Moffatt stated the direction they were looking for is are these the alignments we want to live with or not. Mayor Snyder requested that Mr. Thompson look up the information for Cm. Moffatt so that he can give it to they committee. y y y y y y y y CM - VOL 10 - 390 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 Mr. Ambrose advised that paths in some of our new planning areas are not yet nailed down. Cm. Burton felt we should ask for where their paths are also. The concern is just that the paths meet. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 112 - 91 ESTABLISHING A BICYCLE PATH ON THE EAST SIDE OF DOUGHERTY ROAD BETWEEN AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD & WILLOW CREEK DRIVE (590-60) Cm. Moffatt requested that the item related to the Senior Center floor replacement be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Some of the seniors he has spoken with suggested that they would like to have a wooden floor rather than vinyl. He stated the City Manager had indicated to him that this would be more expensive to upkeep. Mr. Ambrose advised that the Recreation Director has had some discussions in the past with seniors who want a wood floor. They are looking for a raised floor. You typically don't put a wood floor on a concrete slab. Recreation Director Lowart advised that the costs versus benefit don't warrant this. All the thresholds to the doors would have to be raised. The wood floor requested was as a result of dancing, and the room is probably used for dancing only about 20% of the time. Cm. Moffatt advised that there is a new system whereby you lay down a thin sheet of plastic which gives it enough bounce and resiliency. Ms. Lowart advised that a wood floor would definitely exceed the budget that we have available at this time. Another thing to consider is that the lease expires in 6 years. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to solicit bids for Contract 91-08 Senior Center Vinyl Floor Replacement (600-30) . WINDEMERE REQUEST REGARDING ROAD CONNECTING DOUGHERTY VALLEY WITH TASSAJARA ROAD (420-50) Planning Director Tong advised that Darryl A. Foreman, Project Manager for Windemere Ranch Partners, has proposed road alignments connecting the Dougherty Valley area with Tassajara Road. The alignments are located in unincorporated Contra Costa County and in Dublin City limits. Potential City of Dublin Staff concerns related to traffic impacts and effects on jobs/housing balance and affordable housing in Dublin. CM - VOL 10 - 391 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 Because of the significant unresolved concerns, Mr. Tong felt it may be premature for Dublin to provide a letter in support of the proposed road alignments. Mr. Ambrose advised that they have also met with some of the eastern Dublin property owners and the County. They have expressed similar concerns. Capacity is of concern and its impact on eastern Dublin properties. Cm. Burton questioned why we thought people will bypass Dougherty Road. Planning Director Tong advised that the San Ramon map shows 4 connections to the Dougherty Valley area. Mr. Ambrose stated one important consideration is that neither plan has been approved or adopted yet. San Ramon and Contra Costa County are both preparing plans. Some of the traffic will be diverted off Dougherty Road with the Tassajara connection. We still haven't seen any traffic figures on the impact on our streets. Mr. Foreman is trying to work a land swap and he needs support when he goes before the Federal Government. Darryl Foreman advised that they are putting all this information together to formulate a long term vision for the Dougherty Valley. Traffic information will be available in the very near future. The Contra Costa County plan will probably be available in draft form in the middle of November. They are hiring TJKM to do the traffic modeling and are trying to get the program up and running with the Army. In order for them to sit down and discuss this, they must get the permission of Congress. Congress has asked them to go to the local communities for input. The exact alignment must be worked out with the Army. They need letters to senators saying "Here's our point of view" , so that this can get some final resolve. They are trying to meld Dublin's plans with those evolving from San Ramon and Contra Costa County. The entitlement process has to be given by the authority that has jurisdiction over the property and this currently is the County of Contra Costa. When the EIR is certified, it will be done by the County planning commission. He felt that once the elections are over, they will be able to get back to the long range planning vision. '' Mayor Snyder felt it might help to provide information addressing traffic concerns and asked if this could be put off for a reasonable time. Contra Costa County information needs to be reviewed first. Mr. Foreman stated he thought the information will probably be available within a month. Mayor Snyder directed that this item be brought back to the Council after Staff hears from Mr. Foreman. ^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^* CM - VOL 10 - 392 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS . - DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION (670-20) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Public Works Director Thompson advised that the City Attorney had distributed a revised Resolution which replaces the one distributed with the packets. Also, a letter from Mr. Ross who owns the Miracle Auto Painting parcel was distributed. Mr. Thompson advised that the City is presently negotiating with 5 property owners to purchase right-of-way for the Dublin Boulevard extension. The alignment was approved by the City Council in April, 1988 , after certification of the Negative Declaration for the project. Three different angles were reviewed as the road left the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. The Council also reviewed 3 different east-west alignments that ran along the John Moore property. All of the alternates would have removed the Valley Boat House and the back half of the Curtiss Dodge dealership. Mr. Thompson explained that the extension of Dublin Boulevard to the east is necessary to provide access to the future BART station, to provide a roadway parallel to the freeway to serve the new Hacienda interchange, and also to serve the eastern area for proposed new plans out past Tassajara. The 5 properties are: 1) all of the Valley Boat House property; 2) the northerly 1/3 of the Curtiss Dodge (Nohr) site; 3) a small northerly portion of