HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.1 Approve 07-23-1984 Minutes (2) n
REGULAR MEETING — July 23, 1984
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on
Monday, July 23 , 1984 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting
was called to order at 7 : 37 p.m, by Mayor Peter Snyder .
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt, Vonheeder and Mayor
Snyder .
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alleg-
iance to the flag .
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous •,. te, the
following were approved: Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 9 , 1984 ;
Financial Report for Period Ending June 30 , 1984 (Pro-Forma) ; Awarded Bid,
Contract 84-3 , Dougherty Road Storm Drain Improvements to Plowman & Sons,
authorized Mayor to execute agreement ; Accepted improvements under Contract
84-2 , 1983-84 Sidewalk Repair Program, authorized final payment to Ambo
Concrete in the amount of $8 , 824 . 00 , and authorized a budget transfer in the
amount of $5 , 700 to the 1983-84 budget; Warrant Register in the amount of
$109 , 175 . 65 .
NOISE
George delaCruz , Sutton Lane addressed the Council with an ongoing problem of
noise coming from the location of the AM/PM Mini-Mart on Village Parkway and
Amador Valley Boulevard.
Cm. Jeffery questioned if an owner of a property could be ticketed for noise
coining from his property. Lt . Shores indicated he would check with the City
Attorney. .
Mayor Snyder felt the City should meet with the property owner .
City Manager Ambrose indicated that Staff would work with the City Attorney
in an effort to outline some type of alternatives to relieve this situation.
The information would be presented at the Council meeting of August 13th.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
• � CM-3-149
July 23 , 1984
I
PUBLIC HEARING
BARRATT SAN JOSE TENTATIVE MAP
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL
On April 18 , 1983 , the Planning Commission approved the Barratt San Jose
Tentative Map in conjunction with recommending approval for the Barratt San
Jose Planned Development Rezoning. The Silvertree Homeowner ' s Association
appealed the Planning Commission approval of .the Tentative Map. On May 23 ,
1983 , ' the City Council heard the Planned Development Rezoning and Tentative
;.' Map applications .: ,, City Council continued -the matters so that the San
Ramon 'Road ..Specific :Plan .could be prepared. After .;adoption of the .San Ramon
..Road Specific Plan, the applicant revised his proposal .- ' ' On February 6 , 1984 ,
the -Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the Planned
,`Development Rezoning . On April 23 , 1984, the City .Council approved the
"Rezon'ing .
At this time, the applicant is requesting approval of the Tentative Map which
is consistent with the approved Planned Development .
At the applicant ' s request, the City Council has allowed the application to
include about 0 . 7 acres of City property. The applicant has submitted a
formal offer for the property. The sale of the City property should be
completed before the Final Map is submitted. ' The sale of City property,
however, was handled as a separate action apart from the Tentative Map,
Cm. Vonheeder questioned the timing of the approval of the Tentative Map
before agreeing to sell the property.
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
Cin. Hegarty questioned the wording in #13 related to the fault zone, and
wanted to make sure everything was in agreement with what was discussed at
the recent General Plan Hearing, specifically related to disclosure.
Cm. -Jeffery indicated she would like to see this written in the deed so that
>it ' passes from owner to owner . Planning Director.-Tong stated that, in
accordance with #21, each purchaser must sign a statement indicating that
''they are aware of the fault zone.
•`Cm.' Hegarty expressed concern related to the timing of when the composition
of the wall along San .Ramon Road would be discussed. It was clarified that
the Council would review this at the time of the .Site Development Review.
Cm. Moffatt questioned if the $25 , 000 mentioned with regard to the traffic
signal represented the total amount or if this was Barratt 's 1/4 share. It
was clarified that the total signal would cost approximately $100 ,000 and 1/4
of that amount would be paid by Barratt .
Nate Meeks, representing Barratt San Jose was present at the meeting, along
with Rod Andrade from MacKay & Somps .
CM-3-150
Regular Meeting July 23, 1984
The Silvertree Homeowner ' s Association, the appellant, had no representative
at the meeting.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing .
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder , and by unanimous vote,
the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 69 - 84
APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP . 5131 CONCERNING
PA 82-033 BARRATT SAN JOSE
EARL ANTHONY BOWL
PUBLIC HEARING—APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On June 25 , 1984 , the City Council heard the appeal of the Planning
Commission action on PA 84-024 Earl Anthony Bowl Site Development Review
Modification. The City Council continued the item and directed staff to 1)
determine how much signage could be placed on the building and 2 ) gather
background material related to the County' s 1976 Site Development approval .
