HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 Approve 11-28-1983 and 03-12-1984 Minutes REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 28, 1983
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on
Monday, November 28 , 1983 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The
meeting was called to order- at 7 . 35 p.m. by Mayor 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 .
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Cm. Drena, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the
Council approved the minutes of the regular meeting of September 26 , 1983 ;
Warrant Register in the amount of $187 ,614 .67 ; Financial Report for Period
Ending September 30 , 1983 ; Waived reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 14 - 83
AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE REZONING
OF REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN
(K & S Company) ;
Waived reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 15 - 83
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE REZONING
OF REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN
(H & H Development Company - Formerly Dublin Green)
ANNUAL CITYWIDE CELEBRATION
At its meeting of November 22 , 1983 , the Park & Recreation Commission
discussed various goals and objectives which it might undertake in the next 6
months . One goal which the Park & Recreation Commission believed worthy of
consideration by the City Council and had been presented to the City Council
as part of the Park & Recreation Advisory Committee ' s report, was the concept
of a City sponsored annual community celebration.
... .. 1,
i
CM-2-215
�. November 28 , 1983
The Park & Recreation Commission respectfully requested that the City Council
consider authorizing the Commission to contact all of the community groups
and organizations within the City to attend a meeting for the purpose of
discussing and ascertaining the level of interest among the community based
organizations in participating in a Citywide event .
Mayor Snyder indicated the Lyon ' s Club has reserved Shannon Center on St .
Patrick ' s Day and various activies are being planned . There will be food and
entertainment , etc .
On motion of Cm. Moffatt , seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the
Council authorized the Park & Recreation Commission to contact these groups
and to schedule a meeting in which a representative from each would be
invited for the purpose of discussing and possible planning a Citywide event .
ASSEMBLY BILL 4
COMMUNICATION FROM R. ROBINSON, CHAIRMAN, ASSEMBLY MAJORITY CAUCUS
The City has received a letter from Richard Robinson, Chairman of the
Assembly Majority Caucus re Assembly Bill #4 which he has recently
introduced. AB4 would authorize counties and in the absence of action on the
part of the county, cities to impose a local option 1G sales tax effective
July 1, 1984 . Those state discretionary subventions which the City now
. receives would be repealed on that date . The State, in turn, would reduce
its state sales tax by 1� if all 58 counties adopt the local tax . The State
would reduce the sales tax an additional 1/2G in 1984-85 if the Governor
certifies that there will be a 3% reserve in the State ' s budget at the end of
that fiscal year .
According to the legislative analyst estimates which are attached to the
letter from Assemblyman Robinson dated November 7 , 1983 , the City of Dublin
would stand to gain approximately $50 , 000 over and above the subventions it
presently receives from the State if this piece of legislation was approved.
After discussion, Council directed Staff to prepare a letter to Assemblyman
Richard Robinson conveying their opposition to this proposal. AB4' would
place an unfair burden on local governments . The anticipated outcome if this
legislation were adopted is that sales tax would be increased and the
responsibility for doing so would be placed on local lawmakers . In exchange,
the benefit provided to local governments would be minimal, while school
districts and counties are offered the greatest advantage for realizing
increased revenues .
SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (AREA 3 ) - PUBLIC HEARING
On August 22 , 1983 , the City Council approved the San Ramon Road Specific
Plan for four of the five defined areas . Area 3 of the Specific Plan covers
approximately 13 acres, generally west of San Ramon Road at Amador Valley
Boulevard. The Specific Plan designates Area 3 for retail commercial shopper
goods uses, and for eating and drinking establishments.
CM-2-216
Regular Meeting November 28 , 1983
Mr . Richard Jeha of Festival Enterprises , Inc. , is requesting an amendment to
the Specific Plan to allow 25% to 30% personal service, financial, and office
uses in Area 3 . Mr . Jeha is proposing a shopping center which, he says, will
be like the Town & Country Center in Palo Alto.
Cm. Jeffery questioned how the 20% would equate in square footage.
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing .
Richard Jeha, 211 valley Oaks Drive, Alamo, owner & applicant addressed the
Council . He felt that Staff comments applied to very large centers .
Mr . Jeha indicated that the Danville Livery & Mercantile Center consists of
approximately 30 acres and is doing very poorly.
Mr . Len Magnani , Western Development Services, addressed the Council, stating
he felt the overall goal the City Council wished to achieve (a quality
shopping center ) could be reached by a 25%-30% services mixture.
. Mr . Roy Moret, an adjacent property owner in this area stated he felt these
restrictions were undue and not based on good sense.
Dave Burton, Dillon Way, stated he felt the City was getting into a numbers
game and that the real perspective had been lost . Mr . Burton suggested the
City Council reconsider their decision and let the marketplace resolve. He
didn ' t feel it appropriate that the business community be restricted by
artificial barriers . Mr . Burton questioned how the City could possibly _
enforce . this type of a decision . Mr . Burton summarized his request that the
parcel be put into a C-1 zoning with restrictions .
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing .
Mayor Snyder stated he was an advocate of mixture in this area and felt some
of the restrictions appear to be unreasonable.
Cm. Moffatt felt the entire parcel should be given .a C-1 classification with
restrictions .
Cm. Jeffery felt some limitation of percentage should be decided upon. .
Cm. Hegarty felt the Council should strive. to attain the original goal as set
;. by the San Ramon Road Specific Plan_ ,
Cm.' Drena+ felt the Specific Plan for San Ramon Road should stand, as adopted.
Mayor Snyder felt the developer should be allowed at least 25% of non-shopper
oriented uses.
Cm. Moffatt made a motion to change the zoning to a C-1 area. The motion
died for lack of a second. �.
Cm. Moffatt made a motion to allow 50% non-shopper oriented uses . The motion
died for lack of a second.
CM-2-217
Regular Meeting November 28, 1983
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by majority vote, the
Council agreed that up to 25% of the total gross first floor area of any
development can be for personal service, financial institution, or office
uses, as defined in the San Ramon Road Specific Plan. Voting no on this
motion was Cm. Moffatt .
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 81-83
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN
PA83-064 , SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN - AMENDMENT TO AREA 3
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 82-83
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT
TO THE SAN RAMON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN, PA 83-064, SAN RAMON ROAD
SPECIFIC PLAN. - AMENDMENT TO AREA 3
* * * *
REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM
The City Manager explained that the League of California Cities has notified
the City that Congress has passed a bill which would reauthorize the Revenue
Sharing Program at the present level of funding for an additional 3 years .
This bill has been forwarded to President Reagan for signature. The bill is
in substantially the same form as was recommended by the President to the
Congress earlier in the year . Staff anticipated that this bill will be
signed by the President and the City will receive additional Revenue Sharing
Funds this year .
These funds may not be' spent by the City until the appropriate hearings are
held by the City Council with respect to modifying the City ' s budget in
accordance with revenue sharing regulations.
