Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-23-1991 REGULAR MEETING - December 23, A regular meeting of the City Council of the Ci' on Monday, December 23, 1991, in the Council Ch; Civic Center. Snyder. ROLL CALL 1991 :y of Dublin was held ~mbers of the Dublin The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m., by Mayor PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder. ABSENT: NOne. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (610-20) Second Year Webelos Scout Ryan McLean, from Pack 546 led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. Ryan stated he enjoys going hiking, and every year they make pine derby cars and race them for fun. Visit From Santa Santa Claus arrived at the meeting and passed out candy canes to the City Council and Staff. Mayor Snyder advised that Santa was present as part of the Dublin San Ramon Lions Club program extended to special kids with hearing impairments. Santa signed for them. CUSTOMER SERVICE AWARD FOR JANUARY (150-90) City Manager Ambrose presented the January Customer Service Award to Raquel Bowen, Finance Technician II. Mr. Ambrose advised that Rocky was nominated by her peers for demonstrating exemplary customer service skills. Rocky was presented with a restaurant gift certificate and a coffee mug displaying the City's customer service motto. REPORT FROM MAYOR SNYDER REGARDING CLEAN SWEEP AWARD (150-80) Mayor Snyder advised that this award, which was awarded by the Tri- Valley Herald last year to Dave Burton, would be made at the January 13th City Council meeting. Roger Grossman was unable to attend this evening. * * * CM - VOL 10 - 458 Regular Meeting December 23, 1991 DRFA Gift Drive (585-40) Cm. Moffatt stated that last week, .the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority put ~out an SOS to get some presents to present to Arroyo Vista residents and others who did not have the ability to make Christmas as bright and happy as normal. They asked Mayor Snyder to make a few telephone calls and they were then almost inundated with gifts. DRFA indicated they had a few more gifts that could be utilized and wanted to know if anyone knew of any needy families. Anyone who knoWs a needy family can contact DRFA. Tri-Valley Joint Council Meeting (140-80) Cm. Jeffery stated she would like to add an item to the agenda to discuss the position of the Tri-Valley Joint Council to the Regional Governance process. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council agreed to add the item for discussion under other business. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 9, 1991; Accepted improvements constructed under Contract 91-08, Shannon Center Vinyl Floor Replacement and authorized $10,062.70 final payment to Gene's Flooring and Interiors (600-30); Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 131 - 91 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH REGIONAL AMBULANCE FOR INSTALLATION OF AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRE-EMPTION DEVICE, SOUTHBOUND CLARK AVENUE @ DUBLIN BOULEVARD (600-30) and aUthorized a $1,000 additional appropriation from new revenue to the Signals and Lighting budget; Accepted improvements constructed under Contract 91-04, Shannon Center Exterior Painting (600-30), authorized $753 final payment to D. C. Vient and authorized a $45.50 budget transfer from the Contingent Reserve; Authorized the Mayor to send a letter to Mary King, President of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, expressing concerns and requesting a process where meaningful dialog and discussion can occur regarding the proposed East County Area Plan (420-50); 'CM - VOL 10 - 459 Regular Meeting December 23, 1991 Authorized Staff to negotiate a Change Order for additional equipment for the Nielsen School Play Area (600-30); Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $492,270.63 (300-40); Reviewed and accepted the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Audit Report, and June Finance Report and authorized all necessary year end budget changeS (310-30) . ST. PATRICK'S DAY PARADE ROUTE (950-40) Recreation Director Lowart presented alternate parade routes as a result of Council direction at the December 9, 1991 City Council meeting. Ms. Lowart advised that a meeting was held with representatives from the Police, Public Works and Recreation Departments, as well as the Dublin-San Ramon Lions Club. Two routes were considered. Route A would utilize Dublin High School parking lot as the staging area. The parade would proceed south on Village Parkway, west on Dublin Boulevard and north on Amador Plaza Road where it would disband. Concerns with this route were that the DHS parking lot is too small to accommodate the number of entries in the parade and two main east-west arterials in town would be shut down. An alternative of proceeding west on AVB instead of Dublin Boulevard was discussed, but it was felt that this alternative would provide for too short of a parade route. Ms. Lowart advised that Route B was recommended. This route would utilize Amador Plaza Road as the staging area for the parade which woUld proceed east on Amador Valley Boulevard, south on Village Parkway, west on Dublin Boulevard, north on Golden Gate Drive (the street leading