Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-1988REGULAR MEETING - February 8, 1988 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, February 8, 1988, in the meeting room of the Dublin Library° The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m., by Mayor Linda Jeffery. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Moffatt, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Jeffery. 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. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular 'Meeting of January 25, 1988; Approved the City Treasurer's Investment Report for Period Ending January 31, 1988; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 17 - 88 SETTING FORTH THE INVESTMENT POLICY FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN FOR 1988 Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 18 - 88 ESTABLISHING A POLICY RELATED TO CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 19 - 88 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A QUITCLAIM DEED AND ABANDONMENT OF STORM DRAIN EASEMENT PARCEL MAP 518 Approved a Change Order for resurfacing two tennis courts at Kolb Park at an additional cost of $17,666; *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ + + + + + + + + + + + CM-7-30 Regular Meeting February 8, 1988 With regard to the 1988 Summer Aquatics Program: 1) authorized an additional appropriation in the amount of $10,000 to be offset by aquatic fees; 2) authorized a Budget Transfer from the Contingent Reserve in the amount of $4,500; 3) authorized recruitment of part-time aquatic personnel; Authorized out of state travel for the City Manager, Assistant to the City Manager and the City Attorney, February 17-19, 1988 related to refinancing the 1985 Certificates of Participation; Awarded bid for Trustee Bank for refinancing of Certificates of Participation to Bank of California and authorized Staff to sign agreement; and approved Warrant Register in the amount of $1,068,250.66. Cm. Moffatt requested that the item related to the informational report on the Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Cm. Moffatt indicated that he had received a flyer "The Sewers Are Coming", from the Tri-Valley Conservation Committee. Some of the information contained is questionable, related to the building of the pipeline out of the Valley. They state that there will be about one million people in the valley in the next 20 years. He felt this was a high estimate. People do have a right to vote on this, but at this time, TWA has not made any decisions on what they will be doing. They are talking about enlarging the capacity. People should understand that the Dublin San Ramon Services District Board of Directors is the agency'that makes decisions related to this issue. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the Council received the informational report related to the Tri-Valley Waste- water Authority (TWA). PUBLIC HEARING - THE GOOD GUYS/ENEA PROPERTIES COMPANY SIGN LOCATION VARIANCE - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL PA 87-161 Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. On January 25, 1988, the City Council held a public hearing on PA 87-161, the Good Guys Sign Location Variance application. The Good Guys requested a variance to allow a wall sign on the west elevation of Building B in the Enea Plaza Shopping Center, Amador Plaza Road at Dublin Boulevard. The application had previously been denied by the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission. The Council continued the item with direction to consider a resolution approving the application. Staff prepared and presented a resolution which included positive findings of fact and conditions of approval. Cm. Hegarty commented that he noticed under the findings, only a couple of words were changed. He did not feel that findings A and B really prove a point. Cm. Hegarty felt that in the future, the Sign Ordinance should be brought back to the Council to relook at it so that Staff and the Planning Commission will have a clearer understanding of the Council's direction. *+,+*+*+*+*+,+*+*+*+*+*+*+,+*+,+*+,+*+*+*+,+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+,+*+ CM-7-31 Regular Meeting February 8, 1988 Mayor Jeffery questioned if Cm. Hegarty would like the special conditions defined. Cm. Hegarty felt this would be appropriate. Gregg Steele, representing The Good Guys, indicated that he felt the Resolution was well written and they agree to the conditions. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Snyder indicated he understood what Cm. Hegarty was saying and thought perhaps it was a semantical problem. We are not looking at giving any special favors to anyone in town. It says that this is a different type of property and as such, needs to be given a special look. He did not feel it would be necessary to look at the Sign Ordinance again. Others in the community can request that the City Council consider a variance request in any particular case. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 20 - 88 APPROVING PA 87-161 THE GOOD GUYS (APPLICANTS) & ENEA PROPERTIES COMPANY (OWNERS) - SIGN LOCATION VARIANCE REQUEST, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND AMADOR PLAZA ROAD Cm. Hegarty voted against this motion. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10-82 REGULATING SALE & USE OF FIREWORKS Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that at the January 25, 1988 Council meeting, the Council waived the reading and introduced an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 10-82. This amendment to Ordinance No. 10-82 provides that a fireworks booth permit issued during calendar year 1988 shall include a condition on the permit that indicates that the permit would not be valid in the event that the City Council repeals Ordinance No. 10-82 and No. 12-82 prior to June 28, 1988, and further, that the permittee shall bear the risk of loss of any costs incurred in connection with obtaining the permit. Cm. Hegarty suggested that the groups applying for permits be given a typewritten explanation. City Attorney Nave indicated that the Fire Chief could include this information with the permits. Glenn Forbes, an attorney representing the fireworks industry, stated that by taking this action, the Council is precluding the sale of fireworks for this year. The necessary time that it takes the groups to obtain insurance and to *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+,+*+*+,+,+*+*+*+*+*+,+,+,+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+,+ CM-7-32 Regular Meeting February 8, 1988 locate a space for their booths, the Council is putting the full loss on the charitable organizations. The costs are such that they will not be able to undertake the expenditure of the funds. There was time enough that an election could have been held earlier. Since the Council decided to consolidate this election and put it on the June ballot (he assumed because of costs), it will be very difficult for the groups to deal with because of the timing. Mr. Forbes felt that if the voters ban fireworks, it should not be effective this year. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Moffatt felt that anyone in business has to take risks and he cited the example of all the 49er items that were purchased in anticipation of their going to the Super Bowl. These types of decisions are part of being in business and part of making money. Cm. Vonheeder advised that we are not talking about people in business, but rather charitable organizations. She indicated she is very dissatisfied that a possible ban would go into effect this year. On motion of cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by majority vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 2 - 88 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10-82 REGULATING THE SALE AND USE OF FIREWORKS Cm. Vonheeder voted against this motion. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE ADOPTING ALAMEDA COUNTY CODE TITLE 3, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 14, BY REFERENCE (CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR, RECONSTRUCTION, DESTRUCTION, OR ABANDONMENT OF WELLS Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that this ordinance, which was introduced at the City Council meeting of January 25, 1988, would incorporate the provisions of Article 14 of Chapter 6 of Title 3 of the Alameda County Code, per Section 3-160.2 of the County Code. This particular portion of the Alameda County Code was not adopted by reference when the City incorporated. The County will continue to be the enforcing agency. No comments were made by members of the public. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted * +*+* +* +* +*+* +* +*+* +* +* +* +*+*+* +* +* +*+*+* +*+*+* +* +* +* +.+,+, +,+. +. +, +, +. +. + CM-7-33 Regular Meeting February 8, 1988 ORDINANCE NO. 3 - 88 ADOPTING ALAMEDA COUNTY CODE TITLE 3, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 14, BY REFERENCE ( WELLS ) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE INCREASING CITY COUNCIL SALARIES Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that in accordance with Council discussion in January, 1987,. the City Attorney has prepared an Ordinance for Council consideration, which would increase Councilmembers salaries by 5% for calendar year 1988. However, incumbent Councilmembers would not be eligible to receive the increase until after the November, 1988 election. The Ordinance was introduced at the City Council meeting of January 25, 1988. This Ordinance was prepared in accordance with Section 36516(a) of the California Government Code, which establishes a salary of $300 per month for City Councilmembers. Section 36516(b) allows for an increase in Councilmember's salaries not to exceed 5% for each calendar year. If the Ordinance is adopted, City Council salaries would be $347.29 per month after the November, 1988 election. No comments were made by members of the public. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 4 - 88 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6 AND PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE OF THE SALARY FOR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL . * . * PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE RELATING TO OVERSIZE TRUCK OPERATIONS Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that in the 1982 Surface Transportation Assistance Act, the Federal Government pre-empted State and local governments from regulating the size of certain commercial vehicles operating on a network of interstate and certain other highways. However, the State and local governments do have the responsibility for providing reasonable off-network access to facilities and services and to terminal locations. *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+ CM-7-34 Regular Meeting February 8, 1988 The maximum permissible semi-trailer length for trucks operating