Following discussion, the Council agreed to deal -with this issue when the
;. City has a program to consider .
CITY AUDITOR 'REPORT FISCAL YEAR 1982-83
Bray, Burke, Waterman,`'Cockrill & Carter , the City's Audit Firm has completed
its review of the City' s financial records for Fiscal Year 1982-83 , and the
report was presented to the Council .
City Manager Ambrose explained that the total revenues for Fiscal Year
1982-83 were $4 , 138 ,755, which is approximately" $210 ,000 ( 5%) more than was
estimated in the 1983-84 budget . This increase was primarily attributable to
sales tax, state motor vehicle in-lieu tax, state cigarette tax and county
CM-2-218
Regular Meeting November 28 , 1983
gas tax . Total actual expenditures for Fiscal Year 1983-84 were $1 , 820 ,351 ,
which is approximately $69 , 000 ( 3 . 6% ) less than was estimated in the 1983-84
budget . This was primarily attributable to several capital improvement
projects not being completed prior to the end of the fiscal year ( $38 ,094 ) ;
salary and fringe benefit savings as a result of late recruitments and fringe
benefit programs not being implemented; and savings on the police services
contract .
City Manager Ambrose indicated that the Auditor had made some recommendations
with respect to internal control, and Staff has attempted to immediately
implement those recommendations . As part of the audit process, it was not
recognized that the Council during 1982-83 established a portion of the
reserve for a City Hall facility acquisition/construction. A modification to
the financial statement should be made to reflect this .
Cm. Jeffery and Cm. Moffatt, who served on the Audit Committee indicated that
the "proceed slowly approach" has been successful.
Cm. Jeffery complimented City Manager Ambrose on his management.
Cm. Moffatt indicated he felt it amazing that City Manager Ambrose was able
to anticipate needs in advance and prepare the necessary changes .
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Drena, and by unanimous vote, the
Council accepted the 6/30/83 Financial Statement with exceptions as
discussed.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the
Council approved 1983-84 budget modifications in the amount of $22,273 .
VILLAGE PARKWAY FENCING
r During the 1983-84 hearings on the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program, the
City Council expressed its concern with respect to the dilapidated condition
:.of the wooden fencing along Village Parkway between Amador .Valley Boulevard
and Kimball .Avenue . Since this portion of Village Parkway '. is .one of the main ._.
,'entrances .,'into the City, the Council requested Staff._to _develop a project .to
improve 'the appearance of the fencing .
_. The City ' Engineering Staff has determined that the fence was construdted on tY
.: private property .by . the developer of the subdivision"along.Village . Parkway.*-,
The fence -is typically located approximately 1 1/21 ' to':2 ' . from the right=of-
way line . . It was also determined that the existing fence pilasters are not
' of sufficient strength to be used in a new wall.
Alternative solutions were presented to the Council and discussed.
The Council agreed that this fencing had a substantial impact visually on the
entire community.
CM-2-219
Regular Meeting November 28, 1983
Cm. Drena questioned why Village Parkway should be considered more of a
thoroughfare with a higher priority than San Ramon Road. Cm. Drena asked for
clarification as to whether the Council was talking safety or beautification .
It was determined that both areas were of concern. Resolution would also
provide some relief as a sound wall .
A draft letter and a survey to those residents affected was discussed.
Cm. Drena felt the Council should see what the community thinks before making
an alternative selection.
Cm. Hegarty felt the Council should proceed with Alternative #2 as presented
in the Staff report, but have public hearings to gather the public input .
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Drena, and by majority vote, the
Council agreed to proceed with : the demolition of the existing fence and the
construction of a six ( 6 ) foot wall in its place . This would necessitate
obtaining an access easement from approximately 70 property owners who live
along Village Parkway at this location. This alternative would require the
installation of additional sidewalk , but is preferable from an aesthetic and
public safety point of view. . The estimated cost is: Wall - $170 ,000 ;
Demolition - $ 30 , 000 ; Landscaping/New Sidewalk - .$ 80,000 ; Total Project
Cost - $280 ,000 . Voting NO on this motion was Cm. Drena.
SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM —
Sidewalks, curbs., and gutters need periodic maintenance due to tree root
damage, utility trench settlement, and the driving of heavy vehicles over
these improvements . When these improvements crack . and offset, a tripping
hazard is *created. The State Improvement Act of 1911 established that it ,is
the responsibility of the property owner to maintain those public
improvements ( curb, .gutter , sidewalk ) which front the individual property
owner ' s property. Many of the Cities do utilize this -provision of the state.
law and undertake both an annual sidewalk survey and an active enforcement
program to ensure .that ,damaged frontage improvements_,are,;.replaced at the
.expense of ,:the ' private .property owner .
'..Most ,property owners ,;are;`:not ;aware -of .their,,responsibility'.'as .spelled out in
that e;publicimprovementsFare for public -
the 1911':Act and : thes
-use and ..the" damage is �'typically,:caused by'-strIeet, trees, which'- the :public
s ,agency reviewing :,the y'original .development `'or subdivision` required - as a' '
' ;condition of* development :for .aesthetic reasons :,� 'In reality;"'public 'agencies
still often end up paying liability claims resulting from .sidewalk tripping
hazards due to 'the "deep pocket" concept adopted by much of the judicial
,system in California .
Since Proposition 13 , the County has done little or nothing except make
temporary sidewalk repairs due to budgetary constraints., As a result of the
County' s inability to effectuate sidewalk repair", there is a substantial
number of sidewalk repairs required throughout the City.
CM-2-220
Regular Meeting November 28, 1983
The Engineering Staff conducted a sidewalk survey of all sidewalks throughout
the City, identifying approximately 200 locations which require sidewalk
and/or curb and gutter repair . The City Engineer has estimated that it will
cost approximately $100 , 000 to replace and repair all of the damaged
sidewalk . The ongoing sidewalk repair program would cost approximately
$20 , 000 per year in order to keep up with sidewalk damaged in the future .
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 83-83
ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE REPAIR OF
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS DEEMED TO BE PEDESTRIAN HAZARDS
On motion- of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the
Council authorized an additional appropriation from the street improvement
reserve in the amount of $100 , 000 , and authorized the City Engineer to
proceed with preparation of plans and specifications .
PURCHASING PROCEDURES
Pursuant to state law, .a City is required to adopt by ordinance, policies and
procedures, including bidding regulations, governing purchases of supplies
. and equipment .