into Toys R Us) where it would disband. This route was favored by those in attendance as it allows for an adequate staging area and smooth traffic fl°w. In addition, Regional Street would remain open leaving access to the adjacent shopping areas. Cm. Burton qUestioned who was there to review Route B. Ms. Lowart advised that there were representatives present from Public Works and Police, plus a representative from the Lions Club. They made an informal poll and checked with the Chamber of Commerce regarding the business aspect. This route will not be on Regional Street at all. Cm. Burton questioned which side of Village Parkway the parade will be on. Ms. Lowart advised that it will go on the west side. cm. Moffatt stated he felt this was a great idea and he had no problems with it. ********************************************************************** CM - VOL 10 - 460 Regular Meeting December 23, 1991 Bill Burnham stated they concurred on the new route. It satisfies everyone and everyone seems to be happy with the new route. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved parade route B and authorized Staff to issue the parade permit. HISTORICAL STUDY GROUP (910-40) Recreation Director Lowart advised that a study group made up of representatives from the Amador-Livermore Valley Historical Society (ALVHS), Dublin Historical Preservation Association (DHPA), Dublin Cemetery, Inc. (DCI), Dublin Fine Arts Foundation (DFA), and representatives of the City Council (Cm. Burton and Cm. Moffatt) have 'met and are now seeking direction from the City Council related to ownership and preservation options of the Heritage Center. Ms. Lowart advised that Murray School is owned and operated by the Dublin Historical Preservation Association, however the proPerty is leased from the Dublin Cemetery, Inc. The Amador-Livermore Valley Historical Society owns St. Raymond's Church as well as the property immediately adjacent. The Dublin Cemetery is owned and operated by Dublin Cemetery, Inc. All three groups are non-profit organizations run by separate boards of directors. The ALVHS has proposed that the City purchase the Old St. Raymond'si Church building and property for $10,700. They have recently painted the church and done roof repairs totaling $10,000 and purchased a sewer permit for $700. DHPA has proposed that the City accept the Old Murray School as a gift, with conditions: 1) DHPA would be allowed to lease the building in order to operate historical programs and store historical artifacts; 2) DHPA would hope for continued support from the City to fund future projects and programs; 3) ownership would revert back to DHPA in the event that the City could no longer maintain the building; and 4) DHPA would'serve in an advisory capacity as the "historical arm" of the City. Representatives from DHPA have indicated that these conditions are negotiable and serve as a starting point for further discussions. DCI has proposed that the City take over the cemetery; however, the membership has not yet ratified the proposal. The proposed conditions for City takeover include: 1) restricted fee title; 2) guarantee of perpetual care; 3) qualified mortuary to handle burials; 4) no gatherings on grounds except guided tours and funerals; and 5) no alcohol on grounds. DCI has also indicated that these conditions are subject to further negotiation. Ms. Lowart summarized that if the Council is interested in pursuing acquisition of the Heritage Center, Staff should be instructed to prepare a fiscal analysis of the ongoing operational costs, as well as CM - VOL 10 - 461 Regular Meeting December 23, 1991 the structural repair costs required to maintain the facilities as public facilities. Cm. Jeffery stated her interpretation of the original goal of this group was to promote the historical area and to be involved with different things in Dublin. She did not recall that direction was given to the committee to get into any negotiations that would cost the City any money. She stated she was not prepared to discuss the issues presented relative to negotiating, but rather the issues originally assigned. Cm. Burton felt the issue that came before the Council was to promote. This word was changed from promote to preserve. For years, everyone has been concerned about preserving the historical significance. This is the first time all 3 groups have agreed to anything. Cm. Jeffery stated this was not the point. The goal was to assist the historical groups to get going so people would know about them. Cm. Howard stated she felt the goal was to get them together so we could put money in to help them. Mayor Snyder stated that in accordance with the Staff Report' at the conclusion of the initial meeting, the study group members concurred that the Heritage Center could best be served by combining the assets of each group under one owner with the City of Dublin being identified as the logical choice. He agreed with Cm. Jeffery that this wasn'.t the Council's direction to this study group. Cm. Moffatt pointed out that one of the Council's highest goals was to become more involved in the history of Dublin and to maintain the development and preservation of the historical elements in Dublin. The concept of putting it on the Goals & Objectives