Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.2 Approve 04-17-1984 and 04-23-1984 Minutes (2) ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 17, 1984 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Tuesday, April 17 , 1984 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library . The meeting was called to order at 7 : 40 p.m: by Mayor Peter Snyder . ROLL CALL PRESENT : Councilmembers Drena , Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alleg- iance to the flag. CERTIFICATION OF ELECTION Results of the April 10 , 1984 election were presented. The persons voted for . at said election for Members of the City Council were : Pete Hegarty Eddie Jo Mack Torn McCormick Paul C . Moffatt Linda J . Jeffery Peter W. Snyder Georgean Vonheeder Harry W. Demmel The total number of votes cast was 1740 ( 65 absent voter ballots ) . Linda J . Jeffery was elected as Member of the City Council of said City for the full term of four years ; Peter W. Snyder was elected as Member of the City Council of said City for the full term of four years ; Pete Hegarty was elected as Member of the City Council of said City for the full term of two years ; Paul C. Moffatt was elected as Member of the City Council of said City for the full term of two years ; Georgean Vonheeder was elected as Member of the City Council of said City for the full term .of two years . On motion of Cm. Drena , seconded by Cm. Moffatt , and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted 22 CM-3-83 April 17, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 39-84 RECITING THE FACT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID CITY OF DUBLIN ON THE 10th DAY OF APRIL, 1984 , DECLARING THE RESULT THEREOF AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS ARE PROVIDED BY LAW OUTGOING COUNCILMEMBER CONGRATULATIONS Mayor Snyder congratulated Fred Drena and presented him with a plaque in honor of his City Council service . Everyone on the Council thanked Mr . Drena for the contributions he made during his short tenure . OATH OF OFFICE FOR NEWLY ELECTED COUNCILMEMBERS Richard Ambrose, City Clerk , administered the oath of office to the 5 newly elected Councilmembers : Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt , Snyder and Vonheeder . RECESS A short recess was called . All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened. ELECTION CONSOLIDATION City Attorney Nave explained that the City Council could, by ordinance, consolidate their election date . If this is done by ordinance, the result would be that no Councilmember ' s term shall be increased or decreased by more than 10 months . Mayor Snyder asked that the Council consider a consolidated election . Cm. Jeffery felt consolidation would be cost effective for Dublin and that voter turnout could possibly be higher . Cm. Jeffery felt consolidation with the November 1986 election would best serve Dublin . Cm. Hegarty felt that in a general election because there are more issues, the voter turnout would be higher . By consolidating with the statewide general election in November of even numbered years , the existing Council terms would be extended by 7 months . On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder , and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to consolidate the election with the November , 1986 General Election . The City Attorney explained that the ordinance must be approved by the Board of Supervisors and will be prepared for introduction at the April 23 , 1984 City Council meeting . CM-3-84 Adjourned Regular Meeting April 17, 1984 i CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIC TERMS FOR MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR Cm. Moffatt felt a policy related to a line of succession for Mayor and Vice Mayor would be desirable . All Councilmembers would have equal powers . The Mayor could be moderator at Council meetings and represent the Council in the community . Cm. Moffatt stated he felt a review process should be held after one year . Cm. Moffatt felt the people of Dublin have a right to say who they want as their Mayor , and he felt the process should be more formal than the Council deciding . Cm. Jeffery felt the Council should be making this decision with regard to who they wish as their representative, and that there should be a minimum term of two years . Cm. Vonheeder was opposed to a one year review and felt a two year term would be more desirable . City Attorney Nave read the Government Code on this subject and mentioned that Pleasanton had adopted a resolution whereby they choose a new Mayor each year . The Code states the Council must meet within a specified period of time following each election for the express purpose of reorganizing . Cm. Moffatt made a motion which was seconded by Cm. Hegarty, providing for an individual to serve as Mayor from now until November , 1986 with a review in November , 1985 . This motion was defeated due to NO votes cast by Cm. Jeffery, Cm. Vonheeder and Mayor Snyder . On motion of Cin. Vonheeder , seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to prepare a resolution to be presented at the next meeting stating the Mayor and Vice Mayor terms would be until November , 1986 . Mayor Snyder stated that to hold the office of Mayor was certainly a tremendous honor , especially for the new City of Dublin, which has been recognized as a fine attribute within Alameda County and surrounding counties . Mayor Snyder stated that he felt one of the best ways to reward someone for doing a good job is allowing them to continue in that position . Discussion was held with regard to whether a Mayor could serve consecutive terms . Cm. Hegarty felt a change would be a healthy thing for Dublin . ELECTION OF MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR City Attorney Nave explained that each Councilmember desiring to place a name in nomination should do so and this procedure could continue until there is a 3 member vote for someone . CM-3-85 Adjourned Regular Meeting April 17 , 1984 Cm . Moffatt nominated Cm. Hegarty and Cm. Vonheeder nominated Cm. Jeffery. With reference to Robert ' s Rules of Order , the question was raised as to whether a nomination requires a second. A short break was called to allow the City Attorney