on the Designated System of Routes is 53'. In combination with the tractor itself, the overall vehicle length may be as much as 75'. The physical dimensions of many local streets will not accommodate a vehicle of this size because of the location of curbs, traffic signals, medians and other islands, street lights, signs, etc. A local jurisdiction is permitted to establish a procedure for allowing these "super" trucks to use its streets. This ordinance, which is modeled after the ordinance adopted by Alameda County, establishes procedures for terminal designation and truck route designation to terminals for interstate trucks operating on a federally designated highway system. Under this procedure, the Public Works Director/City Engineer would conduct a review of proposed routing at the expense of the applicant and determine whether or not the route was capable of accommodating the large vehicles. If no proposed route can safely do so, the applicant may request retrofitting of the route, to be performed at the applicant's expense. If an application is denied by the Director of Public Works, the applicant has the right of appeal to the City Council. Staff advised that the City has not, at this time, received any requests for terminal access. Mayor Jeffery questioned if there was a requirement that we have the oversized trucks in Dublin. City Engineer Thompson indicated that they may want to come into the American City Truck Stop. No comments were made by members of the public. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. The Council questioned if Dougherty Road could, in its ultimate configuration, handle this type of a situation. Mr. Thompson indicated that this is something that Staff would need to look into. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and introduced an ordinance establishing procedures for oversized truck operations. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE RELATING TO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff explained that this proposed ordinance would make it unlawful to maintain dirt, litter, debris, clotheslines, trash containers, junk, broken or discarded furniture, overgrown vegetation, dead, decayed or diseased trees, weeds, graffiti, boats, trailers,, or vehicles, camper sheels and similar unsightly materials visible from a public street in residential property. It would also be unlawful to maintain abandoned boarded-up, * +. +. +. +. +. +. +. +* +* +. +* +* +* +* +. +. +. +* +. +. +* +* +. +* +* +* +. +. +. +. +* +* +. +* +* +*+ CM-7-35 Regular Meeting February 8, 1988 partially destroyed, partially constructed buildings and buildings where the exterior paint is mostly worn off. The ordinance declares the conditions to be a public nuisance and prescribes procedures for abatement. The procedures would require seven days notice and a hearing before the City Manager. Any order to abate may be appealed to the City Council. If an order to abate is not complied with, the City can do the work and make the cost a lien on the property. As an alternate, a violation is an infraction and is subject to the citation procedure. Mr. Taugher indicated that the draft ordinance was sent to a number of agencies, including 4 homeowner associations in the City. Cm. Snyder indicated that with regard to clotheslines, his back yard is visible and contains a clotheslines. Mr. Taugher reported that this ordinance applies to conditions visible in a front or side yard only. Cm. Moffatt questioned if someone were involved in a hardship situation because of sickness, poor health, etc., and their property cannot be improved, are there any provisions for mercy from this type of an ordinance. Mr. Taugher indicated that facts of this sort would probably come out in a hearing and would be taken into consideration in the order of abatement. City Manager Ambrose advised that code enforcement personnel would go out and look at a situation and then a hearing is held, at which time we would talk with the people to ascertain the people's ability to remedy the situation. Perhaps they could take advantage of the minor home repair program. In any event, Staff would attempt to work out any situation with the individual. It would only come before the Council if no agreement could be reached. Cm. Vonheeder felt there was too much subjectivity and indicated she did not like the phrase "detrimental to neighboring properties or property values". She questioned if Staff's intention was to enforce on a complaint basis. Staff responded yes. Cm. Vonheeder indicated she has a problem with ordinances of this type as they tend to force other peoples values on you. Mayor Jeffery indicated that the ordinance was modeled after the San Leandro ordinance. Susan Hurl, representing the Southern Alameda County Board of Realtors, indicated that her organization supported San Leandro's ordinance and had the same concerns as with Dublin's; namely, 1) How far can building inspectors go when inspecting a property that is in violation?; 2) The question of liability; and 3) Clarification of some of the terms, i.e., what is "junk"? City Attorney Nave indicated that the phrase "detrimental to neighboring properties or property values" could be deleted from the ordinance *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+.