the Dolan Lumber site; 4) the very northerly portion of the Miracle Auto Paint parcel; and 5) the area needed through the Southern Pacific right-of-way for the total 110-foot width of Dublin Boulevard. Mr. Thompson indicated that one other parcel is proposed to be acquired through an assessment district over Tract 5900 (John Moore's parcel) and another parcel is proposed to be acquired through dedication as a condition of approval for the Standard Oil service station project. The properties need to be acquired through purchase, either in total or in part, in order to accomplish construction of the road. Appraisals have been conducted, and the City Attorney's Office has submitted offers to the property owners based on the appraisals. In the letter from Mr. Ross, he indicates that he felt the City should take a look at realigning the intersection to try and save some of his parking. This was actually done when the City looked at this in 1988 . For traffic reasons, it was determined that a skewed intersection which was offset was inappropriate. We didn't want it off at an angle which would make it more difficult to traverse. Mr. Thompson advised that adoption of a Resolution of Necessity will allow the City to obtain possession of the property through the court if agreements have not been reached by the time construction is scheduled to begin. 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* if A ii if i{ if ii CM - VOL 10 - 393 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 City Attorney Silver discussed the changes in the revised Resolution, which were to make a couple of typographical changes and to include in the Resolution the adoption of the Notice of the Negative Declaration for the construction of the roadway extension, as well as the Negative Declaration for the adoption of the plan line. Ms. Silver stated it should be noted that on April 11, 1988 , the City Council adopted Resolution No. 53-88 which adopted a Negative Declaration for the plan line for the extension of Dublin Boulevard to the Southern Pacific Railroad Corridor and a notice of determination for that Negative Declaration was filed with the Alameda County Clerk on May 26, 1988 . On October 29, 1990, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 134-90 which adopted a Negative Declaration for the construction of the roadway extension from Dougherty Road to the Southern Pacific Railroad Corridor. The notice of determination for this Negative Declaration was filed with the County Clerk on November 15, 1990. Ms. Silver advised that the record should note that offers were made to all owners of property described in Exhibit A to the proposed Resolution to purchase the property at the amount considered to be the just compensation pursuant to appraisals which were made of the properties. The offers were made pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 7267. 2 and copies of the letters including the offers to purchase the property which were sent to the owners of all the properties are made a part of the record. The record should also reflect that notice was given to all persons owning property described in Exhibit A of the proposed Resolution as their names appear on the last Equalized Assessment Roll pursuant to the provisions of the Eminent Domain Law and copies of the notices which were sent by the City Clerk are hereby included as part of the record. Ms. Silver advised that no requests to appear were filed with the City Clerk within the time period specified in the notice that was given. There was a letter received from the owners of the Miracle Auto Painting property. Cm. Burton questioned the City Attorney that of the 5 property owners notified, no one had anything to say about this. Ms. Silver advised that there was only one letter received. There were no requests filed with the City Clerk to appear at this hearing. There has been correspondence received in response to the offers to purchase the property. Donald Wilson, owner of Miracle Auto Painting, stated he was speaking for himself, as well as Mr. Ross, the property owners. It is their understanding that the initial plan that was brought forward did not include taking as much property as the plan before the City Council. The extension of Dublin Boulevard will take part of their property and they are looking at the removal of all the parking in front of their building, plus their sign. As a business owner, the one thing they need more than anything is the ability to market their product. They have no better way of doing thyis. than yparking ythe yfinished cars yout yso A1A*/ *A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*Aii�ofd i.A i{^iiA ii A iiA if^ii�ii�ii^�^ii^i.A iii ii Ai{�if^i.A ii^if ii CM - VOL 10 - 394 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 that everyone who drives by sees their product. He questioned why the revision was made. Mr. Thompson advised that the original plan when it was sketched up in a small scale looked like it didn't hit the parking, but when a topo was done, it was found that it did cut off the last 8 spaces that are striped. The difference is that on the plan it looks like Dublin Boulevard is a straight line, but there is actually a slight angle because where Dublin Boulevard comes in from the other side, it doesn't come in at a 900 angle. When it was plotted out, it didn't actually follow the back of the sidewalk, but rather goes through at a slight angle which cuts through the parking lot. Mr. Ambrose advised that typically you don't do a topo when you adopt a plan line. You don't have the project designed yet. When you set a plan line you don't spend thousands of dollars to know exactly to the foot where the road goes. Cm. Burton questioned Mr. Wilson regarding what he felt his options were if he didn't have these parking spaces. He also asked if there were discussions going on with their landlord and questioned the length of their lease. Mr. Wilson indicated they have not come up with any viable alternatives. There is some parking available on the eastern side of their building, but they basically need all they can get. This will qualitatively alter how they do business, plus it will affect their ability to market their product. They have just 4 years remaining on their lease. They have owned the business since August, 1990. Miracle operated the facility 15 years prior to that time. Mayor Snyder asked Mr. Wilson if he was aware of all this planning going on when he bought the business. Mr. Wilson responded that they were aware of it. They are obviously not enthralled about their property being torn up for several