to determine if a nomination requires a motion and second. It was determined that a nomination does not require a second, but to close nominations once they are opened does require a second. The Council , therefore, must go back to the starting point and determine what rules they will follow. Anyone can make a motion prescribing the method to be used for nominations . Cm. Moffatt suggested entering all names into nomination. The City Attorney clarified that once a method is decided upon, there is no debate . On motion of Cm. Moffatt , seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majority vote, the Council entered all names into nomination . Voting NO on this motion was Cm. Jeffery and Cm. Vonheeder . On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder , and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to close nominations . Cm. Moffatt suggested that in order to be fair , voting should be in the same order as the names appeared on the ballot . Cm. Jeffery suggested and Cm. Moffatt agreed that names should be listed by the number of votes received . Cm. Jeffery received 2 votes . Mayor Snyder received 1 vote . Cm. Hegarty received 2 votes . Cm. Moffatt received 0 votes . Cm. Vonheeder received 0 votes . On motion of Cm. Moffatt , seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to determine new method of placing names in nomination. Cm. Vonheeder nominated Cm. Jeffery. Cm. Moffatt nominated Cm. Hegarty. On motion of Cm. Moffatt , seconded by Cm. Jeffery and by unanimous vote, the Council closed nominations . Cm. Hegarty received 2 votes . Cm. Jeffery received 2 votes . Mayor Snyder abstained from vote . Cm. Moffatt questioned whether or not Mayor Snyder could abstain or if he, as Chairman were required to break a tie vote . It was determined that Mayor Snyder could abstain from the vote, as anyone could . Following discussion, the Council agreed to rescind other methods for nomination . CM-3-86 Adjourned Regular Meeting April 17, 1984 On motion of Cm. Moffatt , seconded by Cm. Vonheeder , and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to reopen nominations in the previous manner . Cm . Moffatt nominated Cm. Hegarty. Cm. Vonheeder nominated Cm. Jeffery. Cm. Hegarty nominated Mayor Snyder . On motion of Cm. Vonheeder , seconded by Cm. Moffatt , and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to close nominations . Cm. Hegarty received 2 votes . Cm. Jeffery received 2 votes . Mayor Snyder received 1 vote . A member of the audience suggested that the Dublin voters had already decided who they wanted as Mayor by the top number of votes . Cm. Jeffery stated this was a decision that needed to be made by the Council , because Dublin did not have a directly elected Mayor . On motion of Mayor Snyder , seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote , the Council opened nominations . Cm. Vonheeder nominated Cm. Jeffery . Cm. Hegarty nominated Mayor Snyder . Cm. Moffatt nominated Cm. Hegarty. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder , seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote the Council agreed to close the nominations . Cm. Jeffery received 2 votes . Mayor Snyder received 1 vote . Cm. Hegarty received 2 votes . On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder , and by unanimous vote, the Council opened nominations . Cm. Hegarty nominated Cm. Moffatt . Cm. Vonheeder nominated Cm. Jeffery. Cm. Moffatt nominated Cm. Hegarty. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder , seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council closed the nominations . Cm. Moffatt received 0 votes . Cm. Jeffery received 2 votes . Cm. Hegarty received 2 votes . Mayor Snyder abstained from vote . A short recess was called . All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened . On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council opened nominations . CM-3-87 Adjourned Regular Meeting April 17, 1984 Cm. Vonheeder made a motion to elect Cm. Jeffery by acclamation . Council determined that her motion was out of order . Cm. Moffatt felt the motion was not out of order according to the way in which the Council decided they would make nominations . The City Attorney advised the Chair that the motion was out of order . Cm. Vonheeder nominated Cm. Jeffery. Cm. Moffatt nominated Mayor Snyder . On motion of Cm. Vonheeder , seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council closed nominations . Cm. Jeffery received 2 votes . Mayor Snyder received 3 votes . Mayor Snyder was declared Mayor of Dublin, to serve in such capacity until the next election, November , 1986 . On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council opened nominations for Vice Mayor . Cm. Vonheeder nominated Cm. Jeffery. Cm. Moffatt nominated Cm. Hegarty. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder , seconded by Cm. Moffatt , and by unanimous vote, the Council closed nominations . Cm. Jeffery received 2 votes . Cm. Hegarty received 3 votes . Cm. Hegarty was declared Vice Mayor of Dublin, to serve in such capacity until the next election , November , 1986 . PLANNING COMMISSION VACANCIES Effective May 7 , 1984 , the terms of Planning Commissioners William Tenery and Georgean Vonheeder will expire . Since Georgean Vonheeder has been elected to the City Council , there will be at least one vacancy on the Planning Commission . In the past , in accordance with City Council direction, Staff has advertised the Planning Commission vacancies . Staff requested that the City Council provide direction with respect to the advertisement of vacancies on the Planning Commission . Cm. Jeffery suggested choosing Planning Commissioners by individual Council appointment . Cm . Moffatt felt this would be a good idea , but expressed his desire to see continuity . CM-3-88 Adjourned Regular Meeting April 17, 1984 City Attorney Nave explained that anything that is done that changes the way in which Commissioners are appointed would need to be done by an amendment to the existing ordinance . The Council requested that the City Attorney report back at the next meeting insofar as what options they have . The Council directed Staff to begin advertising the openings as soon as possible and that the means of selection would