Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-10-1989 REGULAR MEETING- JULY 10, 1989 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, July 10, 1989, in the meeting room of the DUblin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m., by Mayor Paul Moffatt. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and MaYor MOffatt. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle- giance to the flag. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 86-89 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH RAFANELLI AND NAHAS FOR SHARING OF LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION WATER USAGE COSTS TRACT 5511 and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement; Accepted improvements constructed by Steiny and Company under Contract 88-6 Traffic Signals at Village Parkway and Lewis Avenue, Amador Valley Boulevard at Amador Plaza Road, and Signal Modification at Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway; Approved City Treasurer's Investment Report as of June 30, 1989; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 87-89 AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN AND ESTABLISHING THE SALARY RANGE FOR ASSISTANT PLANNER and approved warrant Register in the amount of $1,033,860.14. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by majority vote, the City Council approved the minutes of the regular meeting of June 26, 1989. Cm. Snyder abstained from voting on the minutes as he was not present at the June 26, 1989, meeting. CM-8-21 5 Regular Meeting July 10, 1989 REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM KEYSTONEADULT LEARNING CENTER Recreation Director Diane Lowart stated that she had received a request for financial support from Dolores Eusario, Chairperson for the Keystone Adult Learning Center. The Keystone Adult Learning Center is a new program in the Tri-Valley area to serve developmentally disabled adults. Educational programming would be provided six hours per day Monday through Friday for severely disabled adults over the age of 22 years. There are currently no programs of this type in the Dublin-Livermore- Pleasanton area. Ms. Lowart continued that an actual dollar amount had not been requested, but that any funds received would be used to purchase adaptive equipment for the clients and for building modifications. Pleasanton apparently has committed funds; Livermore received a presentation but has not committed funds as of this date. ~ Dolores Eusario, Chairperson for the Keystone Adult Learning Center Committee, introduced her co-worker Jan Carli and stated that she was a teacher of the developmentally disabled at Dublin High School. She continued that the Keystone Adult Learning Center had received funds for building modifications and some adaptive equipment and said that there were three areas for which they were now seeking contributions: The first area is in-service training for teachers and aides. Ms. Eusario said that teachers of developmentally disabled adults were not required to have credentials and that the special needs of their clients are better met by teachers and aides who have had training in occupational and/or physical therapy, first aid, and CPR. The cost of a consultant to provide training would be $50 to $100 per hour, or a total cost of $2,500 to $3,000. The second area of need is for equipment and supplies such as special furniture, typewriters, etc. The estimated cost of the equipment would be $2,000 to $2,500. The third area of need is for a computer for the business portion of the program. The system would maintain file information on the clients. There is no definite cost estimate to date for the computer, but the cost would probably be in the area of $3,000 to $4,000. Cm. Jeffery asked if Ms. Eusario had talked with Apple Computer regarding their grant program. Ms. Eusario responded that they would be applying for a grant to provide a computer for their clients' use, which would be an Apple II-E or similar unit. The office computer would need to be more sophisticated. Some of the staff had already been trained on a Macintosh. Cm. Jeffery asked if the organization had non-profit status. Ms. Eusario said that they would apply for non-profit status after incorporating. CM-8-21 6 Regular Meeting July 10, 1989 Cm. Jeffery asked how many persons would be served by the Center and where they would come from. Ms. Eusario said that the Center would serve 20 clients, and that it was hoped that all of them would come from the Tri-Valley area. There were approximately 12 to 14 applications received to date that were from the Tri-Valley area; however, if all 20 spaces were not filled by Tri-Valley residents, they would accept people from waiting lists in other areas. Cm. Jeffery asked what other funding had been applied for. Ms. Eusario said that certain funding was provided per client per day of attendance from the Regional Center (a State-funded organization). A grant was received when they opened, but it was to be spent on the building lease and salaries only. Cm. Jeffery asked where the Center was housed. Ms. Eusario said that space had been rented in the Koll Center building in Pleasanton. Cm. Jeffery asked if funding had been requested from the Tri-Valley Fund. Ms. Eusario said they planned to apply at a future date, after the specific needs were more clearly known. Cm. Snyder asked what the amount of the previous grant was