Dublin ' s proposed ordinance requires a formal bid process for any purchase or
contract .for services over $5 ,000 . The methods of notice and manner in which
the bid may be awarded are clearly defined. In addition, the ordinance
specifies additional criteria which may be used to determine the bid which is
most advantageous to the City. . The competitive bidding process is not
utilized for professional services or when the cost involved is less than
$200 . ,.The proposed ordinance contains provisions which allow the exclusion
of the formal bidding process when an emergency requires immediate
acquisition or where the needs can only be met by a single patented item or
process v, a
w.,. ` ' � tC .. ,.:. ' . : _ .,.. ,' ,,r:T ru.... t..f .. :,� r !. , (1 X14,. . .:_• P-.r , :,,3.., •-,., .. i
The_.informal procedures are required for services and goods which cost - more
,.:than $200 .'but less -than $5 ,000 .,"' 'This process ;involves'.gathering three 'price .,,-,-.
quotations-.to .-assure that the ' City.'.is .making .purchases :which.'reflect-�,the
1 , lowest''price 'available.. ".: The `ordinance also addresses the,disposal ;of;, surplus 3
goods.`' .The process is similar : to the .purchasing procedur'es,`°such :'as the ' = i
-value°`of the.•goods will determine . the method of disposal :'
On -motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. ' Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the
Council waived the reading and introduced the ordinance establishing
procedures for the purchase of goods and services.
CM-2-221
Regular Meeting November 28, 1983
ESTABLISH POSITION OF RECREATION DIRECTOR
On September 21 , 1983 , the City Council adopted the recommendation of the
Park & Recreation Advisory Committee that a Recreation Director be hired.
Prior to the actual recruitment , the Council needed to establish a salary
range for the position and approve the job description as prepared by Staff .
The Recreation Director is a professional level employee, functioning as a
Department Head. The position will require a minimum of three years of
responsible experience.
On motion of Cm. Moffatt , seconded by Cm. Drena, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 84-83
ESTABLISHING THE POSITION OF
RECREATION DIRECTOR
and authorized the City Manager to proceed with recruitment of a Recreation
Director . Staff was also directed to pursue negotiations with the DSRSD and
the School District indicating an interest in Shannon Community Center and
any available school sites .
OTHER BUSINESS
Transit Vehicle Demonstration
The City Manager indicated that there would be a demonstration and trial
route run starting at the Library on .Wednesday morning at 11 : 00 a.m. Anyone
interested in taking the route, as being proposed, was .welcome. .
1-680 Off Ramp Access into Dublin
�( 'i r � e �T �•'_ ( �� ^'3 � �� ,i ; :.� c,y -..'.;`°yr i.f r .xa '{ t t .,
The :City ;Traffic ..Engineer presented, a :draft; letter regarding ;the ;concept .of .
additional I=680 `a'ccess The ;lett'er asked ,for r>a review of the potential =tor
additional off-ramps .into Dublin .'from ''I .`680 ` ,The le tier requests.,the: County .
x Pub 1 i c Works „Director to include this as �a i apart of =the4 p�ylanned4wi'deni.ng"-of
..I-680
nN - � hr ( 4-� � ;:1..T r } � 5 •.K i� +1� r X7{'+ P .'}�1,'f 1 �� 'rf .�i"
i{ <,s •,1 r •3: .! r r . .0 r. S ,."K � `,�• C: t t F� _,�� fi s`M� .y .Y. .: '..r.0. '^t ,
Mayor.'Snyder : felts it important .,that the `City at ,least "ident'ify .-this .•as an
addressable issue, .even though .it is :probably :several{yea,rs=down .the . line. . _ .
Consensus of the Council .was to send the letter . ( -
CM-2-222
November 28, 1983
General Plan Working Paper #3
Council was asked to determine a date for its consideration of Working Paper
#3 .
Council consensus was that the meeting be held on Tuesday, December 6 , 1983
at 7 : 30 p.m. Staff was directed to secure a location.
City Manager Ambrose indicated that the Council may wish to also address the
letter which was submitted to LAFCO by the City of Livermore. Mr . Ambrose
indicated that Staff would draft a letter for Council approval to be
submitted in response to Livermore ' s letter .
Answering Machine for City Offices
Cm. Moffatt felt that because of the upcoming holidays, it would be
appropriate for the City to secure some type of an • answering machine that
could handle phone calls when employees are not present .
City Manager Ambrose indicated Staff would look into purchasing some type of
a telephone answering machine device.
ACTEB/ACAP Seminar
Cm. .Moffatt . indicated there was going to be a seminar on December 2 , 1983 in
Boulder Creek , and he requested permission to attend. '
Al1 ;Councilmembers agreed that Cm. Moffatt should attend this seminar .
Regular Meeting December 26 , 1983
The'",City.Manager .indicated `that -.the next regularly scheduled meeting 'would be
the.!`day after'--Christmas..and asked ;'for;.CounciI ;direction -with regard -,to .this .
meeting s. y � •.
i { i).iJ:. J., k :..., `.', ( yf �, . a. ,S .:�. i. .{� �?c:.4 E ..i o. 1...0 v ¢,'. 1r a .i •
Consensus of Council was fthat .the la st ?regular :meeting 'in .-Decemberrbe
;; cance'lled
ABAG Election
Mayor Snyder mentioned that he had received a letter from 'ABAG with regard to
the election of officers . City Manager Ambrose indicated the City had just
received the ballot . Since the ballots must be:'returned by December 21st, ..-
-the issue would need to be agendized for the December 12th meeting.
CM-2-223
November 28, 1983
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, at 10 : 55 p.m.
the meeting was adjourned to an adjourned regular meeting on December 6 ,
1983 .
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-
{
) + � �\ t t R•" \ � !f,4+ i V 5.�+ ��q+�yK n�� aJ'�,t "'�r,.p x Y ...
CM-2-224
November 28, 1983
REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 12, 1984
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on
Monday, March 12 , 1984 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The
meeting was called to order at 7 : 35 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.
CONSENT CALENDAR
. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the
following were approved: Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 27, 1984 ;
Warrant Register in the amount of $101 ,542 . 12 ;
RESOLUTION NO. 23 - 84
ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL MAP
TRACT NO. 4929 .
RESOLUTION NO. 24 - 84
r. . '. ACCEPT DEPOSIT , IN LIEU
TRACT NO. 4929 ' .
` RESOLUTION NO, 25 - 84
el f.t r ` .,. �„. !�' t i'�rt g f�Y, :�5�d�v 'Wti°'.` t 4�i;� °r ^', W•. 1. .�,: T, Fr",ti_h;ut' it s.r d � L±., 1. ~: ,, � ..r _ _•,,.... �
t ESTAB LISHING,,yVOTING:PRECINCTS, POLhING -PLACES xAND ,A ;COUNTING CENTER Y
y " t;;AND;APPOINTING 'PRECINCT.;BOARD ,MEMBERS ,FOR THE',,
t`G MUNICIPAL ELECTION ,OF 1:SAID.; CITY' ON 4TUESDAY; APRIL 10 , {1984, `
''-HERETOFOREt:CALLED
RESOLUTION,NO 76-83 OF THE CITY COUNCIL
�yl { Y� a ..re t {l rt 4�ir 9� 7t iSi t; 4 1 �1 r 4 i �F r: W+..P 5a' /i `kp�. it 5'YX. � -t �+ry' '° ♦ r i
_.. tem ed t :.. - ,�•. .. a7 ., •r:b .X;n ... � -+d! .'•' ,. , . 1 �.:
r An ,relat to.�gt6nti.ng a`'permit .and waiving the permiS t _fee -ao ;t t.-
Club for a:�.par,ade,;was :.pulled . from the consent`..calendar' '•for discussion '.
regarding ' possible- conflicts due to .the - f act- that'.�3 members 'of the City
Council .are `Lions ,Club .members . The City -Attorney explained that under the
doctrine of .necessity, . no conflict exists . - '
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the
Council approved a parade permit for the Lions `Club St. Patrick 's Day Parade
on Saturday, March •17 , 1984 ;
CM-3-46
Regular Meeting March 12, 1984
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by majority vote, the
Council agreed to waive the fee for the parade permit . Cm. Moffatt
abstained.