list did not necessarily mean that we would be spending money. This is a situation of whether we preserve history or destroy it. Cm. Jeffery stated she did not disagree, but this is not the point. She questioned where the authority came from for the group to start negotiating the properties. Cm. Moffatt stated this is not what happened. Dialogue came'forward and now it is up to the Council. In everything, you need a starting point. The committee was fact finding. Cm. Burton reiterated the fact that this is the first time the 3 groups have agreed. They look to the City as a possible solution. decisions have yet been made. All they are asking is for Staff to look at what the properties will coSt. No Mayor Snyder stated he felt the committee has the cart before the horse. What they are looking at is how to get the City to purchase the properties. This was not the goal originally. Mayor Snyder read from the October 3rd meeting minutes relative to statements made by Cm. Moffatt. He questioned how a member of the Council could be out CM - VOL 10 - 46Z Regular Meeting December 23, 1991 negotiating for the rest of the Council when the rest of the Council doesn't know what's going on. Obviously, the intent was to have the City purchase the property. Cm. Burton stated the group is doing the best it can to bring this to the City Council for some kind of a decision. Mayor Snyder referred to a comment made by Georgean Vonheeder in the September 4th minutes related to creating a non-profit corporation that would look for funding once a year if it is able. He expressed concern with the church facility and felt it should belong to some private corporation. Cm. Jeffery felt that Ms. Vonheeder's comments were something that the group could go back and look into. Cm. Jeffery made a motion which was seconded by Cm. Howard for the group to go back.and stick to the point of promotion and also look at Ms. Vonheeder's comments to see what could be worked out. Cm. Moffatt stated that it became very obvious that the historical society as a whole is having a hard time. The only way any city can maintain any continuity is for the city to take over control since they are always being asked for finance them. Many people came to this conclusion. He and Cm. Burton were very careful to,, note that these were only discussions and would have to go before the entire City Council for any further action. They are not negotiating. Mayor Snyder then questioned if their minutes had any level of accuracy. Cm. Burton made a substitute motion which was seconded by Cm. Moffatt to instruct Staff to prepare a fiscal analysis of the properties. Cm. Howard stated she would like to see both done at the same time. She would like to see what the costs would be and therefore, would like to combine both motions. Cm. Jeffery asked Staff what the costs and time constraints would be on a feasibility study. Mr. Ambrose advised that Mr. Taugher could take a look to determine what type of work would need to be done. We would then have to get some costs regarding repairs. In addition, Public Works would need to look at the annual operations maintenance. He stated he could not say how long it would take. Cm. JefferY felt the Council needed to look at what would have to be put off in order to do this. She was concerned regarding Staff's workload. Mayor Snyder stated if there were a non-profit corporation established, they could on an annual basis apply to the City and ask for money at some level to fill out their budget. Mr. Taugher did an CM - VOL 10 - 463 Regular Meeting De~ember Z3, 1991 analysis of the church years ago. A foundation was put under it some years ago. Mr. Ambrose advised that the analysis would look at it as a public facility. If Staff should look at it from both types of ownership, Staff would need that direction. Cm. Burton felt the City should see what the costs are. With regard to getting a non-profit organization, he questioned very much whether the Dublin Cemetery, Inc., would do this. These 3 organizations have not had a very good working relationship over the last few years. It is important to recognize that the church is probably the oldest wooden church in California. This is an opportunity to preserve it. Cm. Jeffery clarified that the Council is only talking about the process. Someone called for the question on the substitute motion. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote, the Council instructed Staff to prepare a fiscal analysis of the properties. Cm. Jeffery and Mayor Snyder voted against this motion. Cm. Jeffery felt the group should go back and look at the ways the history of Dublin can be promoted. Someone called for the question on the original motion. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by majority vote, the Council directed the committee to go back and work on the points related to promotion of the Heritage Center. Georgean Vonheeder's.comments should be reviewed in the minutes. Cm. Burton and Cm. Moffatt voted against this motion. Marie Cronin, President of DHPA stated the remarks in the minutes could have been prefaced with, "If the City could acquire the facilities..." It was an "if" concept. With regard to the umbrella non-profit corporation, the idea is good, but whether they could pull it off would have to be worked on. Many of them are members of all 3 organizations. It is doubtful that the Amador-Livermore Valley Historical Society would give their church to another foundation. Everything was done with a very positive and open feeling. There was no intention to force it down anyone's throat. This is not an easy thing to solve. They had hoped that for the City's tenth birthday that this could have been at least realized in concept. Dublin Reflections second printing is hot off the press. This is partly due to the advance by the City of about $2,500. The book will also be tied into the City's birthday celebration. Ms. Lowart clarified that the direction of the Council was to continue with the study group to identify alternate methods to promote the historical center and to look into long term and short term financial impacts. CM - VOL 10 - 464 Regular Meeting December 23, 1991 EXTENSTON OF ~IORTZ~.ATZON PERZOD FOR SZGNS ZDENTZFZED ON THE NONCONFOI~ZNG SZGN SU~Y LTST (400-30) Senior Planner O'Halloran presented the Staff Report and advised that on October 28th, the Council decided to allow for an extension of the amortization period for the existing nonconforming signs identified by .the Nonconforming Sign Summary List. This decision was a result of the recommendation by City Staff and the City Attorney that the length of an extension be based on the current market value of signs rather than an across-the-board extension date. Ms. O'Halloran explained the 3 options discussed in the Staff Report. Option #1 would utilize the existing Sign Ordinance; Option #2 would grant an across-the-bOard extension period; and Option ~3 would extend the amortization period based on the current market value. Regardless of which option the Council selects, the'enforcement procedures established in the Sign Ordinance would not be changed and would involve nuisance abatement proceedings upon expiration of theexisting or any newly granted extension period. Ms. O'Halloran advised that Staff recommended Option #1. Cm. Burton questioned if all signs must be in compliance by July of 1992. Ms. O'Halloran stated she thought the date was July 26, 1992. Cm. Burton questioned why the 42 signs haven't tried to comply and why it had taken so long. Ms. O'Halloran advised that the individual sign owners need to make applications. Staff has not contacted each one to find out exactly why they haven't. Cm. Burton advised that signs are something that make all businessmen nervous. Cm. Burton reviewed that 42 could apply for SDRs, 1 for a CUP, and 2 for Variance. Then only 2 would be illegal. He questioned if Staff was asking for a change in the Ordinance for just 2 people. Mr. Ambrose advised that they need to go through the process. They could be approved. Ms. O'Halloran stated that the 2 signs are located on frontages that are not their own. Cm. Moffatt asked if these 2 signs would require removal. Ms. O'Halloran advised that they have signage ,on other tenant's space. Mayor Snyder stated you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The City is simply trying to get everyone to comply. Staff CM - VOL 10 - 465 Regular Meeting December 23, 1991 will address letters to these companies and advise them what will be required to get their signs into conformance. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to utilize the existing Sign Ordinance provisions for compliance of the nonconforming signs. Mayor Snyder indicated that the Council would like to have monthly reports on how the process is going. These reports can be placed on the Consent Calendar. REVIEW .OF PROPOSED GARBAGE RATE ADJUSTMENT & SERVICE OPTIONS (810-30) Assistant City Manager Rankin presented the Staff Report and advised that the City had received 2 reports from the Joint Refuse Rate Review Committee. The first report focuses on management and operations of the City's garbage collection company (Oakland Scavenger Company OSC), and makes recommendations for improvements. The second report analyzes the company's request for a rate adjustment. The proposal includes reducing rates for Dublin residential service. Mr. Rankin explained that the Company's original request projected an increase of 13%. The findings of the detailed rate review suggest that Dublin can institute a rate reduction affecting most customers. This decrease is contingent upon City Council concurrence of a recommendation by the JRRRC to reduce the amount of profit from what is being requested by the Company. The amount will varydepending on the level and type of service. Mr. Rankin advised that if a rate decrease is implemented, the City will experience a decrease in Franchise Fee Revenue estimated at $3,490 annually. Mr. Rankin indicated that the focus of the Staff Report was to identify policy issues and request direction from Council. Staff will then use the information to prepare documents for consideration at a public hearing at the January 13, 1992 City Council meeting. State Law requires that a publicly noticed hearing occur prior to implementation of fees by the City. Under Management Audit Issues, Mr. Rankin discussed the collection crew size and semi-automated service. Cm. Jeffery questioned if the fee listed for the 2 clean ups per year