and if the Center had a budget. Ms. Eusario responded that the initial grant was in the amount of $26,000 and that a budget had been developed. Cm. Hegarty asked if the request for the approximately $10,000 needed would be divided among the Tri-Valley cities. Ms. Eusario stated that she did not expect an individual city to fund the entire $10,000 and that she had outlined the three areas of need so that the Council could choose an item to provide funding for. She added that they would like to receive $3,000 to $4,000 from each city. Pleasanton had already agreed to provide funds. The group would be making a formal presentation to Livermore. Cm. Jeffery asked if this would be a day school. Ms. Eusario said that the clients would attend for six~ hours a day, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. She and Ms. Carli displayed pictures of some of the clients to illustrate their disabilities and stated that no other schools in the area were available for this age group. Mayor Moffatt asked if the Center would provide more than just day care. Ms. Eusario said that their clients would not ever be completely independent but that they could become more independent in some respects, which would in turn help their care providers. CM-8-217 Regular Meeting July 10, 1989 Mayor Moffatt asked if Ms. Eusario was aware of other grants that were available. He said that the ACAP has a grant for agencies in Alameda County and that he would be glad to give her the address. Ms. Eusario said she would appreciate it and added that one of the problems with grants is that most won't fund start-up programs. Mayor Moffatt said that State and Federal funding was at a premium but was available. It was the consensus of the Council that they would like to see a copy of Keystone Center's budget and specific proposal. In addition, the report would need to identify the status of non-profit filing. Ms. Eusario was requested to send a copy of the information to Ms. Lowart for consideration on a future agenda. PUBLIC HEARING LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 86-1 (VILLAGES @ wILLOW CREEK) Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Public Works Director Lee Thompson presented the staff report which stated that as part of the review and approval of the 145-unit single family development (Village VI) and the other, multi-family Villages, certain landscaping and open space maintenance was made a condition of approval. This maintenance assessment district provides funds for this work. Mr. Thompson used a map to point out the various areas to be maintained and discussed the scope of work: maintenance of landscaping and irrigation systems, right-of-way fencing, walls and entrance signs, trash removal, and maintenance of the open space lots (firebreaks, weed abatement, and slope drainage). The open space parcel maintenance will be charged to the District for three years only, similar to the agreement made for Tract 4719. The upcoming year will be the third and final year that the District will pay for open space maintenance. The District's boundaries include all of Tract 5511; Villages IV and V were previously excluded but are proposed to be annexed this year. The assessment per single family lot last year was $96.46, as 'it was anticipated that the City would maintain landscaping for only a part of the year. This year's assessment is proposed to be $120 per single- family lot and $60 per condominium or townhouse lot. Staff held an informational meeting with interested property owners on June 21st in order to explain the scope of work and answer any questions. Eight homeowners attended the meeting. A concern was raised at this meeting regarding maintenance and litter pickup to date. The City's Maintenance Superintendent explained that the City had just recently assumed the maintenance reponsibility from the developer and that the maintenance crew was establishing a regular schedule for landscape maintenance and beautification. Additionally, Staff advised the residents that the City has been experiencing vandalism problems with respect to the irrigation system. CM-8-21 8 Regular Meeting July 10, 1989 Barbara Schott, 8010 Crossridge Road, asked if maintenance of the open space would entail more than just mowing, and if there would be any additional planting. She also questioned whether the grasses which were mowed down would be removed. Mr. Thompson responded that the open space slope was hydroseeded by the developer and that maintenance involved cutting a firebreak (mowing) one time per year in the spring. The purpose of the firebreak is to keep a fire on the hill from coming down into the homeowners' yards. Ms. Schott stated that the grass was still very thick and that neighborhood children were sliding down the hill on cardboard. Mr. Thompson said that he would have the Maintenance Superintendent take a look. Tom West, 8002 Crossridge Road, said that the soil behind his house is very sandy and that the cut is steep and comes down to his fence line. There is no room for the sand to slide down without getting into his yard, and there has been some erosion. He added that he felt the City would not allow people to plant on the slope and thought the soil was too .sandy for anything to grow. He also said that children play on the slope and make noise and that he was not in favor of encouraging people to use the open space. Mr. Thompson responded that the grass and weeds were cut rather than killed so that the root systems would hold the slope. The idea for use of the open space is to place trails along the ridge that would be for walking rather than playing. Mr. West asked if the City was responsible for the erosion. Mr. Thompson said that the City was only responsible for landscape maintenance. The City has an easement for performing this work; however, each individual property owner is responsible for the condition of the slope. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 88-89 APPROVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT, AND ORDERING LEVY OF ASSESSMENT LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1986-1 CM-8-21 9 Regular Meeting July 10, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL ALAMEDA COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Rod Barger stated that in accordance with Assembly Bill 2948 (Tanner Bill) adopted by the California State Legislature in 1986, every county in the State is required to prepare a Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The Alameda County Waste Management Authority has prepared this plan for Alameda County. The plan will ultimately affect Dublin as well as all other cities in the County. The Alameda County Waste Management Authority is a joint powers agency composed of cities in Alameda County and is made up of council members from each of the 14 Alameda County cities, a County Supervisor, and two representatives from special districts. The Authority is responsible for preparing the Plan and involving the public in its preparation. The Alameda County Planning Department acts as staff to the Authority and is responsible for coordinating the work of consultants hired to write the plan. Mr. Barger continued that the City Council previously reviewed and commented on the draft Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan and draft EIR on May 9, 1988, and on March 13, 1989. The Authority had evaluated all comments, revised the Plan, and was returning it to the all of the City Councils for final review and approval during the month of July. The Waste Management Authority will consider the final Plan approval at their July 26, 1989, meeting. Once approved by a majority of cities in Alameda County, the Plan will be forwarded to the State Department of Health Services for final review and approval. Each City, as well as the County, then has 180 days to amend its General .Plan to incorporate the Hazardous Waste Management Plan, which will be utilized to guide the process of siting new hazardous waste disposal facilities and to guide the process of reducing sources creating hazardous and toxic materials. Mr. Barger outlined the major changes that were made to the final Plan and stated that even with the revisions, no area in Dublin meets the site selection criteria and that, therefore, no hazardous waste management facilities would be located here. It appears that Livermore could have potential to house a hazardous waste management facility. A memo received on July 10, 1989, from William Fraley of Alameda County was distributed to the City Council. This memo stated an additional change that was incorporated into the final Plan. This change had no impact on the Staff recommendation. Mayor Moffatt asked if the General Plan Amendment could be included with other proposed Amendments or if it would be counted as one of the four the City is allowed to make in a year. Mr. Barger responded that the Amendment could be included with other items if the timing was right but that it probably would need to be a separate change. CM-8-220 Regular Meeting July 10, 1989 There was no public comment on this issue. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 89-89 APPROVING THE ALAMEDA COUNTY HAZARDOUSWASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN ARTS FOUNDATION FOUNTAIN REVISION - CIVIC CENTER COURTYARD Assistant City Manager Paul Rankin stated that in February of 1989, the City Council had reviewed a presentation by the Dublin Fine Arts Foundation regarding development of a piece of artwork to be located within the Civic Center courtyard. The artist's concept works with a fountain in the central courtyard which is substantially different from the small recirculating fountain included in the original construction documents. Staff requested that the City's contractor, Dickman-Nourse, provide a cost estimate for construction of the new courtyard fountain. This estimate, which was obtained through work with DNI's subcontractor, Pacific Water Art, was $86,600, including a $17,500 credit for deletion of the original fountain. The proposal also included a request for a contract extension to September 1, 1989. Mr. Rankin continued that the City's Construction Manager had completed an independent estimate, which was a total of $45,000. Attempts to reconcile the differences with Pacific Water Art were unsuccessful. In addition, Staff felt the request for contract extension was unreasonable when applied to the whole project. The Civic Center Advisory Committee recommended that the original fountain be deleted from the current contract with DNI in order to allow the City to work toward an economical method of accepting the artwork from the Foundation and also to allow an opportunity to competitively bid the work without incurring the General Contractor's overhead costs. In order to accommodate a fountain at a future