be determined at the next meeting . PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION VACANCIES In October of 1983 , the City Council established the Park & Recreation Commission and adopted Bylaws and Rules of Procedure . In accordance with those rules of procedure , the terms of all of the Commission Members will have expired on April 17 , 1984 , since all Commission Member terms run concurrent with the term of the Councilmember who appointed each Commission Member . Each Councilmember has the option of reappointing the Commission Member , or appointing a new member to the Commission. Staff requested that the City Council provide direction on whether the City Council wishes to advertise any vacancies on the Park & Recreation Commission. Mayor Snyder requested that this item be brought back before the Council at its May 14 , 1984 meeting . On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to suspend the Park & Recreation Bylaws until the Council meeting on May 14 , 1984 . GENERAL PLAN HEARING DATE Dates were discussed with regard to continuing the Public Hearing for consideration of the General Plan . Council consensus was the evening of Thursday, May 10 , 1984 , '7 : 30 p.m. Staff was directed to secure a meeting location and the Dublin High School Little Theatre was suggested as a possible site . CM-3-89 Adjourned Regular Meeting April 17, 1984 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council , the meeting was adjourned at 10 : 50 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CM-3-90 Adjourned Regular Meeting April 17 , 1984 REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 23 , 1984 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, April 23 , 1984 in the meeting room of the San Miguel Room of Howard Johnson ' s Motor Lodge . The meeting was called to order at 7 : 42 p.m. by Mayor Peter Snyder . ROLL CALL PRESENT : Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt, Vonheeder and Mayor Snyder . CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the following were approved : Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 9 , 1984 ; Warrant Register in the amount of $332 , 142 . 32 . CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION Harry Demmel criticized the Council ' s prior meeting and the way in which the Mayor and Vice Mayor were selected. Mr . Demmel stated he hoped the Council would come up with a more democratic means of making these selections . Mayor Snyder stated he felt there was no problem with the process that was used and felt citizen ' s were pleased that no "backroom" decisions were made, but rather that everything was handled "up front" in a public meeting . VACANCY ON TRI-VALLEY COMMUNITY TELEVISION CORPORATION The City has received a letter from Lee Horner the staff representative to the Tri-Valley Community Television Corporation. Former Councilmember Dave Burton resigned as a member of the Board of Directors of the Tri-Valley Community Television Corporation . In accordance with that organization ' s bylaws , each city in the valley is entitled to one representative on the Board of Directors . Staff was asked to check the bylaws as they relate to Dublin residency requirement . On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder , and by unanimous vote, Staff was directed to advertisement the vacancy on the Board of Directors of the Tri-Valley Community Television Corporation. CM-3-83 REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23 , 1984 COUNTY PARAMEDIC PROGRAM On August 8 , 1983 at their regular City Council meeting the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 39-83 consenting to the inclusion of the City of Dublin in the formation of the County Service Area for Paramedic Emegency Medical Service . The County has been proceeding with the establishment of this District . The County has developed service level options for cities participating in this program. They have requested that the City advise them in writing of the service model chosen, no later than April 27 , 1984 . The specific details of the service were discussed and revised by local Fire Chiefs, City Managers, and elected officials of the affected cities . The initial program proposed by the County provided for two paramedics with each ambulance . Some of the cities involved in the program felt that the paramedic service would impact the provision of fire services and requested that three staff persons be available with each ambulance unit . Therefore , the County has established two service level options for cities participating in the paramedic program. The Program will also alter the City ' s future costs associated with ambulance dry-runs . At the present time the City is billed directly for these costs . During the first six months of 1983-84 the cost to the City was approximately $180 . 00 per month. The formation of the assessment district will eliminate this cost to the City. The funding will be derived from the assessment district . Service Level Options The first option is based on the original concept of a two person paramedic model . Also included would be the basic assessment to fund the Countywide system costs associated with the Paramedic Program. The projected assess- ment for this type of service would by approximately $5 . 73 per assessment unit per year . The County has offered the option of having an ambulance staff with two paramedics and one EMT-I Driver . The additional cost of this type of service would be an additional assesment of $2 . 38 per assessment unit per year . If this option is selected the total assessment for paramedic services would be approximately $8 . 