was per month. Cm. Burton stated he thought the Council agreed to require everyone to have garbage pickup service several months ago. Mr. Rankin indicated that this would be discussed under the rate portion of the report. CM - VOL 10 - 466 Regular Meeting December 23, 1991 Under Rate Review, Mr. Rankin then discussed: 1) proposed methodology of distributing the balancing account; 2) proposed reduction to the Company's return on equity; 3) consideration of the number of special cleanups to be included in the rates; 4) proposed residential service and rate adjustments; and 5) proposed adjustments to commercial and large container rates. In summary, Mr. Rankin advised that unless the Council directed otherwise, Staff would proceed as follows: 1) The Management~Audit will be received and filed. Staff will continue to participate on the JRRRC to review the issues designated for further study. Staff will request that LiVermore Dublin Disposal provide additional information on the use of all two man crews in our community. 2) Staff will prepare the necessary rate resolutions for' consideration at the January 13, 1992 City Council meeting, based upon the proposed schedules presented. Also, appropriate notices regarding the hearing will be published as required by State Law. 3) Staff will prepare amendments to the Solid Waste Ordinance and Franchise Agreement necessary to implement mandatory garbage service. 4) Staff will work with the Company to institute the Super Recycler rate following formal action to establish a rate at the. January 13th public hearing. Cm. Moffatt asked if the rebate money from Measure D would reduce the rates. Mr. Rankin stated that it~must be used for resource recovery or recycling. Once the money has been received, staff will come back with some recommended ways of. using the money. Yes, the money may be used if we use it to offset the recycling fee. With regard to Cm. Jeffery's question, Mr. Rankin adVised that the residential cleanups are $ .30 per month per household. The issue is whether the City Council feels that 4 special cleanups per year is an appropriate number. Cm. Burton advised that it costs $1.00 per square foot to take loads to the dump. He recently took a load to the dump and it cost him $50, which was quite a shock. Mr. Rankin advised that Staff will work with the company more closely in order that we can determine what the actual costs are on the special cleanups. Mr. Rankin advised that Staff, at this time, is recommending a $6.30 uniform can rate. With regard to a senior citizen rate which the Council asked Staff to review, the problem is keeping track. The company can offer a super recycler rate which would be a 20 gallon can CM - VOL 10 - 467 Regular Meeting December 23, 1991 at a rate of $6.65, which would mean about a 19% reduction from the current rate. This amount includes the recycling fee. Mayor Snyder stated with regard to mandatory garbage service, the Council directed Staff to pursue this and bring back an Ordinance for Council discussion at a meeting in January. The majority of customers are one and two can customers, and the one can rate would be decreased about 8% and the 2 can decreased about 4%. A similar decrease is being considered on the Handy Hauler rates. The JRRRC is recommending in the future rate application that money be included to fund the work of the JRRRC. $250,000 was estimated for costs of cities to look at some of the technical issues. This would be spread over the 14 jurisdictions. It currently comes from the City's General Fund. Cm. Jeffery requested that Staff define mini can. Mr. Rankin advised that it would be 20 gallons and this size can is available at Orchard Supply Hardware. Cm. Moffatt asked if the waste stream falls in the water, does this mean there would be an increase in the rates for reduced use. He asked if this had been discussed. Mr. Rankin indicated that the whole issue is we are working toward reducing by 25%,and 50% and we need to look at what happens to the overhead cOsts. They looked at ways that the current system could be more cost efficient. The commercial areas hurt. waste in that when there is less commercial garbage, there is less revenue. The total revenue could be adjusted by 4.7% and then look at it again next year. If the revenue doesn't come in, it will be our responsibility to make up the difference. We assume that 5% of the current customers will switch to the mini can service. A most conservative view is being taken at this time. Dave MacDonald, ExecutiVe Vice President of~Oakland Scavenger Company stated City Staff did a good job in the presentation of a very complex rate application this year. With regard to the drop from 17% to 10% on return on equipment, they do not feel that this reflects where the economy actually is. They do not feel this is appropriate and they are protesting it with the rate revenue committee. He felt that it will be much more acceptable for the City of Dublin to break it down costs by jurisdictions. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the council directed Staff to prepare the necessary documents for consideratiOn at the January 13, 1992 City Council meeting. Cm. Burton complimented Staff for doing a good job on the report. CM - VOL 10 - 468 Regular Meeting December 23, 1991 DUBLIN BOULEV~D EXTENSION &SSESSMENT D~STR~CT 91-1 (360-40) Public Works Director Thompson advised that the Dublin Boulevard Extension project assessment district will allow properties that will benefit from improvementS to be assessed a portion of the costs based on the benefit to those parcels. Miscellaneous costs such as legal, engineering and bond discounts will be included in the assessments. The costs that are not directly benefiting properties in the District will be contributed by the City through a loan from BART, with the exception that these costs will be recovered through offsite fees and/or future assessment districts which include properties that benefit from the improvements. Money is budgeted in the present CIP to pay for the City's contribution to the District. Mr. Thompson advised that Staff recommended that an outside consultant determine the assessment cost spread because of the proposed new parcels in the District. John Heindel specializes in assessment district engineering and has previously performed a study for the City regarding the cost spread for Dublin Boulevard costs, as well as the 1-580 interchange costs. Mr. Heindel's charges are proposed to be on a time and material basis, not to exceed $10,000. These costs will be charged against the assessment district. Various Resolutions and documents were prepared by Robert Brunsell, who has been appointed Assessment District Counsel. Mr-,~ Thompson passed out a revised Exhibit 8, Resolution of Intention, The next step will be in early January to have the Engineer prepare a Preliminary Engineer's Report, and then schedule a pUblic hearing to hear protests. . Robert Brunsell, with the Law Firm of Sturgis, Ness, Brunsell & Sperry introduced himself and explained that all the resOlutions are largelY technical and mostly boilerplate. He pointed out that it is important to remember that all these steps are preliminary in nature. A public hearing is required by law on the report and all property owners must be notified. Cm. Moffatt advised that he was not clear as to what John Heindel's job will be. Mr. Brunsell explained that while he read over the report, it was beyond their jurisdiction to change it in any way. As a sPecialist, the Engineer should arrive at a proposal to fairly divide the coSts to each parcel relative to their benefit. He prepares maps and cost estimates. Mr. Thompson stated that Staff felt it was best to use an outside consultant to determine how the splits get done. Mr. Heindel is familiar with the work, and has some background working with the City of Dublin. Cm. Burton questioned why Scarlett Court properties had not been included. CM VOL 10 -'469 Regular Meeting December 23, 1991 Mr. Thompson advised that the City tried to get an assessment district going a few years ago, but couldn't get enough signatures. Mr. Moore is now trying to just do the north part. Cm. Burton questioned if it wouldn't be to their advantage to now be in it. Mr. Thompson advised that there was a problem With the Cadillac Dealership. Their building goes right through the middle and we would have to condemn their building and it wouldn't be worth it. Unless they receive a benefit, you really can't charge them. At some time in the future, people might want to use'the back parts of their properties. If the extended planning area comes in some properties might be needed to access this with additional lanes. Mr. Ambrose discussed the time constraints to get the road built. There was also discussion related to.other properties and the rules related to an assessment district. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 132 - 91 ACCEPTING PETITION FOR DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT91-1 AND DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO FILE PETITIONAND CERTIFICATE and RESOLUTION NO. 133 - 91 APPROVING BOUNDARY MAP FOR DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 91-1 AND DIRECTING CITY CLERK TO FILE BOUNDARY MAP WITH COUNTY RECORDER and RESOLUTION NO. 134 - 91 APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 91-1 AND APPOINTING JOHN HEINDEL AS ENGINEER OF WORK and RESOLUTION NO. 135 - 91 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER IMPROVEMENT IN DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 91-1 CM - VOL 10 - 470 Regular Meeting December 23, 1991 TEN YEAR CITYHOOD CELEBRATION (950-40) Recreation Director Lowart advised that a subcommittee was formed and has met over the past several months to develop preliminary plans for the ten year celebration. The plans include a dinner on Saturday. evening, February 1, 1992 at the Civic center, with a theme "Evening at the Civic". A limited number of tickets will be available with a suggested price of $37.50. The preliminary budget for this event is $8,900, which will be offset with revenue, of approximately $6,000. The Dublin Fine Arts Foundation is planning a reception to dedicate the tile wall in the plaza of the Dublin Civic Center. Commemorative tiles have been sold to members of the community as part of an ongoing fund-raising effort. The reception is tentatively scheduled for Friday, January 31, 1992. The preliminary budget for, this reception is $2,000. Ms. Lowart stated