On July 9 , 1984 , at the applicant 's request, the City Council continued the
item until July 23 , 1984 .
Potential Signage on Building
The Zoning Ordinance provides for up to 600 square feet of signage for the
Bowling Alley, with certain restrictions on the amount of signage for each
side of the building and the amount of signage on a free standing sign. The
Zoning Ordinance further provides that the Site Development Review for the
Bowling Alley shall consider the location, size, height, material and
lighting on the signs .
1976 Alameda County Site Development Review Approval
The Site Development Review proposal that was approved by Alameda County in
September .1976 did not contain a sign program. - In approving the Site
Development Review, the County applied a Condition which required: "all
signing to be in conformance with the Dublin Regional Center . Design Policy
and the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance. No free standing signs will be
allowed. All building mounted signs subject to Planning Director approval
prior to obtaining a building permit. "
Basically, the Dublin Regional Center Design Policy provided that all
building-mounted signs be mounted below the roofline and take up no more than
5% of the total area of the building elevation they are mounted on.
In February 1977 , the County approved wall signs with a total of 348 square
feet.
CM-3-151
Regular Meeting July 23, 1984
The applicant proposed a 15 foot high, 80 square foot double faced free
standing sign at the northeastern corner of the site with a 25 . foot setback
from the street right of way and 45 feet from the northern property line.
The wall signs on the north elevation remain. Those signs on the east and
west elevations have been removed. The applicant has not indicated whether
the wall signs on the east and west side of the building will be replaced.
The .Planning Director and then on appeal, the Planning Commission,
conditionally approved a free standing low-profile sign rather than the
; proposed taller and larger sign. The low profile sign had the following
restrictions 1) Maximum sign area = 24 square feet 2) Maximum sign
i+ < :height ,6 feet
The precise location of the low profile sign along the street frontage was
not •specified . but'•staff felt that the best location for a low profile sign
would . "o' •utside of the 30 foot sight distance triangle just south of the
main entrance . to the Bowling Alley. At this location, the sign could fit
and
between the mature alder trees, underneath the existing tree canopy,
still be visible from vehicles approaching the main entrance along Regional
Street .
On July 19 , 1984 , the applicant phoned the Staff and proposed an alternative
.monument sign which would be slightly taller and slightly larger than a low
-profile .sign. The proposed monument sign would have a maximum height of 8 ' ,
a maximum length of 71 , and a maximum double-faced area of 42 sq ft . The
sign would be located just south of the main entrance to the bowling alley,
with clearance for vehicular safety.
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing . .
George Lane, representing aActive Signs addressed the Council.
A drawing of the proposed sign was presented. Concern was expressed that the
cement block base would block the view of motorists . Mr . Lane explained that
there was a 30 ' set back . Mr . Lane questioned the possibility of having 50 '
of red curb painted awould be a block
separate view
matter and wouldbnecessitate aIt
.,was explained that this
public hearing.
Mayor .Snyder „closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder , and by majority vote,
the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 70 - 84
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A
LOW-PROFILE, MONUMENT SIGN WITH MINOR REVISIONS AS A
MODIFICATION TO A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AT 6750 REGIONAL STREET
Voting NO on this motion was Cm. Jeffery.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CM-3-152
Regular Meeting July 23, 1984
PLAN LINE d saf etY
STUDY & needed e on DO-
CxEAgING TgAFFIC to identif Y plan 11 The plat
P pUGHEgTY gOAD is study t a press C�Y li ftabiish a bas
D urpose ° a d to a the not and and Will e
Thep ements d and hicallY • ects ,
imp 13 oule�ar is grail t pro? four 1
Dublin B rovemenmpr°vemeri With a f kin9�
.� r x 3''�` ,.` X17 these im apital i lj 0 f eet tside par Bol
•=r t ,,a � ,� f jq� {'�z r e
r �i, fUtur c osed at the °u dor Valle or a
t r -cop
o�ing Ama r d f
Way is p by rem out at Bouleva
�4=fra� ' { ter ht of 6 lanes . flair Dublin had
...:The r lg le t° oned tO ...and at. gam Ori at .
expwaY b s env' turn lane City °f San dicated ch stu
o f le left if the Staff in e tr of f i
a d°ub t quests tr d 3. copies of th
Moffat hts on been sent
thelr 9 had be e public hearing •s 6 lanes Th
a
Co st county
ri der Opened th 4 lanes neSr init ally e str
Mayor S y uestiOned to 6 la Width, b
rnold DurreT be W be 6 lanes In u
A should d all lane an City forc
it at it WOUl sus bike the Amer is allowed
be4 lanes p represent itiijjate plan
Fred HOUS font thaoughertY g°ad• e interimugfert
With the op on D tea to the
along Do
uck st d relat occur sse
tr Sion was ae�elOpment Parks disc lndi
Discus t me
that ing Camp Mr • auZa locat.