HAZARDOUS CONDITION
Dick Hopkins, a Dublin resident , expressed concern regarding a potential
hazard to young children on the property next door to Iceland. He has
observed children climbing on the roof . Mr . Hopkins requested that Staff
investigate. The City Attorney indicated that Staff is on top of this matter.
and the condition is currently being reviewed by Staff and that an
application on the site will be an agenda item in the future .
RECYCLING
Kathy Bendicini , Amador Valley Boulevard, addressed the Council and indicated
that she was a union member of Local #85 and that they are fighting the
deposit bill, which was Proposition 11 last year . . Ms. Bendicini requested
that Staff look into some kind of recycling area in. Dublin.
Mayor Snyder indicated he felt this would be a good idea as a fund raiser for
various community groups .
Cm. Moffatt suggested perhaps the Park & Recreation Commission could look
into this subject .
Mayo: Snyder suggested this be a future agenda item and that Staff
investigate possible sites that may be available for this type of a use. : .. _
GENERAL PLAN .
Stan, Harrop, Calle :'-Ve,de .'.Road,• addressed =the.,Councl l -with ,concerns 'related,:to
'approval ..of ',the General' Plan'., :.;''He felt considerat'ions"j`with regard Ito sewage ,
capacity; •.traffic congestion, etc. , :are :.all-based on,,riearby,.industrial�
•, development ',and•. asked.;the "Council :Jf ,.they`;-'in 6666, 6onsc1ence, could approve } '-�
•.a` general'plan',allowing . higher �-densities ', prior to the time that ,.the '' �
Pleasanton situation is resolved in 'the upcoming election 4 p
- •. ' r t ,. .i ,r ; - g{ t z ' ' i i'`s ti _";L ''S _I pct a?,' 2. ihst rtx
MONDAY LIBRARY SERVICES -
In October of 1983 the City Council entered into an' :agreement with- the -
County of Alameda for the City to finance the cost : of.-opening 'the Dublin
Library on Mondays . The cost to the City for providing this service for the `
9 month period is $29 , 600 .
CM-3-47
Regular Meeting March 12, 1984
According to the County Libr&rian ' s report, Dublin Library circulation has
increased by 7 . 7 percent overall and its steadily increasing reference
information requests have increased by 24 percent: . It is apparent that the
Monday service has been quite beneficial for Library users . The City' s
agreement w th the County provided `or a mid-year adjustment if the volume
warranted such an adjustment . The County Librarian does not believe such an
adjustment is warranted at this time .
Ginny Cooper presented statistics to the Council and indicated that
Pleasanton will begin opening their library on Mondays in April .
Mayor Snyder stated he felt this was certainly a case where the dollars spent
benefited many many residents of Dublin, and thanked Cm. Hegarty for his
participation on the Library Committee.
ST. PATRICK ' S DAY PARADE
The City has received an inquiry from the Lion ' s Club St . Patrick ' s Day
Parade Committee. They have extended an invitation to the City Council
members to participate in the St . Patrick ' s Day Parade.
Mr . Thompson requested confirmation no later than March 14 , 1984 .
Following discussion, all Councilmembers with the exception of Cm. Drena
indicated they would be available to participate.
BARRATT SAN JOSE - PUBLIC HEARING .
A considerable amount of discussion, analysis, and negotiation •regarding "
Barratt ' s proposal has occurred over the past year . After. review of . the
original. plans, and adoption of a Specific P1an, .Barratt . has' submitted a
revised proposal with 88 .condominium . and townhouse dwelling units rather than
112 "mini-condominiums" ; a second access from San Ramon Road; '_ in addition to
access .,,from..Silvergate •,.Drive; . addition of 0 .7+ . acres !along : San?Ramdn ;Road
.,that ,pis -c' u'r,rently..City property
On `February 6 , :1984 , °„the 'Planning . -proposal . -.4
r,
At .;;that'meeting,'• Barratt .submitted ';additional .:'revisions ;to'the;;r'e`vised
proposal ,and . made .a`;commitment ao enlafge the -size >of:'the condominium°units; U
even' 'if r it°:resulted in .fewer _total ''units ;:` A b o u t-a15 residents 'spoke
the 'public' h6a'ring. '�`='Th'e .Planning Commission recommended approwa'1 'y subject : to F
the commitments made by Barratt; . and detailed Staff review of the site plan
prior. to City Council public '.hearing...
The San Ramon Road Specific Plan designates the land .use on the subject site
as Multi-family Residential,' 8 to ' 15 dwelling units per acre . Barratt 's
proposal consists of ,88 dwelling units on 6 . 9 acres, for-,a density of 12 . 8
dwelling units per acre. If the proposal were reduced to 84 dwelling units,
the density would be 12 . 2 dwelling units per acre. In either case, the
proposal is within the range permitted by the Specific Plan.
CM-3-48
Regular Meeting March 12, 1984
Major design recommendations by Staff are :
1) Eliminate one building in the central portion of the site . This action
will eliminate over building and overcrowding, provide for a more functional
open area, and allow for a more attractive entry area .
2 ) Locate the garages a minimum of 6 feet away from the earthquake fault zone
rather than 1 foot away. This will provide additional safety and further
limit potential damage from ground movement . The County Geologist and City
Building Official concur with this recommendation.
Barratt did not agree with the above recommendations .
Environmental impacts have been mitigated (noise, flooding, traffic,
seismic) .
Nathan Meeks, Barratt San Jose, addressed the Council. Mr . Meeks indicated
Barratt had reviewed both plans and both were found to be very good. After
careful consideration, Barratt agreed that Staff ' s recommendation and plan
was the better of the two, and it would be acceptable to them.
Cm. Hegarty had questions related to the 10 ft space to the west of the
project and how the 20 ft buffer area that was required was affected.
Cm. Drena questioned the status of the . 7 acres which the City owned.
Mayor . Snyder opened the public hearing . _
Dick Hopkins addressed the Council and indicated he' was impressed with the
Staff report and in . what they have done, however, he still had concerns that
the unit next to the creek will .experience flooding.
Candy . Larson, Corto Court, . indicated .she had viewed . Barratt ' s Fremont
project, and was impressed with the townhouses, but - did `not'. like the
. ,'condominiums . Ms . Larson was concerned with the density, '�schools, - and sewage
problems .