11 per year . This represents a 41 .5 percent increase over the cost of the first option . Chief Phil Phillips of the Dublin San Ramon Services Distric Fire Department, has indicated that historically there has not been a problem with ambulance service impacting fire service in this area . Therefore, itis not recommended that the paramedics provide an additional staff person on the ambulance unit . Chief Phillips has indicated that DSRSD will monitor paramedic services once the program is initiated, and will report to the City Council if the program review shows a need for the higher level of staffing . The Council would then have the option of reviewing the data and determining whether an additional assessment is desirable at that time . CM-3-84 REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23 , 1984 Chief Phillips was present at the City Council meeting and indicated that Dublin could look forward to a very high level of service . On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to advise the County Administrator that the City of Dublin requests the two person private paramedic model . In addition, our response will indicate that the City of Dublin would like an assurance that a paramedic unit will be stationed within the Dublin City limits . BARRATT SAN JOSE, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING - PUBLIC HEARING On March 12 , 1984 , the City Council adopted a resolution approving the Barratt San Jose Planned Development Rezoning and introduced an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance . The Planned Development rezoning involves 40 residential condominiums and 44 residential townhouses at Silvergate Drive and San Ramon Road. The PD re- zoning includes a condition (General Provision #2 ) that requires the acquisi tion of the City property before any permits can be issued or physical work started. On March 23 , 1984 , Barratt requested that the second reading of the ordinance be continued to the April 23 , 1984 City Council meeting. Barratt stated that the purpose of the continuance was to allow time to formulate an offer to purchase City property along San Ramon Road. On March 26 , 1984 , the City Council continued the matter . On April 19 , 1984 Barratt met with Staff and discussed the purchase of City property . Based on discussions with Staff regarding area required, Barratt stated they will submit a formal written proposal to the City in the near future . While the sale of the City property is required prior to development, it can occur after adoption of the ordinance. The sale of City property would be brought back to the City Council for final action. Cm. Vonheeder questioned Provision 1 .G. stating her recollection from the Planning Commission was that the minimum square footage was to be 700 sq. ft . rather than 650 sq. ft . Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing . Nate Meeks , Barratt representative stated the discussion regarding the square footage was that the units would be between 650 and 750 square feet with an average of 700 square feet . Mr . Meeks respectfully requested adoption of the ordinance. John Alexander addressed the Council and had comments with regard to the Planning Commission discussion related to the square footage. CM-3-85 REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23 , 1984 Dick Hopkins , Calle Verde Road, expressed concerns related to building condominiums in an area where twice in 2 years there has been flooding . One of the units is in the direct flow of the flood waters . Brian Raley stated he had objections to an entrance into the project from San Ramon Road. This will create too many openings between Amador Valley Boulevard and Silvergate Drive. Stan Harrop, Calle Verde Road, expressed concern that the City Council was about to approve some experimental housing . Mr . Harrop presented the Council with a newspaper clipping indicating all is not well with similar projects . Cm. Moffatt ask Mr . Harrop what he would like to see on this site . Mr . Harrop responded that he did not have the answer , but did not want to see these mini barracks there. John Corallo felt there were other areas that this type of development could occur that would not infringe upon those people who live nearby. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing . Cm. Hegarty addressed some of the concerns expressed by residents , i .e . ingress/egress onto San Ramon Road; size of units that had been increased from 500 to 700 square feet ; the long discussions on zoning and the decision on whether to go for commercial office space or multi-family residential . Cm. Moffatt and Mayor Snyder asked the City Engineer to address the concern related to flooding . City Engineer Thompson indicated that the flooding problem could be resolved with proper engineering . Mayor Snyder reiterated the fact that all of the concerns voiced had been dealt with by various very knowledgeable people in their particular fields . The City had consulted with a number of individuals and firms for advice . The Council clarified the fact that the site development review process will come back before the Council for final approval . On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 08 - 84 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE REZONING OF THE REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN (BARRATT SAN JOSE) DUBLIN BOULEVARD TRAFFIC STUDY - PUBLIC HEARING The Dublin Boulevard traffic study has been undertaken, at the direction of the City Council , as part of the 1983-84 capital budget to determine deficiencies and remedies for the existing Dublin Boulevard improvements, as they are now configured with relation to traffic safety and capacity. CM-3-86 REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23 , 1984 On March 26 , a study session was noticed and held on this subject to acquaint the fronting property owners and general public as to the outcome and recommendations of the study. A Negative Declaration has been written on this item because of the recommendation for some minor widenings into private property for turn lanes and some elimination of direct access to businesses along the street . It is felt that the increase in safety and capacity afforded by these recommended improvements more than mitigates these negative concerns . A summary of recommended improvements were : 1 ) Traffic signals and Lighting A) Add signals at Clark Avenue and at Dublin Court . B ) Modify existing signals to allow for additional lanes and intersection configurations . C) Interconnect all signals for traffic progression. D) Install street lighting in the medians . 2 ) Stripe for 6 lanes between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway. This will include pavement widening at Crown Chevrolet to the existing adopted improvement line . 