"� cY{ •?r _ ' = - � ,;ry such I . n.r repreCa ppark s• alterno e •
uza om thi
n B f r using nda
�; 4 �r ! , t ;+n =+ y,,•.� ? aptai exit de .usi Sec On
C lterriate o cons'
rice as a ing
a t tr a ear
� , : �,.w� ,�r y,, ,. x; ling - en ., I h
,' :: � $ n, r � • ^ ,',tti,� wi e existing the `pubs n Cm-
Keg
the r closed conded by d di
Snyder
�: : a'�a Mayor SnYde ,ref traffic study am Capital.
otion °f flea the into the 5 Ye
on urin. 1 a c vements iMP
traffic tion•
Coll S* *
CM-3-1
PUBLIC HEARING
GENERAL PLAN EXTENSION
On June 25 , 1984 , the City Council authorized Staff to request a General Plan
extension from the Director of the State Office of Planning and Research
(OPR) . On July 17 , 1984 , the City Council directed Staff to draft an
appropriate resolution requesting a one year extension from OPR. At the same
time, the City Council made a commitment to complete the General Plan within
90 days if at all possible.
Mayor lSnyder .opened the public hearing .
r?No" public'.cominents were made .
Mayor Snyder '-Closed the public hearing .
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder , seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote,
the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 71 - 84
REQUESTING GENERAL PLAN EXTENSION
SCA 23
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FROM LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
The League 'of California Cities has mailed a special notice to cities in
districts of Assembly members on the Ways and Means Committee .
This constitutional amendment would serve to protect the vehicle license fee
as a local revenue. Under the current system which provides statuatory
provision, the Legislature can change . the formula for distributing the fees
or eliminate their return to local governments . This has been the case when
the State has found a budget shortfall and required additional revenues . As
:..�: a constitutional amendment, the measure would be placed before the voters.
This •is an important step to create a stable source of revenues for local
governments.
-Assemblyman Baker is a *member of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee which
is scheduled to hear this legislation in mid-August. It is recommended that
the City Council direct the Mayor to notify Assemblyman Baker and the
members of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee of the City's position. A
proposed letter was drafted for Council consideration.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote,
the Council directed that the drafted letter be sent to Assemblyman Baker
and members of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee.
Cm. Jeffery suggested also sending a copy to the League.
CM-3-154
Regular Meeting July 23, 1984
SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY TO BARRATT SAN JOSE
As part of a revised Barratt San Jose proposal for 88 condominium dwelling
units ( 48 "townhouses" and 40 condos" ) , the applicant asked the City to enter
into negotiations for the sale of the land adjacent to San Ramon Road south
of Silvergate Drive . On December 12 , 1983 , the City Council directed Staff
to enter into negotiations and gave the applicant permission to incorporate
City right of way in their revised proposal .
After the public hearing before the Planning Commission, the City Council
approved a revised 84 dwelling Unit Planned Development Rezoning on March 12 ,
1984 . On April 23 , 1984, the City Council adopted the Ordinance amending the
Zoning Ordinance for the rezoning. Condition #2 of the Resolution approving
the rezoning states : "Acquisition of the City owned property proposed for
inclusion in this project shall be completed before any permits can be issued
for or physical work started on the subject property. "
Condition #1 of the draft resolution approving the Tentative Map states :
"Prior to filing the Final Map, or grading approval being given, the City
owned property shown within the proposed project shall be acquired from the
City. "
In order for the City Council to consider selling the surplus property to
Barratt San Jose, the Staff recommended that the following procedures be
used :
1 ) Adopt a resolution establishing surplus property and directing Staff to
notify appropriate agencies ( such as East Bay Regional Parks District and
State Resources Agency) ; 2 ) After expiration of the response period (not to
exceed 60 days) the City Council must adopt a resolution of intention to sell
the City property and setting a public hearing date to discuss the sale of
the property; 3 ) Take action on the sale of surplus property at the
established hearing .