Dennis. Ransdell, .Calle.;Verde, felt a 'wood fence .would deteriorate ;`too
,'.rapidly, „and ,that;'a masonry, wall should be' considered 'along''-:Silvergate' : -
�.;.;Drive;`: ..;Mr :'<;Rarisdell ..also felt the area next.`to 'the_creek ,:should= be developed
as a park'4o'r ,the people living in the Barratt rpro ject �s
iJ -� n^ .' •' ', _ .. -
Kathy .Waterson Serra .Court; felt this corner has been tan' eyesore !for many
' :'..'yea'rs . ;'She did ".no-t" like the idea of commercial "development''.there"-a n d"felt
Barratt ' s project has definitely improved. . She indicated :that'surprisingly, " o
, ,she -liked Barratt' s 'proposal . : She felt a masonry wall,would be, preferable to %!
a wood fence.
; ' Harry Demmel felt a masonry wall , if installed, should be coated with a
silicon graffiti-proof coating.
CM-3-49
Regular Meeting March 12, 1984
Jim Hjerpe indicated he and a group of homeowners had worked with Barratt on
this project since May, 1983 in order to reach some sort of an agreement .
Mr . Hjerpe thanked the developer , citizens and staff for all their hard work
on this project, which, he now felt was very acceptable to all concerned.
Brian Raley questioned the selling price of the units . Nathan Meeks
indicated the prices would be between $70 ,000 and $130 , 000 . Mr . Raley
questioned the need for a traffic signal .
Karen Highborn, Zapata Court , felt the City should establish a minimum square
footage allowable of 900 sq ft .
Gary Willet, Calle Verde, questioned the second access road and various
traffic maneuvers . It was clarified that a u-turn will be allowed at the
intersection of San Ramon Road and Silvergate Drive when the traffic signals
are installed.
George Zika, Peppertree questioned the timing of the widening of San Ramon
Road. It was explained that under the current Five-Year Capital Improvement
Program, the portion from Silvergate to Alcosta will be done next year .
Martin Locus, Silvergate Drive, questioned the safety of outgoing and
incoming residents crossing the bike path . He questioned if safeguards had
been considered. Mr . Locus questioned what materials would be used on the
roofs . It was explained that they would be wood shake, and the buildings
would be a combination of stucco, wood and brick . Mr . Locus was opposed to
the City selling its land to a developer .
Stan Harrop, Calle Verde , felt Staff had made attributable accommodations ,
however , he felt he was still a squeaky wheel . He felt the prices are still
very high for such small units and Dublin is being asked to accept a small ,
experimental unit and that mini-condo ' s were not acceptable. Mr . Harrop felt
the City Council should ask the developer to come back with a proposal of 64
units, which would be 9 units per acre.
Harry Demmel questioned if any provision for low cost financing or handicap
access was being made. Mr . Meeks explained that there was no low cost
financing anticipated, but the developer would absorb the cost to make a unit
accessible based on what the particular handicap was of a potential buyer .
Kathy Waterson stated she has been fighting these same battles since long
before Dublin became a City, and why did things take so long to work out .
Rich Alves, Padre Way, suggested there are probably a large number of people
who don ' t know the process of how these things work .
Georgean Vonheeder , Brighton Drive, suggested that any interested resident
can have themselves added to the agenda mailing list for a very nominal fee.
John Alexander mentioned that there would be a public hearing held by the
Planning Commission on the following evening at Frederiksen School where
people could provide input regarding the General Plan .
CM-3-50
Regular Meeting March 12, 1984
Martin Locus , Betlen Drive, felt that residents have agreed to dispose of
public lands, and the City Council should try to get the best deal possible
on the . 7 acres .
Ben Maghsoudi questioned why the masonry wall will be necessary as it will
cut off the grassy area from view. Staff explained that the wall will serve
as security for the residents and the wall also will provide acoustical
benefits . ,
George Patterson, Calle Verde Road requested a -sound wall rather than a wood
fence .
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing .
Cm. Hegarty felt the City has a goal in mind and what must now be asked is
"Does this project achieve this goal?" Cm. Hegarty felt the developer should
be required to bring back the architectural aspects to the City Council for
approval rather than Staff . Cm. Hegarty indicated he did not like the idea
of a masonry wall , but preferred a rock wall . Cm. Hegarty commended the
developer for the close way they have worked with Staff in resolving issues
thus far , but there still remained a lot of work .
Cm. Drena questioned the garage location. Staff indicated that the developer
has complied with Staff ' s recommendation.
Cm. Jeffery felt the entire community had worked hard on what this project
could be and indicated she liked Exhibit A and would be willing to look at _
further resolutions in order to get going on the project .
Cm. Moffatt addressed the possibility of the . 7 acre being used as a park .
He indicated there were several problems associated with this idea; i . e . no
area for parking. Cm. Moffatt felt the best option was for the City to sell
the land.
Cm. Drena indicated he had strong objections to the City giving up the . 7
acre.
Staff indicated that if negotiations fall through on the . 7 .acres, the
developer cannot go forward with his project .
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing .
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, . seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majority vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 26 - 84
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION CONCERNING
PA 82-033 . 1(R) AND PA 82-033 . 2(R)
BARRATT SAN JOSE
Voting NO on this motion was Cm. Drena,' who expressed concerns related to
flooding and the security of this area .
CM-3-51
Regular Meeting March 12, 1984
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Moffatt , and by majority vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 27 - 84
APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONCERNING
PA 82-033 . 1 (R) BARRATT SAN JOSE
Voting NO on this motion was Cm. Drena, who was opposed to establishing the
density prior to the adoption of the General Plan.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majority vote, the
Council waived the reading and introduced an ordinance amending the zoning
ordinance to permit the rezoning of the real property within the City of
Dublin. Voting NO on this motion was Cm. Drena.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Drena, and by unanimous vote, the
Council required that the developer bring back the architectural design and
landscape design ( the Site Development Review) to the City Council for final
approval .
RECESS
A short recess was called . All Councilmembers were present when the meeting
reconvened.
PERSONNEL
The establishment of a personnel ordinance and related resolutions is a
common practice among municipal agencies . These documents establish the way
in which personnel matters will be handled by the organization. The content
of these documents reflects the philosophy of the entity.
The personnel ordinance is the basic plan which establishes the structure
under which personnel matters will be handled. . As a supplement to the basic
foundation provided by the ordinance, more specific rules are included in
the resolution .entitled "Personnel System .Rules".: This document details the
:;'.'methods '.to be used in personnel actions affecting specified City employees .
As noted in the ordinance, ,certain positions 'are excluded from 'the
competitive service. ;
The personnel rules describe the methods to be used for selection, filling
vacancies, taking disciplinary action, conducting performance evaluations,
providing for benefits, providing. merit increases, establishing holidays,
the use of leave and its accrual, and separation from City service.