3 ) Medians A) Close median breaks just east of Amador Plaza and between Dublin Court and Dougherty Road . B ) Install protected left turn medians with the two new signal installations . C) Install median between Sierra Court and Dublin Court to restrict access at the most easterly Dublin Sports Grounds driveway. D) Relocate the median between Donlon Way and San Ramon Road and relocate the northerly bike path behind the sidewalk . 4 ) Widen the pavement for right-turn lanes westbound at San Ramon Road, both directions at Regional Street , southbound on Dougherty Road approaching Dublin Boulevard and westbound at Village Parkway. 5 ) Widen the pavement and provide sidewalks in those areas not already widened to the adopted 100 foot right-of-way. 6 ) Revise traffic striping in those areas indicated on the strip map to achieve the recommended study lanes . 7 ) Remove the traffic island at the northeast corner of Village Parkway and Dublin Boulevard . 8 ) Although not a part of the traffic study, it is proposed to landscape the medians and sidewalk areas . Cm. Vonheeder questioned if anyone had contacted DSRSD with regard to removing some of the street parking near the Sports Grounds. CM-3-87 REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23 , 1984 City Engineer Thompson responded that no recommendations for removing additional street parking was being discussed. Cm. Vonheeder felt someone should encourage the District to look at possibility of somehow increasing the number of parking spaces . Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing . Harry Demmel , from the Silvergate area, had questions regarding Sports Grounds access . Bob Wolverton, Crown Chevrolet did not feel that 6 lanes would resolve the traffic problem. Cm. Jeffery questioned the timing effect on signals . Chris Kinzel explained the minimum/maximum timing process . Rich Robbins, Shamrock Ford, felt that a portion of Dublin Boulevard being 4 lanes , then opening up into 6 lanes would be inappropriate. He felt the entire boulevard should be 6 lanes with the elimination of street parking . George Zika, Peppertree Road asked that the Council please not forget commuters when discussing the possible elimination of street parking . Kathy Hines , representing property owners at 6767 Dublin Boulevard objected to closing off left turn lanes . She felt that the lanes which now exist prove to be conducive to people shopping in Dublin rather than just quickly passing through . Additional access points onto I-580 were discussed. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing . On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 40 - 84 ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 84-019 DUBLIN BOULEVARD TRAFFIC STUDY On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council accepted the traffic study and directed Staff to include recommended traffic improvements into the 5 Year Capital Improvement Program for future consideration. BLANCARTE REZONING - PUBLIC HEARING Mark Blancarte, representing Retail Property Development, is proposing to rezone an approximately 40 , 000 sq ft parcel located at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street from H-1 (Highway Frontage) to C-1 CM-3-88 REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23 , 1984 (Retail Business ) . The purpose of the rezoning is to facilitate the development of a small retail building which is presently not permitted under the H-1 zoning classification . The general intent of the H-1 District is to -provide areas limited to highway-oriented businesses . The C-1 District is intended to provide areas for comparison retail shopping and office uses . The surrounding uses are retail or office in nature and are zoned C-1 . The proposed General Plan designates the property for retail and office uses . The major issue associated with the rezoning request relates to the Dublin Boulevard Traffic Study, which calls for an additional 12 feet of street frontage for a right turn lane . The applicant was aware that the necessary dedication and improvements to this vehicular lane could become a condition of approval during the Site Development Review process. Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing . No public comments were made. Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing . On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 41 - 84 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONCERNING PA 84-009 - BLANCARTE REZONING On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder , and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 42 - 84 APPROVING A REZONING CONCERNING PA 84-009 BLANCARTE REZONING and waived the reading and introduced an ordinance amending the zoning ordinance to permit the rezoning of real property within the City of Dublin. ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR ABATEMENT OF ZONING VIOLATIONS This ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council on April 9 , 1984 . There were no comments from the public. Section 8-106 . 3 of the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance as adopted by the City of Dublin provides that the District Attorney, on order of the Board of Supervisors shall institute proceedings for abatement of violations of the zoning ordinance . CM-3-89 REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23 , 1984 Section 8-106 . 4 through 8-106 . 8 add provisions which allow recovering all costs of abatement from property owner . These provisions are authorized by . Section 38773 of the Government Code, which authorizes the legislative body to abate any nuisance and by ordinance make the expense of abatement a lien against the property, and a personal obligation against the property owner . Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing . . No public comments were made . Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing . On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 09 - 84 AMENDING ARTICLE 9 of PART 1 of CHAPTER 2 of TITLE 8 AND RELATING TO ZONING ENFORCEMENT CONSOLIDATION OF CITY MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION The City Attorney presented an ordinance consolidating the City Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election. The City Attorney explained that this ordinance is subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County and would become effective 30 days after such approval . Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing . No public comments were made . Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing . On motion of Cm. Moffatt , seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and introduced an ordinance consolidating the City Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election. . RECESS A short recess was called. All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened . CM-3-90 REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23 , 1984 PLEASANTON/DUBLIN TRANSIT STUDY - FINAL REPORT The City has received the Pleasanton/Dublin Transit Study Final Report for review. As indicated in the Executive Summary, this study identifies an operating plan which would have the following characteristics : 1 ) BART bus express system would be streamlined 2 ) Paratransit services in the 3 valley communities would continue to be provided in the same manner as they are presently provided 3 ) Livermore would retain its Rideo System 4 ) Pleasanton and Dublin would have a local bus system which would consist of 4 routes and would provide local bus service to within 3 blocks of 85% of the residents of the City. In addition, these routes would also provide connections to practically all activity centers within the community. The exact route and route variations are more precisely described in Chapter 4 of the Final Report . The Transportation Consulting Team has also determined that the local bus service could be provided to the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton with no direct cost to either City. The cost of the transit system would be financed with Transportation Development Act funds and fairbox. revenues . The Final Report also recommends the formation of a Transit Authority that would consist of the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton and the County of Alameda . -Several key issues which are relative to the formation of a joint exercise of powers agreement and which require further discussion and negotiation among the 3 Cities and the County include 1) the composition of the Board of Directors ; 2 ) the voting powers of the Board; 3 ) the staffing of the Authority; 4 ) financing of start-up costs ; 5 ) definition and controls for the basic level of service ; 6 ) fallback position if the joint exercise of powers agreement is not formed. These issues are described in some detail in Chapter 5 and in the sample joint exercise of powers agreement ( see Appendix A) and the sample Bylaws of the Transit Authority ( see Appendix B ) . In order to implement the plan, the following activities are required: 1 ) finalize the joint exercise of powers agreement and adopt the bylaws 2 ) form an organizational committee of the joint exercise of powers authority 3 ) retain an interim general manager 4 ) identify immediate and long-range staffing levels and hire as needed 5 ) initiate operational and marketing elements of the plan 6 ) acquire vehicles Cm. Jeffery explained the logistics of how this proposal would work and answered questions related to the program. Cm. Jeffery suggested modifying to have 1 member from each City have 2 votes . Each City has the right of veto on decisions related to their particular jurisdiction .. CM-3-91 REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1984 Cm. Jeffery explained that the cities have the option of using Livermore ' s management or going outside . Livermore runs a very effective system. Mayor Snyder asked Cm. Jeffery to explain Livermore ' s part in this venture . Cm. Jeffery explained and stated that we would have the advantage of their expertise, but yet would retain local control . The buses would belong to Pleasanton and Dublin. The Consultant has indicated that these activities could be completed and service started by January, 1985 provided that the joint exercise of powers authority is established by July 1, 1984 and that the participants agree to the initial leasing of the vehicles . Possible definitions for certain words and phrases in the report were discussed. Cm. Jeffery was asked to check with the members on the Committee regarding clarification of definition of "affected jurisdiction" and the wording related to "majority requirement" . George Zika, Peppertree Road., questioned why it was necessary that the organizational committee of the joint exercise of powers authority representative be a City Councilmember . Cm. Jeffery clarified that it could be an elected person or a member of the public. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt , and by unanimous vote, the Council 1 ) approved in principle the Pleasanton/Dublin. Transit Study; 2 ) directed the City Council ' s representative on the Transit Study Policy Committee and the appropriate City Staff to work with representatives of the other participating jurisdictions to put in final form the Joint Powers Agreement and Bylaws and prepare an Implementation Plan and Schedule; and 3 ) directed Staff to submit the Joint Powers Agreement, the Bylaws and the Implementation Plan to the City Council for approval on or about July 1, 1984 . MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR TERMS OF OFFICE The City Attorney presented a draft resolution establishing the term of office for the Mayor and Vice Mayor . Cm. Jeffery indicated the Council had discussed this issue, and she had a problem with putting it in the form of a resolution . If the resolution were adopted, however , Cm. Jeffery indicated she would like to see the phrase added "with a 2 consecutive term limit" . Council consensus was that since the Council must reorganize after each election anyway, there was no need for adoption of this type of a resolution . CM-3-92 REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23 , 1984 APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS At its Special Meeting on April 17 , 1984 , the City Council requested a report on the legal requirements pertaining to the appointment of Planning Commissioners . The City Attorney read the code stating that the method of appointment and removal of Planning Commissioners was determined by local ordinance and the City Council has the authority to make these appointments in any manner they so desire . The City Attorney then read the current ordinance . Cm. Jeffery felt the appointments should be made by each Councilmember and that terms should coincide with the appointing Councilmember . Ratification by a majority of the Council was discussed, as was rules related to the removal of Planning Commissioners . Cm. Vonheeder expressed concerns with having individual appointments as opposed to appointments by group. Council consensus was that apne ntment and removal would be handled by the same rules . Harry Demmel, speaking from the audience, expressed concerns that it would be too easy for a Councilmember to remove a Planning Commissioner if they did not vote the way in which the Councilmember desired. Council response to this concern was that this would not happen, because the Council can appeal any decision made by the Planning Commission anyway. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majority vote, the Council agreed that Planning Commissioners would be directly appointed and removed by each individual Councilmember , subject to NO ratification by . the majority of the Council . The terms of office would coincide with the appointing Councilmember and in the event that a Councilmember left office , their replacement would have the right to retain the former Councilmember ' s appointment , or make an appointment of their own. Voting NO on this motion was Cm. Vonheeder . The City Attorney was directed to draft an amendment to the existing Ordinance incorporating the new rules and present amendment at the next regular Council meeting . RECREATION SUMMER PROGRAMS In accordance with the Park & Recreation Advisory Committee report approved by the City Council on September 23 , 1983 , Staff has developed several summer recreation programs for City Council consideration. These programs include the following : CM-3-93 REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23 , 1984 "TENDERFOOT SUMMER CAMP" Fee : $36 . 00 for each 16 hour session = $2 . 25 per hour . "DIRECTION DISCOVERY CAMP" Fee : $55 . 00 for each 25 hour session = $2 . 20 per hour . "THE SPORTS CLINICS" Fee : $25 . 00 per 7� hour clinic = $3 . 30 per hour . "THE VALLEY BASKETBALL CLINIC" Fee : $30 for 10 hours of instruction = $3 . 00 per hour . With a minimum enrollment for all four programs, the City would realize a net revenue of approximately $600 , with expenses totaling $9 , 119 and revenue totaling $9 , 715 . With a maximum enrollment for all four programs , the City would realize a net revenue of approximately $3 ,334 with $16 , 786 in expenses and revenue totaling $20 , 120 . The expenses identified above are direct program expenses and do not include the administrative cost of the Recreation Director or Secretary. The fee structure is comparable to fees being charged by other Recreation Departments in the area . Since summer recreation programs typically begin in one fiscal year and end in the following fiscal year , a budget transfer from the contingent. reserve will be required to fund the 1983-84 portion of the summer recreation program. The remaining costs for the summer recreation program will need to be budgeted in 1984-85 . The budget transfer ( see attached ) totaling $16 , 795 includes $9 , 130 for direct program costs and $7 ,665 for supplies and equipment necessary to set up the Recreation Department . Because of the recent election and the uncertainty of the status of the Park and Recreation Commission, the Commission has not had an opportunity to formally review the recommended programs . However , Staff has contacted the members of the Commission individually to solicit comments . Since the proposed summer programs commence on June 25 , 1984 it is critical that the City Council approve the programs proposed along with a budget transfer so that there is adequate time to prepare a brochure to advertise the programs, hire personnel and purchase necessary equipment and materials . If the City Council ' s decision is deferred until its next regular meeting, there would NOT be enough time to undertake the summer recreation programs proposed. Recreation Director Firth briefly explained and answered questions related to the programs being proposed . Cm. Jeffery complimented Ms . Firth on putting together this type of a program. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder , and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the recreation programs and authorized budget transfer . CM-3-94 REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1984 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT On August 2 , 1983 the City Council established a street lighting maintenance assessment district to supplant the County Service Area which has paid for the maintenance and energy cost of street lights within the City of Dublin. At that time a lawsuit testing the constitutionality of maintenance assessment districts was being tested in the City of San Jose . Because of that lawsuit, the City Council levied a zero assessment after forming the district and requested that the City be permitted to remain in the County Service Area for street lighting for another year . Last year Staff indicated that the estimated cost of maintenance and energy for the street lighting system within the City would be $125 , 000 for Fiscal Year 1983-84 . This figure was based on a number of street lights being added to the City ' s street lighting system and an estimated 5 percent increase in PG&E energy rates . Since that time, PG&E substantially 'reduced the energy rate charged for street lights owned by PG&E while at the same time increasing the rate charged to cities for city owned street lights . In addition, PG&E has not been able to install the street lights requested by the City within the timeframe anticipated by PG&E and Staff last August . As a result , the estimated cost that the County Service Area for street lighting :•;ill bear for the Dublin street lighting system for Fiscal Year 1983-84 is approximately $95 , 000 . Since the County Service Area budget was based on an estimated cost of $125 , 000 , it is quite likely that the assessments received by the County Service Area will exceed actual costs for 1983-84 . These funds should be available to