City Attorney Nave discussed the timing of this procedure.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 72 - 84
ESTABLISHING SURPLUS PROPERTY AND DIRECTING STAFF
TO NOTIFY APPROPRIATE AGENCIES
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CM-3-155
Regular Meeting July 23, 1984
ACTEB/ACAP
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
At its meeting of March 26 , 1984 , the Dublin City Council rescinded a
resolution which it previously adopted approving an 'amendment to the Joint
Powers Agreement for participation in the Alameda County Training and
Employment Board (ACTEB)/Associated Community Action Program (ACAP) . This
action was take:n by the City Council to reduce the City' s potential
liability stemming from a lawsuit brought by the City of Berkeley against
the Alameda County Training and Employment Board and all of its members.
This lawsuit resulted from a dispute between the City of Berkeley and the
., Alameda County "Training and Employment Board over the amount of funding that
the City of Berkeley was to receive from this program and also the question
of Berkeley'.s ability to become a member of the Board.
Over the last` several months, the City of Berkeley and representatives from
the Alameda County Training and Employment Board have negotiated a
resolution to this dispute . This resolution is reflected in a "Side
Agreement" on which the City of Berkeley and ACTEB have agreed. There have
also been changes to the Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement which
reflect Berkeley' s status in the Consortium.
The settlement between ACTEB and Berkeley does not effect the allocation to
the Valley Cities, with the exception of the loss of one vote by the City of
Livermore on the ACTEB Board.
As indicated in the Staff Report in March of this year , this Amendment to
the Joint Powers Agreement will update the language of the JPA in order to
more accurately reflect the agency ' s funding sources , The Amendment will
also include the City of Dublin as well as all other member governments as
official signatories to the JPA. This Amendment will also combine the
current separate ACTEB and ACAP JPA' s into one consolidated agreement which
more accurately reflects the fact that ACTEB/ACAP is one, not two, agencies .
Since the problem with the City of Berkeley has been resolved and further ,
that this program does provide services to residents of the Valley, it is
Staff ' s recommendation that the City Council adopt the attached resolution
authorizing the Mayor to execute the Amendment to the Joint Powers
Agreement .
Cm. Moffatt explained that Dublin ' s liability would be 2 votes out of 100 or
2% .
On motion of Cm. Mcffatt , seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote,
the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 73 - 84
APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY TRAINING & EMPLOYMENT
BOARD/ASSOCIATED COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
CM-3-156
Regular Meeting July 23, 1984
PARK DEDICATION FUND POLICY
Prior to incorporation, the County of Alameda functioned as the Planning
Agency for the Dublin area. As part of its development review process and
in accordance with the County' s Subdivision Ordinance, the County required
residential developers to either dedicate land for park purposes or pay
fees in lieu of land dedication as a condition of development . . Lands were
dedicated and fees paid to the agency responsible for parks and recreation
in the Dublin area, which was the Dublin San Ramon Services District. This
practice continued after incorporation until the City Council determined
• . that , it was appropriate for the City to provide recreation services to
residents,- *.and the City Council further determined to revise the City' s
Subdivision Ordinance to provide that park dedication and park in-lieu fees
would be paid to the City on all residential developments approved by the
City after the effective date of the ordinance. As of . June 30 , -1984, the
City presently has $489 ,990 in park in-lieu fees and a commitment from the
developer of Amador Lakes to refurbish the tennis courts, lighting and
adjacent landscaping at a cost not to exceed $50 ,000 . The Dublin San Ramon
Services District has $167 ,346 in park in-lieu fees as of June 30 , 1984 .
Since the amendment of the City' s Subdivision Ordinance, the City Council
also directed Staff to work out a policy with the Dublin San Ramon Services
District regarding the expenditure of park in-lieu fees . Staff has met with
the General Manager of DSRSD and has drafted the attached policy for City
Council consideration.
Staff did not provide in the policy document for the input of the Park &
Recreation Commission regarding desired improvements on District facilities
prior to District and City Staff meeting because it has no bearing on the
City ' s relationship with the District, but is rather part of the City' s
internal decision making process . It is Staff ' s recommendation that the
Park & Recreation Commission, prior to January 1st of each year, provide the
City Council with a list of . desired park facility improvements, whether they
are on City, DSRSD or School District property. This will provide
sufficient time to undertake the negotiation process with DSRSD -Staff prior
to the formulation of each agency's annual budget.