date, the City requested that the Contractor install certain underground utilities. The estimated cost of the plumbing and electrical work is estimated not to exceed $7,500; the work is being performed on a time and material basis. Additional underground facilities will need to be constructed as part of the revised fountain project. A complete set of bid plans and specifications would need to be prepared in order to bid the work as a separate project. David Gates and Associates has offered to provide the services at a cost not to exceed $7,385, 'including assistance during the construction phase. The project would be overseen by the Public Works Department. CM-8-221 Regular Meeting July 10, 1989 In order to obtain the Contractor's pricing, the City engaged the services of the Civic Center Electrical Engineer to provide the necessary electrical information. The cost of this service was $3,000. The $17,500 credit for deletion of the original fountain will approximately cover the costs incurred for electrical design, preparation of the bid specifications, and installation of underground facilities and thus allow the City to proceed with the project without committing funds that were not previously appropriated for the Civic Center project. Mr. Rankin said that the Civic Center Advisory Committee had recommended that the City Council authorize preparation of the bid documents. The Consultant would prepare a final cost estimate, and Staff would come back to the City Council for authorization to solicit bids. It was estimated that the project would be ready to go to bid in August if the design services contract was approved. Cm. Jeffery said that this method seemed to be the most cost-effective. Cm. Hegarty asked whether the Arts Foundation had recently let the City Council know how much funding they had obtained to date. Cm. Snyder said that he felt Mr. Hegarty's request for an update was reasonable. Mr. Rankin stated that approval of the preparation of bid documents did not commit the City Council to construction of the fountain; however, it would provide an accurate cost of the work. Cm. Jeffery added that the sculpture was approved in concept only. Cm. Hegarty said that he was concerned that the $17,500 credit for deletion of the original fountain would be used or partially used to design and prepare bid documents for the revised fountain, and that if the sculpture could not be funded or it was later determined that the original fountain would be used after all, additional funds would have to be appropriated to complete it. Mr. Rankin stated that a portion of the money would be used for inspection and it would not all be expended on the design process. Cm. Vonheeder said that she understood Cm. Hegarty's concern. Mr. Rankin said that approval of the design agreement would keep the City's options open and that the cost of the revised fountain was not known at this time. Cm. Jeffery stated that she felt the contractor was taking advantage of the City with the $86,600 price. Cm. Vonheeder said she was not opposed to approving the design agreement but that she felt'it was time to get an update from the Foundation. CM-8-222 Regular Meeting July 10, 1989 Cm. Jeffery said she thought approximately $75,000 to $80,000 had been raised to date. Mr. Rankin advised that Staff would request that the Foundation provide an update on their activities at the time that the final plans and specifications were presented to the City Council. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the City Council approved the recommendations of the Civic Center Advisory Committee, authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement for design services with David Gates and Associates, and directed Staff to have the Arts Foundation provide an update on funding obtained to date when the fountain plans are ready in August. OTHER BUSINESS · Eastern Annexation Area Infrastructure Subcommittee Mr. Rankin stated that a meeting of this subcommittee, which deals with the Dublin Boulevard Extension and related improvements, would need to be set up for the last week of July or the first week of August to discuss the report prepared by John Heindel. Two previous meetings were attended by the Councilmember that was Mayor at the time. Mayor Moffatt said that he would be able to attend the meeting. Cms. Jeffery and Snyder would serve as alternates. Since the League Conference is the last week of July, the meeting would have to be scheduled for a different week. Tri-Valley Council Mr. Rankin said that reservations would need to be made by Friday, July 14th, for the Tri-Valley Council meeting of July 20th, which will be held in Danville. East Bay League Mr. Rankin said that reservations would need to be made by July 21st for the Executive Forum to be held in Monterey. Cm. Vonheeder recommended that everyone attend if possible. CM-8-223 Regular Meeting July 10, 1989 Dolan Park Dedication Mr'. Rankin stated that the Dolan Park Dedication would be held on Saturday, July 15th, starting at 10:30 a.m. Ms. Lowart added that activities would include a basketball contest for children and adults, an earth ball contest for children, and an ice cream social. Sister City Visitors Mayor Moffatt reminded those present that the visitors from Dublin's Sister City, Bray, Ireland, would be arriving on July 31st. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. CM-8-224 Regular Meeting July 10, 1989