that a Fourth of July family picnic is in the preliminary planning stages to be held at the Dublin Sports Grounds. Local service clubs will be invited to participate in this event. Additional information will be presented to the Council in the future. Ms. Lowart advised that plans are well underway for the St. Patrick's Day Celebration. Merchants will be encouraged tohave promotions rolling back prices to 1982, or offering 10% discounts on merchandise. Cm. Burton stated he had a problem with the $37.50 price when we are using our own building. Ms. Lowart advised that using a hotel would include dinner, but not entertainment, plus we want to take advantage of our beautiful facility. Cm. Burton questioned how we would control who is invited. Ms. Lowart advised that the event has been advertised in the calendar and it will also be in the Recreation brochure. Attendance will definitely have to be limited. Cm. Moffatt asked if the 160 people who attend will be on a first come first served basis. Ms. Lowart responded yes, this is what the committee envisions. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the preliminary plans for the ten year celebration. 1992 GOALS & OBJECTIVES STUDY SESSION (100-80) City Manager Ambrose advised that during the month of February each year, the Council schedules a study session to review the Goals & Objectives of the previous year and to establish and prioritize future CM - VOL 10 - 471 Regular Meeting December 23, 1991 Goals & Objectives. This provides Staff with adequate time to incorporate the Council's direction in preparing the preliminary budget. By a Council consensus, the date of Tuesday, February 25, 1992 was selected for the Goals & Objectives Study Session meeting, to begin at 7:30 p.m. COMMENTS ON DOUGHERTY VALLEY GROWTH HANAGEMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (4Z0-50) Planning Director Tong advised that the City of San Ramon has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Dougherty Valley Growth Management and Specific Plan which would allow between 7,000 and 11,000 dwelling.units and land uses that support residential areas in the 6,000 acre Dougherty Valley area in unincorporated Contra Costa County. The land is owned by Shapell Industries, Windemere Properties and the U. S. Army. Mr. Tong advised that Contra Costa CountYis processing a separate land use development plan for the Dougherty Valley. The DEIR only addresses the City of San Ramon's plan and does not address Contra Costa County's plan. The City of San Ramon will accept written comments until January 7, 1992. Mr. Tong advised the Council that Staff had prepared a draft letter listing several concerns and significant deficiencies in the DEIR with regard to Traffic and Circulation, Population, Employment and Housing and Public Services and Utilities. Cm. Burton commended Staff for being able to decipher the plan and find all the omissions and errors in their analysis. Mr. Ambrose advised that San Ramon has no entitlement to the area at this time. If there are some political changes in the County, we want to make sure the City of Dublin responds in order to cover the City's interests. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to send the letter. OTHER BUSINESS Regional Governance Letter by Tri-Valley Joint Council (140-80) Cm. Jeffery requested that the letter from Pleasanton City Manager Acosta also be sent to the counties. We could suggest to the counties that they develop a program with which they are comfortable, and also invite them to the meetings. We should speak to the counties needs to be part of the process. CM - VOL 10 - 472 Regular Meeting December 23, 1991 Mr. Ambrose stated he thought it was made clear at the meeting that the counties would be excluded from this initial process. Cm. Jeffery suggested that we say the counties should do their organization~work. Cm. Moffatt stated he felt the counties have their minds made up and it really has no bearing on the General Assembly of ABAG. Cm. Jeffery pointed out that they can vote down anything. Mayor Snyder indicated that we need to come back with a consensus that all can agree on. They knew what was going to happen before the ABAG meeting. If you shut them out of the process, you are asking for problems down the line. Cm. Burton felt there is a lot of momentum going for regional government; it is now a buzzword. Mr. Ambrose stated the counties want land use control within cities. Cm. Burton stated he felt.that some type of regional government is coming. We should try to work together with the counties as we will have to compromise somewhere. cm. Jeffery stated the county is going to be a part of the process somehow and we should encourage them to do the same type of thing we are doing. On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by majority vote, the Council agreed to add a statement to the draft letter prepared by Pleasanton City Manager Acosta inviting counties to participate in a similar process that the cities are doing. The letter will be reviewed at the Tri-Valley Joint CoUncil meeting in Dublin on Monday, December 30th. Cm. MOffatt voted against this motion. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ~lebk CM - VOL 10 - 473 Regular Meeting December 23, 1991