The policy has been reviewed by the Park & Recreation Commission. The
Commission at its meeting of July 17, 1984 recommended that language be
added to the policy that representatives from the School Districts be
included in discussion where applicable.
Since this is a policy that addresses how park in-lieu fees are to be spent
and on DSRSD and the City have responsibility for these fees, it does not
seem appropriate to include language in the policy which would provide the
School Districts with input on how moneys which belong to their agencies are
spent . Further , any proposed expenditure of park in-lieu fees on School
District property would have to be agreed upon by the appropriate School
District prior to the City and DSRSD meeting to discuss priorities for the
expenditure of. those funds . The DSRSD General Manager concurs with the
position of the City Staff. .
CM-3-157
Regular Meeting July 23, 1984
Cm. Jeffery questioned situations where the City is considering making
improvements on school sites .
Cm. Vonheeder questioned if the City had to wait until January 1st to do
anything with the in-lieu fees . It was indicated that the City has already
proceeded with improvements to Kolb Park .
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder and by unanimous vote,
the Council approved the policy and directed Staff to forward its
recommendation to the Dublin San Ramon Services District .for consideration.
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
One year ago, the City Council formed a Citywide Street Lighting Assessment
District to replace the County ' s Lighting Service Area (as promised at
incorporation) .
It was decided in .1983-84 to levy a zero assessment due to pending
litigation in San Jose and to stay with the County Service Area for an
additional year .
The assessment now being :considered will replace the County Service Area
charges, however , the County has been requested to again levy a zero
assessment in 1984-85 . This .will keep open the option of returning to the
Service Area should the new Jarvis initiative require the dissolution of the
City of Dublin Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment .District .
The District diagram and method of determining assessments remains the same
as the previous year . Alternative A and B are included as the cost esti-
mates and are different in that Al-ternate B assumes that the City would
absorb the 1983-84 costs for setting up the District from General fund
monies .
The costs identified in Alternative A are $10 ,000 less than the budgeted
costs for 1983-84 . Alternative B costs are $33 ,500 less than last year .
This is primarily due to a PG&E rate reduction. This . reduction and the fact
that the Dublin formula is more beneficial to residential and small
commercial lots than the County' s formula, will reduce a single family rate
from approximately $24/year to about $19/year for Alternate A and about
$16/year for Alternate B .
The County -Assessor has not completed updating the tax rolls and this
preliminary Engineer ' s Report is based on the 1983-84 tax roll, with the
understanding that the City will have the roll in time for the Council
meeting of August 13 , 1984 . The County has given the City until this date
to approve the assessments .
To proceed with this District, the Council must preliminarily approve the
attached Engineer ' s Report and set August 13 , 1984 as a public hearing to
present and set the proposed assessments.
CM-3-158
July 23, 1984
Regular Meeting
It has also been recommended by the District Counsel that the City pay the
lighting costs out of the General Fund and put the collected revenues in a
trust fund pending the outcome of the Jarvis initiative in November .
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the
Council agreed on Alternate B, established a public hearing date of
August 13 , 1984, and adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 74 - 84
,, :;PRELIMINARILY .APPROVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, DECLARING INTENTION TO
`;ORDER LEVY '.AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS 'AND PROVIDING FOR
NOTICE OF HEARING THEREOF
CITY OF DUBLIN
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
TRANSIT AUTHORITY
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT & BYLAWS (JEPA)
The Pleasanton/Dublin Transit Study Policy Committee has developed a Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) and Bylaws for consideration by each
agency 's. Counci]./Board. The major features of these documents, along with
the recommendations of Councilmember Jeffery and the City Manager-' were
identified for the Council .
City Attorney Nave felt that the agreement, as submitted was unworkable.
Mr . Nave indicated he and the City Attorneys from Livermore and Pleasanton
were working on cleaning up the language of the document to make it a more
workable agreement .
City Attorney Nave indicated he had sent for and received a copy of the
agreement used in the Monterey/Salinas JPA and he felt that with minor
modifications, it addresses most of the issues .
City Attorney Nave pointed out some of the inadequacies, i .e. Dublin would
be financially locked in, even if we wanted to get out .