+*+*+,+*+,+*+*+*+*+*+,+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ CM-7-36 Regular Meeting February 8, 1988 Ray Grimes, 7213 Dover Court, indicated that he lives in a leased house and is looking to buy a house in Dublin. On Sunday afternoon, he looked at a house on Ironwood Drive and was appalled to see that from the beginning to the end of this street, it is a good example of whY Dublin needs this type of an ordinance. One house has a backhoe on the front lawn. Another house has broken up concrete pieces piled up. Another house has an abandoned Volvo parked with weeds all around it. Two trailers were parked in the street and Mr. Grimes felt they need to be ticketed because the street sweeper obviously cannot do a proper job. He felt this ordinance was a good start and the City should be hardnosed about it and it should be strongly enforced. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Vonheeder questioned Susan Hurl's comments regarding latitude of building inspectors. Cm. Vonheeder asked if an inspector could cite other things if he goes out and observes a particular Property. Staff responded yes, that an inspector can already do this under existing ordinances. City Manager Ambrose indicated that by deleting the wording related to causing detriment to neighboring properties or property values, the Council would be taking away the ability to do anything about the situation. Mr. Ambrose suggested adding the wording which relates to nuisances which are dangerous to the public health, safety and welfare. The Council requested that under Section 2.1, (g) should be changed to read "Overgrown vegetation likely to harbor rats, vermin and Other nuisances dangerous to the public health, safety and welfare or obstructing necessary view of drivers on public streets or private driveways and visible from a public street;" Section 2.1, (h) should be changed to read "Dead, decayed, diseased or hazardous trees, weeds or other vegetation constituting unsightly appearance, dangerous to public safety and welfare or visible from a public street;". Mayor Jeffery questioned why commercial buildings were left out. Mr. Taugher indicated that the ordinance was developed specifically for residential properties. He felt the Zoning Ordinance could be applied to most non-residential properties. Planning Director Tong indicated that the Zoning Ordinance would cover developed commercial property, but not undeveloped. The Council requested that Section 1.6 be changed to read "PROPERTY. "Property" shall mean all unimproved non-residentially zoned real property and all residential real property, including, but limited to, front yards, side yards, back yards, driveways, walkways and sidewalks and shall include any building located on such property." On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance related to property maintenance. *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + CM-7-37 Regular Meeting February 8, 1988 VALLEY COMMUNITY SWIM CENTER - REQUEST FROM DUBLIN HIGH SCHOOL Recreation Director Lowart advised the Council that Staff has received a request from the Principal of Dublin High School to utilize the Valley Community Swim Center for their swim team, commencing February 8, 1988. The City assumed the aquatic programming responsibility from DSRSD effective January 1, 1988. The District, however, is responsible for maintaining the pool until June 30, 1988. As part of the agreement with DSRSD, the pool will not be heated until June 1, 1988. If the City is interested in opening the pool sooner than June 1, Staff will need to secure permission from DSRSD, as well as pay all associated costs. Staff gave an update with regard to the situation of the swim team utilizing the pool at California High School in San Ramon in the past. There is a $500 per lane charge and Dublin could utilize 3 or 4 lanes at 5:30 p.m. Because the pool has not traditionally been open during the Winter and Spring months, Staff advised that it is difficult to determine the cost to operate the pool from February through May. The DSRSD Park Maintenance Superintendent has indicated that if the pool were to be opened prior to June 1, 1988, there would not be any additional maintenance costs to the City as he has Staff in place who maintain the San Ramon Olympic Pool. DSRSD has notified Staff that before the pool can be opened, the pool deck needs to be either replaced or resealed. Deck replacement preliminary costs are estimated at $60,000-$65,000. The estimate for resealing the deck is $4,800. Staff recommended that the deck be resealed for the 1988 swim season and then include the deck replacement in the 1988-89 Capital Improvement Program. It is anticipated that the resealing will take approximately one week to complete. Staff felt that the earliest date that the pool could be available for use by the swim team would be February 29th. Staff calculated the costs to operate the pool and a report was given' to the Council. Total costs were estimated to be $27,000-$35,800. The School District does not provide the high schools with funds to operate pools, but instead leaves it up to the individual schools to secure practice space for swim teams and provide the necessary funds to pay for the space. The School District does, however, provide liability insurance coverage. Staff did not feel that the City will be in a position to offer any programming for the public until late May, and therefore, the High School would be the sole user of the pool from February 29th to May 27th. Recreation Director Lowart indicated that the Dublin High Grounds Improvement Committee is looking at whether the City should spend any City money on school facilities. Cm. Moffatt asked if Ms. King had indicated any willingness to trade any uses and/or other facilities with the City. Ms. Lowart indicated that Ms. King has always indicated a willingness, but the City has not been able to utilize very much. *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+.