months while the transition takes place, but they are willing to accept this as part of progress. In the long run, this will be good for the City and for them as well. They were not aware that what they have now was to be altered, however. Cm. Burton indicated that there would be compensation and whether or not there is available property to the south that would alleviate the parking problem could be reviewed. They still have a front row seat on the corner if they can keep it. Cm. Jeffery felt this was up to the property owner to determine. Cm. Moffatt questioned the parking area to the south that Caltrans has. CM - VOL 10 - 395 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 Mr. Thompson stated there is a small lot that was put in for Park & Ride, but nobody uses it for that purpose. We used it when Caltrans was using that street as a thoroughfare when they were working on the interchange. Mr. Thompson stated it was his understanding that this property will meet code after the taking of these spaces, but his particular business evidently needs more than code for the amount of business they do. If they are missing spaces for their customers to come in on a short term basis, the City might want to look at some kind of limited parking on the street. Mr. Wilson stated that anything that could be done to help them out would certainly be appreciated. John Corallo, Valley Boat House owner stated he only wished to comment on Mr. Wilson's predicament. Scarlett Court will terminate on a cul- de-sac and there might be some dead property right in front of his business. Mr. Thompson advised that it will become a right turn only in and out. Scarlett Court will not be terminated in a cul-de-sac. Mr. Corallo stated at this point his wish is to just get it over as quickly as possible. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Moffatt stated he hopes that there can be some mitigating factors to create some parking along Scarlett Court for Mr. Wilson. Cm. Burton stated that if we have to take over all the property to the east, this could make possible some parking in front of his place as a tradeoff. Mr. Thompson advised that compensation was offered to Curtiss Dodge and they have told us they only want us to take the upper 1/3 . The remainder is not an uneconomic remnant, so we can't condemn that part. On motion of Cm. ,Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Councii adopted RESOLUTION NO. 113 - 91 DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN LAND AND DIRECTING THE FILING OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 941-550-10-6; 941-550-10-11; 941-550-12-7; 941-550-13-2; AND 941-550-22-3 A*A*A�iA*A*A�iA*H*A*A*/ �iA�i/ *A*Ai.^i.A 1{�1.A 1{A]{��AifA 1.^IiA�Aif^iii i.�if AifA if Ali^�A iiA� CM - VOL 10 - 396 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE (430-20) Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Carrington presented the Staff Report and advised that on October 10, 1991, the City Council reintroduced this Ordinance after directing Staff to make certain revisions. These changes included: 1) delete Section 8. 16. 030 (b) "Amenities" ; 2) amend Section 8 . 16. 080 (d) to make the City responsible for obtaining and verifying information with respect to the qualifications of prospective and current tenants and for maintaining a list of qualified applicants; and 3) amend Section 8 . 16. 100 (e) to delete the provision of transfer of title or interest by "gift" . Sections of the Ordinance were modified in order to make them consistent with the above changes. Mr. Carrington advised that at the October 10th Council meeting, representatives of the building industry spoke about several issues, including the means of determining the price received by the seller of a restricted affordable unit and the use of a transfer or severance tax to buy down the cost of a restricted ownership unit which has appreciated beyond the affordability of the income group to which it was assigned. Mr. Carrington advised that Staff had prepared an analysis of each issue along with alternatives for the Council to consider. Issue 1, the means of determining the price received by the seller was discussed. Two alternative proposals were presented by Mr. Carrington. If the City Council wishes to insure the maximum affordability of the restricted units, Staff recommended that the City Council choose alternative #lA and leave Section 8 . 16. 100 (a) in the Ordinance. Waiving a second reading and adopting the Ordinance would accomplish this. However, if the Council wishes to pursue an alternative method of allowing a return on investment and still maintain affordability of restricted units, Staff recommended that the City Council choose alternative #1B and that the following language be substituted for the existing Section '8 . 16. 100 (a) : "The sales price received by the owner of a restricted Affordable Unit shall be limited to the fair market value as determined by an appraisal paid for by the owner multiplied times a factor representing the purchase price paid by the owner of the restricted unit divided by the market sales price of an identical unit in the same development at the time of purchase. if the appraisal is unacceptable to the City Manager, the City Manager may have another appraisal performed by another qualified real estate appraiser mutually agreed upon by the City and the owner, which appraisal will be considered by the City in determining the sales price. All costs required to obtain such appraisal shall be borne by the owner. The City Manager shall insure that the purchase price of a restricted unit does not exceed an amount which is affordable to a family of 4 belonging to the income category to which the restricted A*A i{ iifi li CM af- iVOL 10 - 397 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 unit was originally assigned. " Waiving reading and reintroducing the Ordinance would allow this change to be made. Mr. Carrington stated that if the City Council chooses alternative 1B that Section 8 . 16. 100 (b) be deleted as it would be unnecessary and that Section 8 . 16. 100 (c) be revised to delete the following words in the first sentence, "from improvements made pursuant to Section 8. 16. 100 (b) " . Mr. Carrington advised that Section 8 . 16. 100 (c) allows the appreciation of a for-sale restricted unit to appreciate from improvements made pursuant to Section 8. 16. 