The Council directed Staff and the City Attorney to bring back the revised
draft JPA and present it to the Council for consideration at their regular
meeting on August 27 , 1984 .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CM-3-159
Regular Meeting July 23 , 1984
REVISION OF ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
The present procedure was adopted by the City Council on November 14 , 1983 ,
and provided that enforcement would be primarily on a complaint basis. This
resulted in problems whereby visible and obvious similar zoning violations in
the immediate vicinity of another zoning violation would not be investigated
because a complaint had not been registered.
Under the revised procedures, it is proposed to investigate all similar
violations that are visible from the site where a complaint is being
"investigated. It is also proposed to investigate .'.any similar violations
; pointed out to :the 'investigator .
Under the present procedures, enforcement actions are suspended after an
.. application for .Variance, Conditional Use Permit or other administrative
remedy has been."filed. It 'is proposed to revise this procedure so that
enforcement actions are not suspended where compliance can be obtained with
minimal effort or expenses, such as the removal of temporary signs, banners
and the elimination of outdoor display of merchandise. In many instances the
merchandise is moved into the building each night . Staff believes this type
of violation should not be allowed to continue just because an application
for approval of this activity is in process.
Discussion was held related to the wording on page 4 of the procedures with
regard to written notices in emergency sittuations . Consensus was that
elimination of the word "written" would clarify the intent .
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 75 84
ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ZONING,
BUILDING, AND HOUSING VIOLATIONS AND
CONSTRUCTION WORK WITHOUT PERMITS
ADOPTION OF JOB CLASSIFICATIONS
During the 1984-85 budget process, the City Council appropriated funds for
the addition of two full-time positions and one part-time position.
Pursuant to the Personnel System Rules, appropriate job descriptions must be
adopted.
The proposed resolution contains a job description for each of the following
positions : Crime Prevention Assistant (Part-Time) , Recreation Supervisor
and Senior Planner . These are consistent with the needs of the organization
and related jobs in other municipal agencies.
CM-3-160
Regular Meeting July 23, 1984
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote,
the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 76 - 84
AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN
Mayor Snyder requested that Staff prepare a table of organization chart with
names for the Council .
. ESTABLISHMENT OF SALARY .RANGES
FOR NEWLY AUTHORIZED POSITIONS
In conjunction with the development of the 1984-85 budget, the City Council
'approved the addition of the following positions Recreation Supervisor ,
Senior Planner and Crime Prevention Assistant (Part-Time) .
In accordance with the Personnel System Rules adopted by the City Council,
it is necesary to establish a salary range for each position. Staff has
taken . into consideration salaries paid to similar positions in comparable
municipal agencies. The recommended salaries have also been developed to
provide adequate separation between positions within the City of Dublin ' s
organization.
The approval of a salary range will allow Staff to proceed with the
recruitment process pursuant to the Personnel System Rules.
On motion of 'Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 77 - 84
AMENDING THE SALARY AND BENEFIT PLAN
FIXING EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION UNDER THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT
At its regular meeting of March 26 , 1984 , the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 32-84 , Electing to be Subject to Public Employees Medical
Care Act and Fixing the Employer ' s Contribution.
The effective date was established as May 1, 1984 . Due 'to the City's entry
into the program late in the fiscal year , it was anticipated that a premium
increase would be received. Attached is a listing of the changes for
insurance programs offered by PERS. The employees will also receive
additional choices through the offering of new plans .
It is recommended that the City Council authorize a maximum contribution of
$224 per month. This will provide a wide range of options for employees .
With the City ' s current 11 authorized full-time positions under the proposed
$224 limit, the City's maximum liability is $2,464/month plus contingency
CM-3-161
Regular Meeting July 23, 1984
fees . Based on the actual demographics of the organization and assuming the
maximum amount for vacant positions, the actual premium cost is approxi-
mately $1,915/month'. This is approximately 29% less than the total
potential liability. The proposed change would be effective September 1, _
1984 .
The proposed contribution of $224 per month will cover the cost of Blue
Cross/Blue Shield insurance for an employee and one dependant. If an
employee selects a plan costing more than this amount, the employee will pay
the difference.-,, The . City has also been advised that the contingency fees
for 1984-85 have ,been• reduced from 3 . 5% to 2 . 7% .
On motion of Cm. Hegarrty; seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
' RESOLUTION NO. 78 - 84
FIXING .THE EMPLOYER' S CONTRIBUTION UNDER THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT
and authorized a transfer from the Contingent Reserve in the amount of
$2, 475 .
RECREATION PROGRAM AND FEE POLICY
In order to facilitate the administrative processes relating to the
development of recreational services, it has been recognized by Staff that a
..guiding policy regulating the future development of programs and their
related fees is necessary.