+ CM-7-38 Regular Meeting February 8, 1988 Kent Jensen, Matthew Berkland, Dane Hodson, Laura Patterson and other students from Dublin High School who were also members of the swim team, addressed the Council and requested that the Council consider opening the pool as soon as possible. The swim team has grown considerably, and unfortunately, this growth has left the swim team without water in which to practice. It was reported that 85% of drowning victims do not know how to swim and the students felt that no one in the community should be deprived from learning this vital skill. Mayor Jeffery thanked the students for their very thorough presentation. Mr. Charles Young introduced himself as an English teacher at Dublin High and stated he will also be the swimming coach. Travel to California High is very difficult, and not many swimmers will hang with it. By using the pool in Dublin, a good program can be developed. Cm. Hegarty expressed concern in that this is a special interest group. The group wants to open the pool as soon as possible and questioned since they need the pool by 3 p.m., could they get by using only 1/2 of the pool. He indicated he would feel more comfortable in serving the entire community. Mr. Jensen indicated that the swim team needs only about 4 lanes and the pool will accommodate 10 lanes. They would be willing to pay some money each month to help offset some of the costs. They currently pay $35 per month as members of the Pleasanton Seahawks. Cm. Vonheeder questioned the possibility of an athletic fee. Mr. Jensen advised that they pay a $25 transportation fee. He transports students in the back of his pickup truck. Cm. Moffatt indicated he had questions regarding logistics. He asked who will supervise the pool until City Staff comes on board inJlate March. Mr. Jensen indicated that there has been no discussion regarding this. Mayor Jeffery felt that it would be appropriate for Recreation Director Lowart to discuss this with Joan King, Principal of Dublin High. In looking toward the future, the City needs to look at how this pool is funded. Cm. Snyder felt we also need to look at ownership of the pool. The property is actually school district property and the pool was constructed by the old Valley Community Services District. We need to look at what the existing arrangements are. City Manager Ambrose indicated that as part of the transfer of responsibility, the 2 agencies would have to sign these over to the City. Cm. Vonheeder felt that this is something the City definitely needs to look into. The lease is contingent on certain things happening. She indicated she was very involved in getting the pool reopened back in 1979/80 and she feels it is high time it is opened for use by the school. The kids should not be deprived from using the pool another year. * +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +, +* +* +* +* +* +* +, +, +* +* +* +* +* +* +, +, + CM-7-39 Regular Meeting February 8, 1988 Mayor Jeffery felt that the Council might be pre-empting some of the decisions being made by the Dublin High Grounds Task Force. Cm. Hegarty felt that the City is subsidizing the Library even though the City does not hold title to the building, and by doing so, the quality of life is increased for the community. Opening the pool would have its rewards. Costs were discussed, and it was felt that the best time for consideration would be at budget time, however, they are anxious to start their program now. A suggestion was made to direct Staff to make it work somehow and to find the money somewhere. Mr. Jensen indicated that the 8' x 4' strips now being used are not really effective as they let a lot of the heat escape. A new cover could be purchased which would allow better heating and also cut back on the heating costs. Cm. Snyder questioned when the school would be ready to utilize the pool for physical education programs. Mr. Jensen thought it could be immediately. Cm. Snyder felt that if the operation could be split over the entire school, it would be a better way of splitting the costs. Ms. Lowart indicated that the City is concerned that whatever program the School District offers, they must have qualified staff on deck and that access to the pool would be closely monitored. City Manager Ambrose felt that the young people were to be commended for their willingness to participate in the cost sharing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the Council expressed a willingness to consider this request of opening the pool early if all the arrangements can be worked out. Staff was directed to contact the Amador High School District and DSRSD to work out all the details. The Council also directed Staff to request that DSRSD reseal the deck at a cost of $4,800. RECESS A short recess was called. was reconvened. Ail Councilmembers were present when the meeting TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT - INFORMATIONAL REPORT Chris Kinzel, TJKM, advised the Council that the City's Traffic Signal Interconnect is now operational at all intersections on Dublin Boulevard except San Ramon Road and Dougherty Road. The purpose of the system is to *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ CM-7-40 Regular Meeting February 8, 1988 improve traffic flow along the more heavily traveled Dublin Boulevard, the end result being greater fuel eficiency. On the coordinated system, the same cycle length is required for all intersections so that their timing with each other is maintained. John Gildae, Senior Engineer displayed slides explaining the interconnect system. The timing of the signals have to be continually finetuned. The Council thanked TJKM for their very informative report. REVIEW OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION REPORT FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO 1-580/I-680 EAST & SOUTH OF THE INTERCHANGE Staff advised that Caltrans recently released a report for the Environmental Assessment and Initial Study for the addition of and improvements to the interchanges at 1-680 and Stoneridge Drive, 1-580 and Santa Rita Road, together with auxiliary freeway lanes on 1-580 between Santa Rita Road and Hopyard Road and on 1-680 between Stoneridge Drive and the 1-580/I-680 interchange. A public hearing was held on February 4th, and written comments are being accepted until February 26, 1988. Staff felt that it is in Dublin's best interest that these projects are constructed for the future of the Dublin extended planning area, but certain clarifications should be made to the report. The Federal Highway Administration is requiring that an arterial road parallel to 1-580 be under construction before the NPID can proceed with the construction of the Hacienda interchange. NPID and Caltrans have assumed that the development of a plan line for extending Dublin Boulevard to Tassajara Road cannot be accomplished to accommodate the time frame associated with the construction of the Hacienda interchange (early 1990). Based on this assumption, they are proposing to develop the existing frontage road along 1-580 which would connect with Scarlett Court. Staff feels that to build this temporary frontage road would be a waste of money if the Dublin Boulevard extension can be constructed in the same time frame as the two interchanges. It is anticipated that the Dublin Boulevard extension road alignment between Dougherty Road the SP right-of-way will be scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing in early March. Staff advised that it has been having discussions with the Army and with Alameda County Staff regarding alignment and acquisition of the right-of-way for Dublin Boulevard. Staff prepared a listing of comments to submit. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to forward written comments on the EIR to Caltrans. * +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +, +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +, +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +*+ CM-7-41 Regular Meeting February 8, 1988 ALAMEDA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEmeNT AUTHORITY The City has received a letter from the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority indicating that the Authority's existence will be terminated on January 27, 1988 and that the new Alameda County Waste Management Authority will come into being on the same date. The legal counsel for the Authority has indicated that this change will necessitate that each member agency of the Alameda County Waste Management Authority designate by Resolution, a member and alternate to represent each member agency on the new Authority effective as of January 27, 1988. The City's current representatives on the Authority are Pete Snyder, Member and Paul Moffatt, Alternate. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 21 - 88 APPOINTING A MEMBER AND ALTERNATE TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (Snyder & Moffatt) PROPERTY EXCHANGE W/DUBLIN INFOR~LATION, INC. Staff explained that the City of Dublin currently holds title to a parcel of land at the location of the Civic Center project. This property was the former site of Valley High School and it is situated in the middle of the current Civic Center construction project. The location of the parcel creates a situation where portions of the Civic Center project will be constructed on City owned property, with a larger portion being owned by Dublin Information, Inc. Since the Civic Center project is funded through Certificates of Participation (COP's), certain restrictions apply to the use of improvements funded with COP's. The parcel owned by the City was purchased with General Funds and has no restrictions. Staff prepared a property description which would exchange identical size parcels between the City of Dublin and Dublin Information, Inc. The end result is that the City owned parcel would be placed at the rear of the current Civic Center projects. No improvements are currently planned for this area~ however, a possible future use could be accommodated. The plat accompanying the legal description amending the lease agreement identifies the final configuration if the exchange is approved. This exchange does not change the total amount of property subject to the adopted lease agreement. Staff advised that it is continuing to work with Rauscher Pierce Refenses as Underwriters and Bond Counsel to develop a revised Financing Package for the Civic Center project. The consultants have recommended that this exchange * +, +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* + CM-7-42 Regular Meeting February 8, 1988 ~ would improve the proposed financing by having the entire project under a single ownership. They have included language in the draft documents to accommodate a future exchange if the current location is not completely desirable. City Manager Ambrose advised that there is an advantage to the City in that under the new financing, we will be subject to the 1986 tax laws, and by moving this property to the rear, it enhances the future flexibility. There will then be no private use restrictions on it. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 22 - 88 and APPROVING A LAND EXCHANGE WITH DUBLIN INFORMATION, INC. RESOLUTION NO. 23 - 88 AUTHORIZING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT RELATING TO PUBLIC FACILITIES PROJECT NO. 1 BY AND BETWEEN DUBLIN INFORMATION, INC., AND THE CITY OF DUBLIN DATED DECEMBER 18, 1985 DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY AUTHORIZATION Staff advised that after recent discussions with Staff of both Alameda County and the City of Pleasanton, and with property owners in the Eastern Extended Planning Area, a potential alignment of the Dublin Boulevard has been identified that is different than that shown in the Dublin General Plan. The new alignment would be further to the north at approximately 2,750 feet north and parallel to 1-580. This realignment may provide for a better land use pattern and better roadway network in the area. Also, moving the alignment away from the 1-580 interchanges would provide more stacking space and more room for lane changes. The realignment may also meet the federal requirement for either a frontage road or an arterial parallel to 1-580 north of the proposed Hacienda Drive interchange. If the Dublin Boulevard extension can be built .at the same time as the proposed Hacienda Drive interchange, Dublin Boulevard could serve as the frontage road instead of one that extends from Scarlett Court to Tassajara Road. For the portion of the Dublin Boulevard extension between the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way and Dougherty Road, the existing Dublin General Plan policies are adequate and Staff is working on a plan line to implement the General Plan policies. The alignment of the rest of the Dublin Boulevard extension east of Tassajara Road will be considered in the East Dublin General Plan Amendment Study. Cm. Moffatt questioned if there are any federal regulations regarding how far a frontage road must be from the freeway. * +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* + CM-7-43 Regular Meeting February 8, 1988 City Manager Ambrose advised that the people in Pleasanton did not feel that Dublin could move along fast enough on the Dublin Boulevard extension to use this alternative. Dublin Boulevard, however, is viewed as being preferable to the frontage road. City Engineer Thompson stated that if Dublin Boulevard doesn't get built, they still want to be able to build these interchanges. Cm. Hegarty questioned costs. Mr. Ambrose indicated that we had approached them with the question "if you are going to build frontage roads, why not help us with building Dublin Boulevard instead?" Their staff was not agreeable and had philosophical problems with this. The funding issue, therefore, is one that still looms before us. Cm. Hegarty questioned how many amendments we were allowed to make. Staff advised that we can make 4 adoptions per year. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the General Plan Amendment Study. OTHER BUSINESS Future of Camp Parks City Manager Ambrose advised that Congressman Stark would like to discuss what the Council feels would be the best use of the Camp Parks facility. He has met with Alameda County and with BART regarding the 147 acres in trying to come up with a plan. BART has been working with Hacienda to get another station located in this vicinity. There are problems with the way BART wants to go about getting their second station. They are not in the development business. Mr. Ambrose reported that he will be meeting with the County on February 11, and with BART on February 17. The Council requested that Staff set up a meeting with Congressman Stark to discuss this. Shell Station, San Ramon Road @ Dublin Boulevard Cm. Snyder requested an update with regard to what is happening with the Shell Station improvements. City Engineer Thompson reported that the State sent a letter last summer stating that they would sell the property back to the City. They want to keep control. Permits were issued for the driveway cuts, but permit fees were never paid. As far as he knew, it was dead. Staff will prepare an update and try to have them commit one way or another. . +, +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +, +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* + CM-7-44 Regular Meeting February 8, 1988 Sphere of Influence Lines LAFCO Meeting Mayor Jeffery advised that there will be a LAFCO meeting on February 18, 1988 at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Ambrose advised that he had met with Livermore after the last hearing and Livermore's Mayor suggested a compromise which would follow Doolan Road and then tie in with our existing sphere line. We have not yet gotten a final commitment from Livermore. CLOSED SESSION At 10:10 p.m., the Council recessed to a closed executive session to discuss potential litigation. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. . +* +* +, +, +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* +* + CM-7-45 Regular Meeting February 8, 1988