100 (b) to only the upper limit of affordability for the income group to which the restricted unit was assigned. Issue 2 , the use of a transfer tax to buy down the price of a restricted ownership unit which has appreciated beyond the affordability of the income group to which it was assigned was discussed. Building industry representatives proposed that a transfer tax be applied to the sale of real property within the City of Dublin, the proceeds of which would be applied to the provision of affordable housing. Alternative #2A would leave the Ordinance as is. Alternative #2B would leave Section 8. 16. 100 (c) in the Ordinance with the second sentence reworded as follows: "The determination of affordability shall be based on the maximum monthly mortgage payment that a household of 4 in a given income category can pay. " Waiving the reading and reintroducing the Ordinance would accomplish this. Alternative C would direct Staff to investigate the use of a transfer tax for use in buying down the price of restricted ownership units which have appreciated beyond the affordability of the income group to which they have been assigned. Cm. Burton expressed concerns that with a 10 year restriction, at the end of the 10 years, the market price might be $100, 000 more than the purchase price. Since there could be considerable increases, we might create something,.we don't want. We might create a balloon that might burst. It seems 'we are creating an artificial barrier. Mr. Ambrose advised that the City is legally required by the State to have some kind of a Density Bonus Ordinance. Mr. Carrington stated that the State requires that if we give a density bonus to developers, they are required to make those units available for 10 years. Other considerations could require a 30 year period. Units developed in this program are typically condominiums and young families tend to move fairly regularly, while single parent families tend to remain in restricted units. Mayor Snyder felt the Council was torn by the possibility of making a wrong decision. When the State puts requirements on that iity must stay CM - VOL 10 - 398 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 for 30 years, it is of concern because there is no history to evaluate. He questioned what would happen if someone who has one of these units passes away. What happens to the unit? What if an heir wants to use it but doesn't fit the category. Mr. Carrington stated there is nothing in the Ordinance addressing this right now. Ms. Silver indicated that Section 8 . 16. 100 (e) provides that the property could transfer by inheritance. The agreement continues to run with the land. Staff could check with the HCD to see if there has been any thought given by cities further along in this process of what happens in a 10 or 30 year period. Cm. Burton stated he was bothered by the 10 year and 30 year spread. It is a long jump from one to the other. Ms. Silver indicated that these are requirements of the State Law. If an incentive is given along with the Density Bonus Ordinance, it must be 30 years. The Council has discretion in certain areas, but not in others. Cm. Jeffery felt the Council needed to focus on the purpose of the program, which is one way of putting some affordable housing in the community. In changing the rules, consideration must be given to the fact that the property owner gives up some profit in the beginning, but if he holds onto it for 30 years, they should be able to make a profit. Mayor Snyder stated the concern is if someone buys it and something happens to them and the heir does not fit the category and then at the end he profits. His concern is what happens in the interim. Ms. Silver stated if it is an owner occupied unit, the owner must continuously occupy the unit. Section 8.16. 090 (b) could be modified to provide that if the person owns it as a result of inheritance and doesn't qualify himself or herself, it could be rented. Cm. Moffatt questioned who determines rental rates, and stated he was concerned with rent control. Ms. Silver, indicated that there are provisions for rental rates which do not exceed certain amounts. This is not rent control. It only applies to these types of units. This program is totally voluntary and is not mandatory. Mayor Snyder pointed out that it is a bonus situation. Cm. Burton questioned if Staff was aware of anyone who has done this for any period of time. Mr. Carrington stated that Palo Alto and Berkeley could be contacted to see what has happens after a unit turns over once or twice. n*A*A*n*n*n*w*A*A*A*A*^*A*A*A*A*^*A*A*A*n*i *A*A*n*�*n*n*n*n*A*A*A*A*A* CM - VOL 10 - 399 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 Cm. Jeffery stated she would hate to see us get into a "big brother" situation. We could just amend Section 8. 16. 090 (b) as Ms. Silver suggested. Mayor Snyder stated this would address his concerns. Mr. Carrington advised that they could rent the unit per Section 8 . 16. 80 or sell it per Section 8 . 16.90. Mark Stechbart felt this topic would be suitable for a work session. He was not comfortable with the City Attorney's letter. Once the City actually does this, a lot of the concerns would be addressed. He felt the Ordinance will work, but some fine-tuning might be needed in a couple of years. With a reverence tax, Dublin could literally make history. It would work so nicely, it would be elegant. This tax would be 1/4 of 1% of the sales amount and it escalates with the market. The resale marked keeps working and it is inflation-proof. Ms. Silver indicated that a tax that goes into the General Fund would not require a 2/3 vote, but a special tax would. If the City Council wants to consider a transfer tax, there are many legal issues and her Memorandum very generally addressed the major issues. One issue would be can we tax just certain areas of the City? There are a lot of issues that would need to be researched. Mr. Carrington advised that the issue of a transfer tax was discussed in the latter part of the Staff Report. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. By a consensus the Council determined that Section 8 . 16. 090 (b) be modified as suggested by City Attorney Silver and be brought back to the Council. In Section 8 . 16. 100 (c) , the words "less 100%" should be eliminated from the middle of the sixth line. Also, Section 8 . 16. 100 (b) would be eliminated and Sections (c) (d) and (e) would need to be renumbered. The Council selected Alternative #1B with language substituted for existing Section 8 . 16. 