The personnel rules and regulations also refer to a salary and benefits plan
and classification plan. These plans will be presented to the City Council
at a later date.
CM-3-52
Regular Meeting March 12, 1984
The introduction of the "Personnel Ordinance" and the adoption of the
resolutions related to "Personnel Rules" and "Establishing A Classification
Plan" will formalize the City ' s personnel system.
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
No members of the audience spoke on this subject .
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
The City Council discussed the ordinance and rules, questioned certain items
and made comments and various changes .
On motion of Cm. Moffatt , seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the
Council waived the reading and introduced an ordinance establishing a
personnel system.
ACTEB/ACAP
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
The City has received a letter from the Executive Director of the Alameda
County Training and Employment Board (ACTEB)/ Associated Community Action
Program (ACAP ) requesting the City to take the following actions .
1 . Approve the City' s membership as a JPA signatory by approving the
attached JPA amendment .
2 . Approve a contingency amendment which would include the City of
Berkeley as a JPA member . ( contingent . upon the County of Alameda and
the City of Fremont approving such a plan of action)
3 . Approve a contingency amendment which would delete the City of
Berkeley from ACTEB ' s Service Delivery Area (SDA) should the Governor
of the State of California provide independent SDA status to the City
of Berkeley.
In February of 1983 the City Council adopted a -resolution agreeing to
continue to participate in the consortium that makes up ACTEB/ACAP, and
further , enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the members of the Alameda
Training and Employment Board once the Governor of 'the .,State',of California
had designated this consortium as a Service Delivery Area--as -defined under
the Job.*Training Partnership Act . _.The primary purpose"t.of- this -program -is to
provide, comprehensive employment and training .services to . the �economically
disadvantaged, underemployed and unemployed persons of Alameda •County. The
City ' s participation in this program will result in the provision of funds
-to the Tri-Valley area for the purpose of providing those services .
The reasons for the requested amendment to the Joint Power Agreement (JPA)
are as follows :
1 . To update the language of the JPA in order to more accurately reflect
the agencies funding sources .
CM-3-53
Regular Meeting March 12, 1984
2 . To include all member Governments as official signatories to the JPA.
(Presently only the County of Alamenda and Fremont are signatories . )
3 . Spread the liability for ACTEB/ACAP activities to all signatories .
Formally only the County of Alameda and the City of Fremont were
liable for the misappropriation of Federal funds . The proposed
change in the agreement would result in the City of Dublin bearing
approximately 2 percent of the liability with respect to misspent
funds in ACTEB and approximately 7 . 7 percent of the liability for
misspent funds under ACAP . Thus far , the experience of the
ACTEB/ACAP program has been good with respect to the disallowal of
those expenditures under each of those programs respectively. To
date the program has received millions of dollars in Federal Funds
and has only been questioned with respect to a very small portion of
the total funding received by the program.
4 . The amendment would combine the current separate ACTEB and ACAP
JPA ' s into one consolidated agreement which more accurately reflects
the fact that ATEB/ACAP is one not two agency's ,
Mr . Bloom' s request with respect to approving two contingency amendments
which would either facilitate Berkeley' s membership as a JPA member in the
future or delete the City of Berkeley from the Service Delivery Area are
based upon Berkeley ' s request to administer its own program. This request
has to be approved by the Governor ; and it is anticipated that it will take
approximately one and one half years to determine whether or not Berkeley
will receive its own Service Delivery Area status .
Mr . Jack Summer summarized the proposal for the Council and answered,
questions .
Cm. Drena asked for clarification regarding the -City' s liability for misspent
funds . It was explained that since Dublin has 2 votes on ACTEB, they would
be responsible for 2% of the liability. Dublin represents 1/13 of the ACAP
board.
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO.-:..28 ,.,77 _84 '
sa
} {
APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO THE ALAMEDA�.COUNTY -TRAINING
AND EMPLOYMENT BOARD/ASSOCIATED ,COMMUNITY ACTION:,.PROGRAM '. r
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
DOUGHERTY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
ADDITIONAL FUNDING ' '`
On February 27 , 1984 , the City Council awarded a construction bid for the
first phase ( 1, 400 ft) of the Dougherty Road Improvement Project. The
amount budgeted was $56 , 150 (Job ' s Bill funds $6 ,150 , ' and Community
Development Block Grant funds $50 , 000 ) . , The total first phase project cost
is $59 ,600 with the following breakdown:
CM-3-54
Regular Meeting March 12, 1984
1st Phase
Low Bid $ 44 , 600
Engineering & Inspection 15 , 000
$ 59 ,600
The total cost of the first phase is $3 , 450 more than budgeted.
The Five-Year Capital Improvement Program provides for a two phase project
which includes not only curb, gutter and sidewalk , but also storm drains .
The first phase of the project was to be undertaken during Fiscal Year
1983-84 and the second phase during Fiscal Year 1984-85 . Staff anticipated -
utilizing Community Development Block Grant funds for both project phases .
Staff has contacted the Technical Advisory Committee of the Alameda County
Housing & Community Development Program regarding the availability of grant
contingency funds .
The Technical Advisory Committee has indicated that if the City would
contribute $45 , 000 to the project, the County would make available an
additional $53 , 950 in Block Grant funds for the project . This would be
consistent with the, County' s policy to require local financial partici-
pation. To complete both the lst phase and 2nd phase of the Dougherty Road
Improvement Project, the revised engineer ' s estimate is $155 , 000 . The
overall project funding would be as follows ;
Total Estimated Project Cost $155 ,000
Existing Funding 56 , 150 -
Block Grant 50 ,000
Jobs Bill 6 , 150 .
City Contribution 44 ,900
(Approx . 30% of total )
Additional Block Grant Funds 53 ,950
Total Funds Available $155 ,000
The Housing & Community Development Program Staff has . also indicated that -
should the :.City decide to complete only the first ' phase, -Block . Grant funds
`'would be available to .cover ;the '.$3 , 450. shortfall. ;
„Lt ;was explained that :this'.wa 's -the only: area that will' qualify for -block .
grant.,.funds •, ?.,
on motion'of :,Cm. -.Jeffery, ..seconded by .°Cm :•Hegarty, .arid: by unanimous ',vote, the
Council authorized the•`City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for
' storm drains ; authorized ••additional appropriation from 'Street - Improvement .
•�`• Reserve ' in the amount :of : $44 ,900 ; and authorized appropriation of $53 ,950 in
CDBG funds :
ABAG DUES
In .accordance with City Council direction, Cm. Jeffery attended the ABAG
Budget Workshop at which the proposed ABAG dues increase was discussed.
CM-3-55
March 12, 1984
Cm. Jeffery prepared a fact sheet which was presented to the Council for
consideration.