The concept was presented to the Park & Recreation Commission on July 17 ,
1984 and they have endorsed the policy to require City Council approval of
any subsidized programs not indicated in the annual budget prior to the
development of said programs .
If a policy of this nature is not adopted, the operation of the- Recreation
Department will become quite cumbersome due to the need for City Council
approval of individual programs and classes already indicated in the annual
budget .
The adoption of this policy will allow for the efficient development of
programs and services with appropriate review by the Park & Recreation
Commission and City Council as required.
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder , seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote,
the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 79 - 84
ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
RECREATION PROGRAMS AND ASSOCIATED FEES
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CM-3-162
Regular Meeting July 23, 1984
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL CAPACITY
In 1974 the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton and the Dublin San Ramon
Services District (DSRSD) formed the Livermore-Amador Valley Water
Management Authority (LAVWMA) , a joint powers agency, for the purpose of
implementing a sewage disposal system and, if necessary, sewage treatment .
The joint powers agreement, as amended May 31, 1977, provided that the
disposal system's maximum capacity would be 15 .62 million gpd. In the event
there .'was excess capacity in the 15 .62 million gpd, the joint powers
agreement -allowed the original member agencies to purchase any unused
capacity 'up .to 1 million gpd. The City of Pleasanton was guaranteed 500 ,000
gpd of -the . unused capacity (Para .' .XIA( 8 ) ) . The joint powers agreement
further provided that such unused capacity could be purchased for
" industrial ( including non-retail commercial) purposes" but only after voter
approval of , the purchasing entities ' electorate. .
In February, 1980 , .after Pleasanton had requested its additional 500 ,000
gpd, Livermore requested the right to purchase the remaining 500 ,000 gpd of
the unused sewer capacity in LAVWMA's sewage disposal system. At the LAVWMA
Board meeting of March 20 , - 1980 , the Board discussed the allocation of the
500,000 gpd unused capacity. Because DSRSD, as a community services
district created under the provision of Government Code Section 61000 , et
seq. , lacked land use authority ( i .e . , zoning authority) , and lacked
statuatory authority to acquire sewage capacity for a specific use, DSRSD
turned to the County of Alameda for advice: The County indicated to thp�.
LAVWMA Board that it sought to acquire 100 ,000 gdp of the unused capacity
for the unincorporated area of Alameda County within DSRSD' s boundaries.
The LAVWMA Board voted to authorize Livermore to acquire 400 ,000 gpd and
DSRSD to acquire 100 ,000 gpd. (LAVWMA minutes of March 20 , 1980 . )
Voter approval of the purchase of the 100 ,000 gpd was required by the LAVWMA
joint powers agreement. The County of Alameda requested DSRSD to call a
district-wide advisory election for the November ,. 1980 election. The
question submitted to the voters within DSRSD was:
"Shall the County of Alameda acquire from the Livermore-Amador Valley
Water Management Agency 100 ,000 gallons of additional pipeline capacity
for industrial ( including non-retail commercial) uses to serve that
portion of the County of Alameda lying within the Dublin San Ramon
Services District? All costs relating to such expansion for private
use shall be paid by private developers with no cost to the taxpayer . "
The Board of Supervisors ' ordinance (Ord. No. 80-77 , Section V) calling the
election noted that DSRSD was entitled to acquire the 100 ,000 gpd for
industrial purposes, but Alameda County proposed to acquire the 100,000 gpd
capacity through DSRSD because DSRSD lacked the power to industrially zone
real property within its jurisdiction. (Only DSRSD, Livermore and
Pleasanton were authorized, pursuant to the LAVWMA joing powers agreement,
to purchase the 1 million gpd unused sewer capacity. Hence DSRSD purchased
the 100 ,000 gpd capacity on behalf of Alameda County. )
CM-3-163
Regular Meeting July 23, 1984
By agreement dated September 11, 1980 , between LAVWMA and DSRSD, DSRSD
purchased 100 ,000 gpd of unused sewer capacity in LAVWMA' s pipeline (Article
1 ) . The purchase of the unused capacity was subject to voter approval by
the DSRSD electorate (Article 5 ) . The agreement contemplated that DSRSD
would sell its right to the 10 ,000 gpd to Alameda County due to DSRSD 's lack
of land use controls (Article 10 ) . Provision was made for DSRSD to pay all
costs associated with the increased sewer capacity in LAVWMA's disposal
facilities (Article 2 ) .