the City for Fiscal 1984-85 to offset some of the city street lighting costs . In addition to the developments above, it is a strong possibility that a constitutional initiative will qualify for the November ballot which would preclude utilization of maintenance assessment districts which have been formed after August 15 , 1983 . This initiative is popularly referred to as the Jarvis Initiative . Since the City of Dublin formed its assessment district on August 2 , 1983 , there is a possiblity that the City may not be affected by the initiative . In any event, it is quite likely that there will be a substantial amount of litigation if the initiative passes . The following options were identified with respect to the financing of the city street lights : 1 ) Request the County to levy a zero assessment for Fiscal Year 1984-85 with the City levying the assessment directly to cover street lighting costs . Once collected, these funds then could be placed in a trust fund, pending the outcome of the Jarvis Initiative and any subsequent lawsuits . The risk to the City would be that the City may have to refund to the property owners those funds collected during the 1984-85 Fiscal Year if the Jarvis Initiative passes and is vindicated in the courts . 2 ) City would request the County to levy a zero assessment for the Fiscal Year and would then levy a direct assessment to cover street lighting maintenance costs and pay for these costs with the assessments collected. The risk would be that the City may have to refund the assessments out of the City ' s General Fund. CM-3-95 REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1984 S 3 ) Levy a zero assessment for the Dublin lighting district and request the County to again collect the funds under the County Service Area for lighting . This option would present no risk to the City, however the City would not have direct control over those funds collected by the County until such time that .the City withdrew from the County Service Area . Staff has discussed the various options with the District Legal Counsel, Jones Hall Hill and White, who has recommended if the City does levy the assessments, this money be placed in a trust fund and that the City pay the lighting bills out of the General Fund pending the outcome of the Jarvis Initiative . Cm. Jeffery requested that Staff analyze the possibilities of the various monetary impacts on the City. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to proceed with option number 1 by approving a resolution directing the engineer to prepare the annual report for the maintenance assessment district . This recommendation is based on the City ' s original commitment to eventually withdraw from the County Service Area and form its own district . The Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 43 - 84 DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ANNUAL REPORT FOR MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PLANNING CONFERENCE The American Planning Association (APA) National Conference is being held in Minneapolis-St .Paul from May 5-9 , 1984 . The conference offers a number of discussion sessions which can directly benefit Staff and the City in the areas of economic development and finance, computers and telecommunications, management and professional skills, transportation, urban design. The conference also provides an excellent opportunity for Staff to establish a network with other Planning Directors from the Bay Area and the nation to broaden its experiences and perspectives , and to learn from other 's successes and failures . The conference will last 5 days and cost $1 , 100 . Funds for this conference were included in the Planning budget . On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Planning Director , Larry Tong to attend the American Planning Association National Conference . CM-3-96 REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23 , 1984 OTHER BUSINESS General Plan Hearing Continuation City Manager Ambrose announced that not everyone felt the scheduled date of May 10th to be good for the continuation of the General Plan consideration by the Council . Following discussion, the date of May 15 , 1984 at 7 :30 p.m. was decided upon. Study Session for Contract Services Review City Manager Ambrose reported that he felt it appropriate for the Council to establish a date on which to conduct a study session to review contract services provided by various contractors . Council determined that it would conduct this special study session on May 21 , 1984 at 7 : 30 p.m. in the City Offices conference room. Capital Improvement Program Presentation City Manager reported that he would be involved in a presentation being sponsored by the Chamber of Commerge the following Thursday morning regarding the City ' s Capital Improvement Program. Neighborhood Watch Program Cm. Vonheeder had questiones related to a recently passed out form for identification of valuables as part of the Neighborhood Watch Program. She suggested mailing these forms to each resident of Dublin along with the soon to be published City Newsletter . Council Committee Appointments With the recent reorganization of the Council , it was necessary to reaffirm committee status regarding delegates and alternates on various committees . ACTEB/ACAP - Cm. Moffatt ( Delegate ) , Cm. Jeffery (Alternate ) Library Commission - Cm. Hegarty ( Delegate) , Tanya Clark (Alternate ) Tri-Valley Housing Authority - Cm. Hegarty ( Delegate) - No provision for alternate League Committee on Revenue & Taxation - Cm. Jeffery (Delegate) - No alternate Transit Study Policy Committee - Cm. Jeffery ( Delegate) - Cm. Vonheeder (Alternate ) CM-3-97 REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1984 Solid Waste Management Authority - Mayor Snyder ( Delegate) - Cm. Moffatt (Alternate) East Bay Division of the League of CA Cities .- Cm. Vonheeder ( Delegate) - Cm. Moffatt (Alternate) ABAG - Cm. Moffatt ( Delegate) - Cm. Jeffery (Alternate) Other committees were. standing committees with no vacancies existing . ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council , the meeting was adjourned at 11 : 20 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CM-3-98 REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1984