1 ) ABAG - has 31 employees ( down from 120 pre-Prop. 13 ) - has 98 city &
county members ; 2 ) Similar organizations in other states are funded by the
states ; 3 ) ABAG & MTC were created by the Legislature and are unique in that
most states have -just one organization that does regional planning (MTC gets
most of the money) ; 4 ) ABAG will go under without a raise in dues and
Sacramento will take over . (Note : The Legislature in Sacramento is
comprised of more representatives from Southern California than Northern
California . ) ; 5 ) ABAG gives cities a local voice. We have a city
representative assigned to ABAG; 6 ) Proposed dues schedule balances payments
from cities and counties at a 50/50 split . (Currently, counties pay 60% and
cities pay 40% . ) ; 7 ) In addition to a raise in the split for cities, there is
also a proposed graduated fee schedule for cities. Small cities, such as
Dublin, will be charged a 150% increase . ABAG claims this is necessary
because small cities don ' t currently pay enough dues to cover services
provided to them ( i . e . mailing) .
Dublin ' s dues would be raised 150% ( from $755 to $1 ,858 ) to cover the raise
in city/county share of dues, plus the raise in basic membership charge
through the graduated fee schedule.
_Without ABAG Dublin will have to deal with Sacramento for planning issues .
. Therefore, Cm. Jeffery proposed that Dublin pay the dues increase to insure
greater local control . Cm. Jeffery felt Dublin had two alternative proposals
that it could support: a . Suggest a different split with the county. Some
cities are proposing a split of 55% county and 45% city because the county
has more political clout in ABAG and therefore benefits more.
and/or
b. Dublin could protest the graduated fee schedule as being unduly unfair to
the smaller cities which are less able to afford the . raise -in .'dues . .
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and •by .unanimous vote, .the :
Council agreed to 1) Approve the raise in the city/county ;:split; and 2 ) intro
duce an .amendment abolishing the graduated fee .schedule ' : ..
Cm .Jeffe"ry ,also ,'felt :that':Dublin should explore 'some:rtype of:.'legislation 'to . .`.
get ABAG/MTC back . together , ,` r w E . :;•
y
e.. i .. V. .•, r w t _.i d? ` r. �(�41 ,.} i���:.k'i� f , t tt # x.a a
1 SHANNON COMMUNITY CENTER ,LEASE
At 'the regular :City Council meeting 'on December12; ``1983the` Council
directed the 'Parks "& .Recreation Commission, to` investigate`••the' potential a
terms and costs associated with the lease of, the `Shannon 'Community Center.`
The Park &'Recreation Commission provided Staff with input on the costs -
factors which needed to be investigated when considering 'acquisition of the
lease of Shannon Center . ' In addition, they requested .:that .the •Building
Official inspect the facility to determine its 'structural' soundness. ' The
Commission also met and toured the facility in order to have 'a basic
understanding of potential uses of the building.
CM-3-56
Regular Meeting March 12, 1984
Physical Condition
The Building Official inspected the facility and provided a brief list of
corrections . DSRSD is in the process of completing $35 , 000 in physical
improvements at the facility. Included in interior work improvements is
the installation of an overhead light near the bridge to improve lighting on
the approach to the building.
Cost Estimates
To determine potential costs associated with the operation of the facility,
Staff has met with. Mr . Dave Stegman of the San Ramon Valley Community
Center , Inc. ( SRVCC) . Council was presented with an exhibit outlining the
current operating budget which SRVCC has shared with the City.
Another exhibit showed an estimated cost of operation by the City. In part ,
the estimates were based upon information provided by SRVCC. The current
arrangement which the Community Center utilizes for maintenance services is
the use of an independant contractor . This contract provides for custodial
services in addition to building attendant services during the day time
hours . If the city is successful in obtaining the lease agreement staff
would . investigate the possibility of continuing with the same arrangement,
or a separate agreement for custodial services and the use of part-time
building attendants during the day time hours. Staff has estimated the
total . cost of operating the facility at approximately $72 ,345 .
The estimated cost of operation has only accounted for anticipated routine — .
costs * expenditures for signs identifying the location as the City
of Dublin Recreation Department and minor interior modifications are not .:
included in the analysis . Also, any costs associated with .equipment and
programs are not presented in the estimate. If the City- acquires the lease,
it will .assume the responsibility for the interior_of -,the• building . It is
important to recognize, that the. repair of any interior-,vandal ism would
become the City' s responsibility. .These costs are difficult to project at .
this time, . however , the potential for these -costs 'must ,,be ''recognized.
r Lia. .1 y s 1 j _j , � ro ,,• 1 -.. � yy .y t ti�q it ° tt .{
bility 7 f a 1 rL1 £ff��f4KL�y �: tt� j S
The ,acquisition of '`the"-;l ease,has 'been ''discus.sed with f,tU6 =City's Insurance :z
Broker .Mr : 'Fernandez, has indicated '- 'the' .cost of'rliability would:not,.be. .
affected'.hunti1"February' '1; U985.? D S R S D :carr1es ''their:3owri insurance k°on_.the
contents of,-,the building, ,wh•i,ch.' is ,property.of the ;District � The .aea`se f
l; `-agreement'� would 'require the City ,to jasseme„ the ; 1abfility•_for .the ;operation
of • the Center : '; Mr . °'Fernandez did _recommend we.,require:.users -of the facility - : :, _
to ,show proof of ..insurance. , ', -He has assisted .the.;City of Pleasanton in the
development of a similar , program 'in which one:'day 'single ' event '. coverage can
be purchased for approximately $25 . 007$50 . 00 . ''. He 'has noted that. the
contractors instructing on-going classes would 'be required to show proof of
insurance.
. CM=3-57
March 12, 1984
Revenue
SRVCC has projected revenues equal to $48 , 000 during the current year . This
revenue comes from renting the facility to various community groups and
private individuals . The revenues do not include revenues derived from
special interest classes .
In 1979 , DSRSD determined that the cost to the District of "mothballing" the
facility would be approximately $2 , 000 per month. Therefore, DSRSD entered
into a management contract with SRVCC in which the Community Center received
a $2 , 000 per month fee from the District . SRVCC is responsible for the
interior maintenance of the building. The management contract has remained
at the same level since 1979 . As the property owners , it is in the
District ' s interest to assure that their investment and the facility is
adequately maintained. The management contract actually represents a cost
which the district would incur even if the facility were not operating.
Staff has requested information from DSRSD regarding the factors used in
calculating the cost of "mothballing" the facility. If this data is
available it will be presented at the meeting.
Another exhibit identified the current rental rates charged for the use of
the Center . Mr . Stegman has indicated that separate agreements exist for
some groups, such as senior citizens . The agreements are for a flat fee and
were based in part on the organization' s ability to pay. Two factors may
impact the amount of revenue derived from rental of the building.
First, if the City undertakes' a risk management program as suggested by our
Insurance Broker , the fee schedule may need adjustment to remain competi-,
tive. The cost of 'insurance in addition to the existing rental fees may
prove to .be more than surrounding facilities charge. :Second, the City ..