100 (a) along with changes read into the record by Mr. Carrington. "The sales price received by the owner of a restricted Affordable Unit shall be limited to the fair market value as determined by an appraisal paid for by the owner multiplied times a factor representing the purchase price paid by the owner of the restricted unit divided by the market sales price of an identical unit in the same development at the time of purchase. If the appraisal is unacceptable to the City Manager, the City Manager may have another appraisal performed by another qualified real estate appraiser mutually agreed upon by the City in determining the sales price. All costs required to obtain such appraisal shall be borne by the owner. The City Manager shall insure that the purchase price of a restricted unit does not exceed an amount which is affordable to a family of four belonging to the income category to which the restricted unit was originally assigned. " yy yy a a y y y J J y y Jy y yy y y y J A*A*A*A�A*A*A�iA*A�iA*A*A*/ �i A�iA*Aii�iiA iii 1.�i{�1.A i.�is��Aif^iiA if^RA���^RAii^ii^iiA� CM - VOL 10 - 400 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 The Council also selected Alternative #2B which would leave Section 8 . 16. 100 (c) in the Ordinance with the second sentence reworded: "The determination of affordability shall be based on the maximum monthly mortgage payment that a household of four in a given income category can pay as determined by the methodology shown in Attachment 3 . " The Council waived the reading and reintroduced the Ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGN BEVERLY LANE @ KIMBALL AVENUE (590-40 Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing. Public Works Director Thompson advised that the California Vehicle Code requires drivers entering a "T" intersection from the terminating street to yield the right-of-way to drivers on the continuing street. Installation of a stop sign at Beverly Lane and Kimball Avenue would improve driver safety by reinforcing the condition that already exists. No comments were made by members of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing. Cm. Moffatt asked if this was recommended by the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Thompson advised that it came up by Staff and not a resident. This simply makes it consistent. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 114 - 91 APPROVING PLACEMENT OF A STOP SIGN ON BEVERLY LANE @ KIMBALL AVENUE Z. REVISION TO CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BRENDA A. GILLARDE, PLANNING CONSULTANT (600-30) Planning Director Tong advised that in June, 1989 , the City contract with Brenda Gillarde for work on a number of projects, including the eastern and western Dublin General Plan Amendments and Specific Plan Studies and the update of the Dublin General Plan. Ms. Gillarde's agreement states that the extension of the agreement beyond 12 months may be subject to renegotiation of the base rate of pay. In August, 1990, the hourly compensation rate was increased from $40 to $45. Ms. Gillarde is now requesting an increase in the base rate of pay from f r om $45 to $55 5 per hour. Ms. Gillarde bases her request A*A*A*A*A*A*A yy *A yyA* .A yyyA*A*^*A*A*A 1y^ L^y LyA yA*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*^yA yy CM - VOL 10 - 401 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 on the rates currently charged by other consultants with similar responsibilities and backgrounds, the complexity of the management of the General Plan Amendments and Specific Plan Studies, and increases in the cost of living. Mr. Tong stated that negotiations with Ms. Gillarde resulted in a recommendation to raise the base rate of pay from $45 per hour to $52 per hour, retroactive to August 1, 1991. Cm. Burton stated he was concerned that she came in and made a contract with us. The land owners put up money. It took a year and nothing happened and then more money was requested. We are still going through the same process and he felt this is bad public policy as well as a bad business policy to have someone getting this much of a raise. He felt a 5% increase would be reasonable at this time. A lot of people are concerned about budgets and jobs. This is not good public policy for someone to say if she doesn't get her raise she will quit. This is not a good way to negotiate. Cm. Burton made a motion which was seconded by Cm. Howard to give Ms. Gillarde a 5% raise. Cm. Jeffery felt that what Cm. Burton suggested was totally inappropriate. It was not up to the Council to say this as Ms. Gillarde is not an employee. She has contracted for a job which has lasted longer than it should, and she is working for well under what most consultants of her caliber charge. The scope of work she does is considerably more than when she started. She should be given what she asks for or nothing at all. She is negotiating for herself because she is basically in business for herself. Cm. Moffatt felt that since she has been working with this project it would be ill advised at this point, when we are so close to bringing this whole thing to fruition in the western area that the small amount of money would not offset getting a new individual to take her place. It would result in a much greater economic loss to have to replace her than the increase being discussed. Cm. Burton felt the amount was substantial. He stated he was not satisfied with the work that is being done by Ms. Gillarde. Mayor Snyder felt it should be noted that Ms. Gillarde absorbs all expenses relative to the contract. She started on one project and then assumed a second project as part of the process. The scope of what she came in to do has changed dramatically. Marty Buxton, Project Manager for Eden Development Group stated that as an entity that pays a large percentage of that which is paid in the western Dublin planning area, they are supportive of Brenda's raise. They feel she has been a bargain for the last couple of years, and while this increase is substantial, they feel her work is very valuable and the delays are certainly not her fault. It would be a real shame when they can finail.lyy sseey they lighty aty thaeJ endy ofy tyhey y y A*A*A�A*A*A*/ *A*A*A*A*A1AyA RAif cif Ai{A ifA RAif^iiA.f^iiA�Ai{^if A if^ifA iiA ifA i{^ {^�A 1{�ii CM - VOL 10 - 402 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 tunnel to lose her services. She is doing an excellent job, and they support paying the extra fees. Cm. Burton questioned if Ms. Buxton thought she would quit if she got 5% instead of 16%. Ms. Buxton stated she really didn't know, but if this were the result, it would certainly be a shame. She has not heard any threats to this effect. Cm. Howard asked if she is going to continue doing this year after year after year. Mayor Snyder stated she has only got specific jobs for 2 different areas that in theory, should