The voters of DSRSD approved the purchase of the 100 ,000 gpd capacity in
November, 1980 .
By' 'agreement dated -June 2 , .1981, 'and amended on January 18 , 1983 , between
DSRSD and the County of Alameda,. the District (DSRSD) agreed to expand its
sewage treatment plant ,to accommodate the additional 100 ,000 gpd disposal
capacity and agreed .to reserve 100 , 000 gpd of treatment capacity "for users
to .be designated by County" . (Sections 1 and 2 ) DSRSD agreed to enter into
all necessary agreements with LAVWMA to obtain 100 ,000 gpd "added capacity
in LAVWMA facilities for County' s users within the District" , and County
agreed to pay its proportionate share ( i .e. , 10% ) of LAVWMA's costs incurred
in connection with the additional 1 million gpd (Pleasanton 500 ,000 ,
Livermore 400 ,000 and DSRSD/County 100 , 000 ) capacity. At the time of this
agreement (June 2 , 1981 ) Dublin was not yet incorporated, hence the
reference to "County' s users within the District" encompassed the area now
within the City of Dublin.
DSRSD thus purchased the right to the 100 ,000 gpd sewer disposal capacity
from LAVWMA with the restriction that it was limited to territory within
DSRSD and for industrial ( including non-retail commercial ) uses. (At that
time ' Dublin was not incorporated. The territory now within Dublin was, of
course, the major portion of the area within DSRSD. ) DSRSD then agreed with
Alameda County to ( 1) expand the District 's sewage treatment plant to
accommodate the 100 , 000 gpd and reserve the additional 100 ,000 treatment
capacity for users designated by Alameda County, and ( 2 ) enter into all
necessary agreements with LAVWMA to obtain the additional 100 ,000 gpd
.disposal capacity ."for County's users within the District" . .(The September
11, 1980 , agreement between LAVWMA and DSRSD required written consent of
LAVWMA to assign it . Alameda County agreed to pay its proportionate costs
for the expanded sewage treatment directly to DSRSD. The County agreed to
reimburse DSRSD for its costs (payable by DSRSD to LAVWMA) for the
additional 100,000 gpd disposal capacity.
During 1983 , the expansion of the DSRSD treatment plant was completed. The
total cost to the County for its share of the expansion and the additional
disposal capacity is broken down as follows :
Treatment Plant Expansion $330 , 287 . 95
Export System Expansion 149 ,088 . 27
$479 ,376 . 22
CM-3-164
Regular Meeting July 23 , 1984
It was the understanding of all parties involved at the time of the advisory
election that the additional 100 ,000 gallons for industrial (non-retail
commercial) sewage capacity was to be used for the in-fill of Dublin.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote,
the Council agreed that the City would offer the County $479 ,376 . 22 plus
interest for the period in which the expense had been incurred.
OTHER BUSINESS
City Manager Ambrose indicated to the Council that Staff had not had a chance
to prepare the necessary information and therefore, there would be no closed
session at this meeting .
Arroyo Vista
Mayor Snyder indicated he had recently communicated with the Mayor of
Pleasanton regarding the operation of Arroyo Vista and the possibility of
Dublin taking over this operation. There would be many legalities to
consider on the parts of both Dublin and Pleasanton.
On motion of Cm. Vonheeer , seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote,
the Council authorized the City Attorney to proceed with investigating the
various legalities related to Dublin taking over the .operation of Arroyo
Vista .
Alameda County Transit Committee
Cm. Jeffery reported that she had attended the Alameda County Transit
Committee meeting . The intent of the County was to make all members aware of
projects going on in all communities .
League Board Meeting
Cm. Vonheeder indicated she had recently attended the League of California
Cities East Bay Division Board meeting. Cities were asked to draft a
resolution re SCA 23 . A list of nominations for the East Bay Division
officers was presented. At the October meeting, there will be a Jarvis
initiative forum meeting.
Cable TV
Cm. Hegarty indicated he had attended' the Cable TV meeting on July 18th.
Another meeting has been scheduled with the Consultant and the Advisory
Committee.
CM-3-165
Regular Meeting July 23, 1984
League Conference/Anaheim/September
Cm. Vonheeder questioned if the Council planned to attend the annual League
conference being held in Anaheim in September . All Councilmembers indicated
they would most likely attend.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was
adjourned at - 10 : 28 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CM-3-166
Regular Meeting July 23, 1984