Council may wish to. establish a fee schedule different than the current
arrangement. Any reduction in fees collected would increase the general
fund, operating cost to the City.
Net Operational Cost
: Given-',.the.`-fact that :DSRSD would •:incur •costs ,:regardless ;:of.-whether, he
;''facility was -used, ,we anticipate :a`continuation;of the 'management contract:r Y'
Therefore,'.;provided :that - the -.contract :.is at ,°least $2 ;'0 OO:fiper ;month,
annual net cost of :operation would be approximately $48 °000
{? t x
-tY
Estimated Cost` of ,Operation '°_ $72 ,345 t; Tr
""A -an' ( 24 , 000
Net :
-Cost
Operation 48 ,345
;.- :This cost would be _ reduced further by any revenue. 'der'ived from renting the rV 't
facility.',-. SRVCC anticipates $48 , 000 utilizing their :'current fee structure.As -noted above, if. the fees were altered the City .may -experience -a decline - c
in this offsetting revenue . However , SRVCC estimates do �not_reflect the
total amount of revenues realized from special ..,interest classes.
CM-3-58
Regular Meeting March 12, 1984
Other Considerations
In developing the cost estimate Staff attempted to provide the most
realistic setting as possible. Discussions with DSRSD Staff revealed that a
significant amount of personnel costs are associated with the operation of a
Community Center . The accounting for deposits, rental fees, and scheduling
the use of the facility require adequate personnel . In addition, there is a
substantial amount of follow up correspondance and bookkeeping which are
affiliated with the operation.
Proposal
At their regular meeting on February 21 , 1984 the Parks and Recreation
Commission recommended to the City Council that the City present a proposal
to DSRSD for a one year lease of Shannon Center . The proposal would be
similar to the existing agreement between DSRSD and SRVCC. The following
items should be included as condition of any proposed agreement:
A. City staff would negotiate with DSRSD the management contract of at
least $2 , 000 per month.
B. The City shall have sole control over the establishment of rental
fees .
C. ' City Staff will work with DSRSD to assure physical improvements which
create liability for the City are completed prior to the City ' s
operation.
D. The lease proposal be for one year .
E. The •City would have the authorization to make minor modifications to
the facility.
Dave Stegman, SRVCC, addressed the Council and asked for clarification .of
what the Council ' s position was related to programming. r_ . .
Cm. Jeffery indicated she felt the City would -want to •look :at .this ..in the
future ..-
Mayor Snyder- felt..this -basically would be up to the new .Recreation Director -
to review :and ,make :recommendations rK R ; ., � tint � ,,_ F.
t
. he.; City '7C inis d Nt'he Cm D .he felt that if 1 lease ,
: t -would try
to ''fit 'SRVCC programming ;into' any ''possible 'open `'slots` TCm Drena ;:felt %that
many.,of the program's currently being tpublicized Eby ;SRVCC (,are never actually ~.
h s ,= 1 4. '4 r,s..4 n:. f • s v P V , t •x:''77 e �... � f _ y , „} a
,r :offered
i• t- i s t 17I 1 -t qtr f".; 7 rr� +, m i { ti i i - �'�#r l t a
' 1.• �cY.� 4v;.F^; '� � :s� 3.;�l7'o y� ;r rr3 >./L � .i�\ 4 x::.r F �R P.. ,t'r s'r,.l r s�dZ'�'� � •.�-'i , .:�'• c ..
.' On` mo I;6". 0,f Cm: "'Hegarty,"E"seconded ,by''m.-='Moffatt,`,an d=by 'un`animous :vote, ,
the ,Council authorized the City Manager ''to submit 'a,:,formal 'pr.oposal -based on
these conditions to ;.DSRSD for..'their considerations,"' +final `agreement would
be brought before the 'City Council for .its :approval';�'however,-.it should
include the conditions mentioned above and will be ,based..on the existing �-
agreement between SRVCC and DSRSD.
CM-3-59
Regular Meeting March 12, 1984
OTHER BUSINESS
East Bay Regional Park District
Planning Director Tong indicated the City had received correspondence from
the East Bay Regional Park District related to representative from Dublin on
a study committee. One of the funding mechanisms for the proposed park would
be a new tax on Dublin.
Mayor Snyder felt there are already inequities in the way in which the Park
District operates in the Valley.
Meeting dates and purposes of meetings were discussed.
Council consensus was that Mayor Snyder would represent Dublin on this
committee .
SB 1850 (Fines & 'Forfeitures )
Cm. Jeffery asked that a .letter of opposition be prepared for SB 1850 which
. relates to taking away the fines & forfeitures allocation. . She suggested
. . sending letter to the entire judiciary committee.
Committee Openings
'• Mayor ' Snyder- indicated he - had received correspondence =from Supervisor Excell
indicating openings on 3 committees : Advisory Committee on Drug Abuse,
Children ' s Interest Commission, and Highland Hospital :.Community Advisory
Committee. These openings are in addition 'to the one -on the .Mental Health
Advisory Board.
:AB 2912 'Camk bell
Mayor _Snyder •felt the City.-,should '-send a` letter suppo sting this tbill related , w
to sur"plus school property .with -.a .copy ,to ;the rschool district "�*s r s trt" �� ,?
}.. ,s "t
1�� . ' t T .f;kSY� r n ry, .+ } •.y •• *I * *� * j a.}7 1 -,a tk „tti n.f ,7
t 1e Nt. 1 1tir'. • `'i�•S �, .. .. . i -.''4` ^..'7�' e-7t _ � {t i.• _ "a `l
AB 3899 4r l
;This bill relates ' to unemployment for . schoo1 crossing :guards.'.. It was
clarified ,that the City has no liability in that Dublin ' s crossing guards are
actually employed by the County of Alameda .
CM-3-60
Regular Meeting March 12, 1984
ACTEB/ACAP FUNDS
Cm. Moffatt indicated that there was $106 , 000 available to be used as an
outreach program in this area to place people in jobs .
GENERAL PLAN MEETING
City Manager Ambrose advised the Council that the General Plan would be
coming before the Council on March 26th and asked if the Council preferred
hearing it at a regular meeting or scheduling 'a special meeting .
Council consensus was that a special meeting be set up for the General Plan
hearing and a date of April 5 , 1984 was established, _ The location of the
meeting will be arranged by Staff.
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION - PERSONNEL
At 11 : 55 p.m. , the City Council recessed to a closed executive session for
discussion of personnel matters .
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was
adjourned at 12 : 55 a .m.
Mayor
� tL 7 kk
.ti
S 7 r. �k ..eM l•M� t
ATTEST
City Clerk ;
1
` P;,i _ r a`r r -. *_ * s* * 4� tr� ��p.�'zrl+.6" t l7s 1•.rn �r�4 � h ti�a'i,�tt t s (t
C. � . t 'r t. �c _ c .v 'b!9 •? Lr Fryw .1' 1•ie -� 1.` r, 5. x t �t 1
l t
}
CM-3-61
Regular Meeting March 12, 1984