end next Spring. We are only looking until the end of the projects. Mr. Ambrose stated the Council should look at this from the perspective that she is a contractor, and we have lots of contractors that come in every year with proposed rate increases. This particular case is a little different only in that we are collecting processing fees for doing this project with Eden paying a good portion of those fees. Also, her work week varies based on the need, just as with any other contractor or consultant. Many of the delays are outside of her control. We did not have the staff to process the West Dublin General Plan Amendment and were requested to get a contract planner on board. Once these projects are over, the City will be looking at its staffing needs. This increase does not impact the City's General Fund at all. Cm. Jeffery made a substitute motion, which was seconded by Cm. Moffatt, to authorize the City Manager to sign a revised Consultant Services Agreement with Brenda Gillarde increasing her hourly compensation from $45 to $52 retroactive to August 1, 1991. Cm. Burton voted against this motion. CITYLINR EVALUATION (180-10) Management Assistant Barker stated that recently, Staff was directed to evaluate the usefulness of the League of California Cities' on-line computer network called CityLink. The CityLink program provides electronic mail, bulletin board service, legislative services and legal services. The costs vary according to the extent of service for which a city subscribes, with 4 basic subscription levels which can be purchased. Annual costs range from $640 to $2 , 340, depending upon the level of service. There is also a one-time cost of $185 for a modem and communications software, $150 for installation of a phone line and $160 per year for phone line service charges. Responses from Alameda County Cities were similar and Staff was advised that the Electronic Mail and Bulletin Board systems were rarely used. The Legislative Service is the most used part of CityLink. Tracking bills, viewing votyingy records and y following y y y ii CM - VOL 10 - 403 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 hearing dates can be useful. Legal Services would not be relevant to Qk Dublin due to our contract for City Attorney services. Mr. Barker advised that the City currently obtains information on bills through the League. Status of bills, upcoming committee dates and vote records are obtained from the League Staff and on request, the State Bill Room sends copies of text within 1 to 2 days. In summary, Staff felt that although there are potential benefits to CityLink, the costs outweigh the benefits that could be derived. Cm. Jeffery stated she personally felt this was not appropriate for Dublin. Cm. Moffatt stated he felt it was appropriate to look at any way to improve communications. We should not bury our heads in the sand. Cm. Jeffery clarified that she did not mean it was not appropriate to look at ideas, but rather that this program was not appropriate for us to participate in. We have other, ways of getting information that are less expensive. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed that CityLink NOT be purchased as the benefits do not justify the costs. AUTHORIZATION TO REQUEST ADVANCE OF FUNDS FROM THE BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT (BART) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT (600-4011060-30) City Manager Ambrose advised that as a result of litigation between the City of Dublin and BART, on March 27, 1990, the City and BART entered into an agreement which provided that BART would advance the City $2 , 285, 000 for the purpose of acquiring right-of-way and constructing the Dublin Boulevard Extension Project. The basis for this Agreement was that this project is necessary to provide access to the parking lot for the eastern Dublin BART Station. Depending upon the parking configuration of the eastern Dublin BART Station, the terms for repayment of this advance vary. If all of the parking for the eastern Dublin BART Station is on the north side of I-580, the advance must be paid with interest within 20 years to the extent that the City is legally able to impose or collect assessments, exactions, etc. , sufficient to repay the advance. If BART decides to split the parking between Dublin and Pleasanton, BART will advance the City of Dublin $1, 061, 000 on a long term basis under the same conditions discussed and $1, 224 , 000 which shall be repaid in full to BART by December 31, 1995. Mr. Ambrose advised that pursuant to a subsequent agreement between the City of Dublin and Alameda County, the County has guaranteed to repay the short term advance in the event that sufficient assessments from new development in the eastern Dublin area are not sufficient to pay the advance by December 31, 1995. yy 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* if CM - VOL 10 - 404 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 The only question at this point is how the BART agency will respond to the request. We want to be in a position where we can utilize all the funds within the timeframe of the agreement which is the 27th of March. Our current schedule with the eminent domain proceedings that we have initiated this evening, the City Attorney will be acting within the next week or so to apply for an order of possession. At the time that we apply for the order of possession, we have to have the money in hand for the acquisition. Staff hopes to present an actual contract to the Council to award by the second meeting in March. Mr. Ambrose advised that if they take the position that they will only give us advances as we incur expenses or obligations, we want to make certain that we have incurred enough obligations to utilize the entire amount. The Resolution of Intention results in about $1. 8 million of the $2 .285 million being used for right-of-way purposes. Once that application is made, we have, in essence, incurred that obligation. Ms. Silver advised that BART has 30 days to decide where to place the parking, but if they don't decide within the 30 days, the entire amount will be a long term advance. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the City Manager to request a $2 , 285, 000 advance in funds from BART for the Dublin Boulevard Extension Project. LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF THE ROTH AMENDMENT (660-50) Management Assistant Barker advised that Senator William Roth has introduced new language to amend the Defense Authorization Act which would clarify Section 8125 regarding conveying closed military bases to neighboring local communities. The National League of Cities has written all California Cities to muster support for this amendment. Cm. Jeffery advised that this amendment was as a result of the National League of Cities FAIR Committee recommendation. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Councii authorized the Mayor to execute letters to be sent to Congressmen Julian Dixon and Jerry Lewis in support of the Roth Amendment. REVIEW OF I-680 SOUNDWALL AESTHETICS (800-30) Public Works Director Thompson advised that Caltrans has requested that the City review the aesthetics of the soundwall proposed to be installed along the west side of I-680. A permanent block wall is being proposed to be built at its ultimate location in lieu of the movable walls which have been erected along other sections of I-680. A*w*A*w*A*A*A*A*A*A*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^* CM - VOL 10 - 405 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 Mr. Thompson advised that Staff prepared a draft response letter to Caltrans which essentially approves the design, but requests that the large retaining wall which supports the soundwall have a similar color and surface relief. Mr. Thompson suggested that the Council may also wish to request a more exotic design such as the changing pattern along I-680 in Walnut Creek or I-580 near Castro Valley. Mr. Thompson showed slides of various soundwalls located in the area. Mayor Snyder pointed out the important fact that there will be as much of the soundwall exposed toward the City as what faces the freeway. Mr. Thompson stated that the church as well as some back yards will see this side. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the Public Works Director to send the drafted letter to Caltrans. STATUS OF NONCONFORMING AND ILLEGAL SIGNS AS IDENTIFIED BY ORDINANCE RHO. 7-86 (400-30) Assistant Planner Kachadourian presented the Staff Report and advised that in May, 1986, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 7-86 which reorganized and modified the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance relating to City sign regulations. The Ordinance was subsequently amended in January, 1987 and September, 1988 . Mr. Kachadourian explained that the Ordinance requires that all signs and their supporting members rendered nonconforming by enactment of the Ordinance, including signs previously approved through a Variance and/or Conditional Use Permit process, shall be brought into compliance on or prior to 3 years from the effective date of the Ordinance. The Ordinance also allows the Planning Director to grant an additional 3 year extension to bring the signs into compliance. A comprehensive sign survey was completed in' 1988 which identified all nonconforming signs within the City. This survey identified 180 nonconforming signs. Businesses were notified in February, 1988 and again in June, 1989 of the need to bring the sign(s) into compliance, remove the sign(s) , or apply for a time extension for up to 3 years. A detail status list was prepared for Council review. A comprehensive list was completed in 1988 which identified 180 non-conforming business signs. A current summary identified 99 listings; 81 having been corrected. Of the total 180 non-conforming signs, 123 have been brought into compliance; 5 remain illegal; 52 currently have 3-year time extensions which will expire in July, 1992 . Several options were identified which the Council may consider upon the expiration of the amortization period for the nonconforming signs. These included: 1) An extension of the amortization periods; 2) Follow enforcement procedures established by State Law (Business and 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*A* i. if if if CM - VOL 10 - 406 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 Professions Code) ; or 3) Amend Sign Ordinance to include abatement procedures different from the State procedures and/or citation procedures for nonconforming signs which are not in compliance at the expiration of the amortization period. Cm. Jeffery stated she thought the State procedure was already written into the Ordinance. Ms. Silver stated the Ordinance doesn't actually define these types of non-conforming signs as being illegal. They're not listed within the section that defines what an illegal sign is. These types of signs, after the end of the amortization period would be maintained in violation so the Council could direct the institution of nuisance abatement provisions, but these provisions would be essentially the same as the provisions of the State Law. Ms. Silver advised that the second option would not be significantly different than what could probably be done under the Ordinance. She suggested that if the Council wished to pursue enforcement under the Ordinance that some amendments be made. As an alternative, the City could cite people for having a sign up that is not in conformance with the Ordinance, but the Ordinance would have to be amended. Cm. Burton advised that the Task Force had sent out a questionnaire to businesses and a good 50% asked for something to do with signs. They are working on an identity to the City which will include some kind of a theme. He felt it would be proper at this stage to wait until there is some kind of consensus from the Task Force in order that the Council can look at the theme. Signs would then be more in conformity with each other rather than just meeting certain sizes, shapes, and location. Cm. Burton indicated that 50 signs will need changes by July, 1992 . Cm. Jeffery pointed out that there are only 5 who haven't done anything. Cm. Burton stated he felt that in the interest of getting people to cooperate and for this to be a positive thing, a decision should be postponed until the factors mentioned are brought to the Council. The Task Force is in'the process now. He stated he would like to defer the due date from July, 1992 for a year. Ms. Silver stated this would extend the amortization period. Mayor Snyder felt they were discussing 2 separate issues. If Option #1 were selected, it would cover initially what the Council wanted to do. This would extend the amortization period. The Council should not just look at numbers, but rather at who has done what. When you go to a theme situation, it is an optional program. You don't require this, but you say this is what we'd like for you to consider in the future if you consider modifying your signs. The City's Sign Ordinance is mandatory. The City has fought this for 10 years, and Cm. Burton was one of the advocates a d v o c a t e s early on. Staff has been working A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A*A yA yyyyA yyA*A yA*A yyA*A yyA yyA yA yyyyA*A* CM - VOL 10 - 407 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 for a year to get everyone into compliance. It is only fair to those people who have dealt with it in the past that we go ahead and offer the amortization extension and finish the program. Cm. Burton questioned what he meant by amortization extension. Amortization is a write off period. Cm. Jeffery stated she did not feel that more time should be given. This would not be fair to those that have already complied. She felt the Council should go with Option #3 . Mayor Snyder stated relative to the sign program, it allows them time to recoup those costs to make modifications. Cm. Burton questioned how it would be extended. Mayor Snyder indicated that the Staff Report states, "If the Council decides to extend the amortization period, Staff and the City Attorney recommend the length of extension be based on current market value of signs rather than an across-the-board extension date. " JoEllen McKinsey stated the Chamber of Commerce had discussed this at their Board meetings and they also were concerned that some businesses have complied while others haven't. They thought perhaps it might be appropriate to have a forum where those that can can answer questions related to what can happen and to address concerns since there is such a short time left for them to comply. In order to keep the rapport that has been built in the last few years between the businesses, the Chamber and the Council, this would show an intent of good intention. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote, the Council agreed to, adopt Option #1, based on the current market value of the signs. Cm. Jeffery voted against this motion. Cm. Moffatt questioned what was meant by current values. Mr. Tong advised that the specific criteria has yet to be developed. Staff will come back with this criteria for further discussion. OTHER BUSINESS DHPA Old Murray School Roof Renovation (910-40) Mr. Ambrose advised that the roof on the old Murray School has been completed and it has been inspected. The bid came in over the amount indicated to the Council in June and during the construction process, there was considerable dryrot discovered to the rafters. Work was done to correct this. The total amount was about $2 , 200 over the amount estimated. The Council did not approve a line item budget, but rather a lump sum for DHPA. Staff intends to issue a payment check the following day. CM - VOL 10 - 408 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 BART Car Display (1060-30) Mr. Ambrose advised that BART will be providing a public display on Civic Plaza on Friday through Monday. A BART car with ramps and stairs will be available for the public to tour. A tent will be placed in the plaza area. Tri Valley Joint CitV Councils Meeting (140-80) Mr. Ambrose advised that Pleasanton will be hosting a meeting of the Tri-Valley Joint Councils on November 6th at 5: 30 p.m. , at the Pleasanton Library. This will not be a dinner meeting. Affordable housing concepts will be discussed. National League of Cities Trip Report (140-30) Cm. Jeffery advised the Council that it needs to watch the CDBG program. The Legislature tried to put in a regulation that would require a local match this year. It was put down, but they will probably try to put it back in in the future. This would impact our ability to collect impact fees. Some cities may be given timeline exemptions for compliance. The Savings & Loan bailout proposes to have local government committee in order to give us a better change of finding out what's going on. In Kentucky there is a move to merge city and county governments. New York just voted down regionalism with the main reason being loss of representation. Directly Elected Mayor (610-20) Cm. Burton stated he would like the City Council to consider having a Staff Report prepared in order to discuss the pros and cons of having a directly elected mayor with the question put on the June, 1992 ballot. The Council could discuss the procedures involved in order to determine if the citizens want this. 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 - 409 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991 Local Government Commission Conference Report (140-90) Cm. Burton advised that he attended a Local Government Commission conference in Yosemite recently and the Air Quality Resources Board is starting to get muscle. State and Federal Laws are already in place for them to take over some of our planning, and they are starting to maneuver. The automobile has become very big in the environmental issues. There are 800, 000 people coming into California every year. Sessions will be held in most areas in the future. Mr. Ambrose advised that he had received a fax today that Air Quality Management will be considering adoption of their plan this Wednesday. Cm. Burton reiterated that they have the law on their side already. ABAG General Assembly (140-10) Mayor Snyder advised that ABAG will be holding its General Assembly on November 21st. There is a strong movement starting to happen in small cities in trying to get people active with regard to regionalism. There are a lot of concerns out there. ABAG is committed to seeing this through. Mr. Ambrose advised that in discussing this at the Alameda County City Manager's Group, many have expressed concerns that many cities seem to be asleep on this whole issue. We seem to be getting very little support to deal with the whole process. It is important to remember that ABAG is our organization and some have expressed concern about continuing their membership in ABAG. Cm. Moffatt questioned if this would jeopardize the insurance pools. Mr. Ambrose advised that there has been discussion about cities providing their own. Cm. Jeffery felt that in attending their meetings, it appears that about 99% of the ,people are against this. Mr. Ambrose advised that the ABAG delegates must demand that the process be altered to give the member agencies a direct vote. Mayor Snyder stated just having returned from the Soviet Union, it's amazing that we can't learn the lesson they have learned. if 7f if .f CAM - VOL 10 - 410 f if Regular Meeting October 28, 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) ; and 2) Potential Litigation in accordance with Government Code Section 54956. 9 (c) . ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11: 05 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CM - VOL 10 - 411 Regular Meeting October 28, 1991