Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-14-1987REGULAR .MEETING - Septemb....er 14, _1987 A regUlar meeting of the City· Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, September 14, 1987 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 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. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 24, 1987; Approved the City Treasurer's Investment Report for Period Ending August 31, 1987; Approved the Pro-Forma Financial Report for Period Ending July 31, 1987; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 67 - 87 SETTING GOALS FOR MINORITY BUSINESSENTERPRISE PROGRAM Authorized the Mayor to execute a Public Works Maintenance Agreement with MCE Corporation; Accepted improvements under Contract 87-4, Annual Sidewalk Repair Program as being complete; authorized additional appropriation in the amount of $12,369.07; authorized retention payment to Ambo Engineering ($3,973.25); Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $587,122.89; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 68 - 87 ESTABLISHING A SALARY PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERSONNEL RULES and authorized a budget transfer from the Contingent Reserve to appropriate operating accounts; *************************************************************************** CM-6-275 Regular Meeting September 14, 1987 Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 69 - 87 and ADOPTING A BENEFIT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERSONNEL RULES RESOLUTION NO. 70 - 87 FIXING EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION UNDER THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 78-84 and authorized a budget transfer from the Contingent Reserve to various benefit accounts; Retained Cardoza-Dilallo-Harrington to provide Dolan Park Phase II Landscape Architectural Services; authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement; Authorized Staff to solicit bids for a data processing system computer. PUBLIC HEARING SCARLETT COURT @ CURTISS DODGE, LOADING ZONE & NO PARKING ZONE Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that this it'em was continued from-the City Council meeting of August 24, 1987, at the request of the owners of the Valley Boat House. Curtiss Dodge has requested that the City establish a loading zone along the curb in front of their property in order to provide a place for transport trucks to unload automobiles being delivered to the dealership. Parking is currently prohibited on both sides of Scarlett Court from Dougherty Road to a point approximately 60' south of the driveway of the Valley Boat House. On- street parking is allowed for the approximately 80' remaining between this no-parking zone and the driveway of Curtiss Dodge. When cars are parked along this curb, the transports are forced to double park, creating a hazardous situation for motorists traveling along Scarlett Court. Curtiss Dodge has also requested that approximately 30' of curb southeasterly of their driveway be designated a no parking zone because of sight distance problems for vehicles exiting the driveway. The Traffic Safety Committee has reviewed this request and determined that the loading zone and no parking zone are warranted. John Corallo, co-owner of Valley Boat House indicated he had a problem with the elimination of parking spaces. What they would like to see is a designated parking zone area which would limit the time to one hour, or whatever length of time may be appropriate. This would leave the space open for customer parking on a rotating basis. *************************************************************************** CM-6-276 Regular Meeting September 14, 1987 Shirley Corallo stated she wished to clarify that they do have 4 customer parking spaces on their premises. These 4 spaces are often times used by customers of other businesses, however. Ms. Corallo suggested placing the loading strip on the south end of the Curtiss Dodge driveway. She further stated that they had discussed this informally with Curtiss Dodge and they were in agreement. Mayor Jeffery questioned if Curtiss Dodge had approved this change in writing. Ms. Corallo indicated that they had expected representatives of Curtiss Dodge to be present at the meeting to discuss this. City Engineer Lee Thompson indicated that the draft ordinance would need to be revised to incorporate this change. Because of confusion related to'reading the map that was presented, Cm. Hegarty requested that a blow-up of the area be made available at the next meeting. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, Mayor Jeffery continued the public hearing to the next Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICTS Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that this ordinance, which was introduced at the Council meeting of August 24, 1987, Provides a procedure and means for establishing underground utility districts within the City. The ordinance delineates the noticing procedures and requirements for district formation and the responsibilities of the utility companies and property owners. It also provides a means for the City to underground private service if the property owner fails to do so, with the costs to become a lien on the property. 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. 41 - 87 RELATING TO UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICTS *************************************************************************** CM-6-277 Regular Meeting September 14, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that this ordinance, which was introduced at the City Council meeting of August 24, 1987, sets forth regulations governing use of property and construction of improvements within flood hazard areas, as they are determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Flood Insurance Program. The Building Official is designated as Floodplain Administrator and is appointed by this ordinance to grant or deny development permits within areas of special flood hazard. ~- No comments were made by members of the public. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and adopted ORDINANCE NO. 42 - 87 RELATING TO FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING NORTHWEST CORNER DUBLIN BOULEVARD/CLARK AVENUE, EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that the City is attempting to acquire an 8' wide strip of right-of-way from the California State Automobile Association for the widening of Dublin Boulevard at Clark Avenue. The work is proposed to be done as soon as the right-of-way can be acquired. The City obtained an appraisal performed by Gary Van Arsdale and Associates, and has offered CSAA $7,700 for the property, consistent with this appraisal. CSAA responded that a decision cannot be made until their next Board of Directors meeting in October, and also proposed a purchase price of $19,200. While an agreement may yet be reached with CSAA, Staff requested that the Council adopt the Resolution of Public Interest and Necessity so that this option will be available should it become necessary. This action will allow the CitY Attorney to proceed to obtain possession of the right-of-way through the court so that construction may proceed while negotiations continue. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the road is brought to where it is suggested, how close the curb would be to the existing building. He questioned if it will create a dangerous situatiOn. City Engineer Thompson reported that we are proposing moving the road about 8' and there will still be about 18'-20' to the building. *************************************************************************** CM-6-278 Regular Meeting September 14, 1987 George Schilling, representing CSAA, addressed the Council. He advised that the dollar amount is not a terrific factor, but rather that they are concerned about the building. If 8' is taken off the front of the building, they would be non-conforming. He questioned if they would have to honor the required setback at some time in the future. Mr. Schilling advised that it is unnecessary for the City to talk condemnation proceedings to them. He requested that the Council allow them to continue negotiating until the end of October. By starting condemnation proceedings, the City will be spending its money unnecessarily. City Attorney Nave advised that CSAA will have until the end of October anyway. The City just wants to have possession of the land; we are not talking foreclosing negotiations. Cm. Vonheeder questioned if the City could grant CSAA a forever variance. Staff advised that it was possible that the set-backs would still be in compliance, but Staff will look into this. City Attorney Nave indicated that the set-back issue would not be a major problem. Cm. Hegarty questioned if the land is currently under easements. Mr. Schilling advised that PG&E has a prescriptive easement over the land now, which it has used for a number of years. Mayor Jeffery closed the publiC hearing. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the City plans to proceed within the next 1 or 2 weeks. City Engineer Thompson advised that Staff is requesting authorization to go to bid on this project this evening, with a later agenda item. City Attorney Nave eXplained that the Council has within its power as much time as it wants to negotiate. Cm. Snyder questioned the position of those members of the City Council who may be CSAA members. City Attorney Nave advised that there is no conflict. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 71 - 87 DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN LAND AND DIRECTING THE FILING OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS *************************************************************************** CM-6-279 Regular Meeting September 14, 1987 PUBLIC .HEARING RAFANELLI & NAHAS, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SECTION 22.12 (c) OF ORDINANCE NO. 02-84 Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that Section 22.12 (c) of Ordinance No. 02-84 prescribes requirements for placing fill. Specifically, continuous inspection by a special inspector is required during the preparation of a site and during the placement of any fill which will be used to support any structure. Village II of the Alamo Creek project was graded in 1986, and the necessary final grading inspection report dated February 12, 1987, was provided. Some regrading of Village II occurred in June of 1987. One of the conditions of approval of the building permits which were issued on July 21, i987, was to ~provide'inspection reports for the grading prior to foundation inspection. A detailed list of inspection dates and occurrences was provided to the Council. The Building Official reported that he felt the Council could find that granting the variance would be consistent with the purpose of the ordinance and that it will not lessen the protection to the people of the City of Dublin or the property situated therein. Cm. Hegarty questioned if the Building Official was notified when this was regraded the second time. Mr. Taugher indicated that they were aware, but did not think that they got official notices. The project superintendent should have notified the soils engineer. Cm. Hegarty clarified that it was basically by accident that the City found out about this regrading. Mr. Taugher responded that this was correct. No comments were made by members of the public on this item. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Hegarty indicated that he was sorry that Mr. Nahas wasn't present at the meeting. His people made an error and something should be said to them to let them know that this is not taken lightly. Perhaps the Ordinance should be called up and reviewed. Mr. Nahas arrived at the meeting at this point in time. Cm. Hegarty continued that he felt it was unfortunate that this situation went as far as it did. In the future, Other developers who hear about this should understand exactly what the Ordinance says about inspection. When conditions are placed on a project, all conditions should be met. * %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* CM-6-280 Regular Meeting September 14, 1987 On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 72 - 87 GRANTING A VARIANCE TO SECTION 22.i1(c) OF ORDINANCE NO. 2-84 PUBLIC HEARING RAINBOW INVESTMENT COMPANY REZONE REQUEST, AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Rainbow Investment Company submitted a request to rezone a 1.3 + acre partially developed property from a C-O, Administrative Office ~istrict to a C-l, Retail Business District. -The Zoning Regulations for the C-1 District generally permit more intensive land uses than the Zoning Regulations for the existing C-O District. Although this property lies outside the formal boundary of the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan Area, the site's proximity to the Plan Area would appear to mandate that land uses ultimately allowed on the site, and the development criteria established for such uses, be regulated to assure that they will be consistent with the goals and objectives established by the Plan. The property's proximity to existing residential uses also appears to warrant that special consideration be taken in the establishment of land use and development criteria applied to the site through the rezoning process. The Planning Commission's action on August 17, 1987 reflected Staff's position that a straight application of the C-l, Retail Business District land use and development criteria may not be appropriate. The Commission's action reflected Staff's concern that the use of the C-1 District standards may not provide a level of sensitivity for land use guidelines reflective of its site specific characteristics. The Planning Commission recommended that a modified C-l, Retail Business District be applied to the site through the application of a site-specific PD, Planned Development Zoning District. The Commission additionally recommended that the PD District applied to the site establish site specific development criteria concerning such things as setback requirements, building height and coverage restrictions and landscaping standards. Cm. Snyder stated he did not understand the need to go through the Planned Development process. Planning Director Tong explained that the existing zoning is restricted to office uses and the applicant wants the ability to bring in other retail uses in addition to office space. The Planning Commission concurs with the intent, but there are other uses that would be allowed by a straight C-1 District that Staff feels might not be appropriate for the site. The applicant has indicated that they wish to consider additions to the existing building on the site. *************************************************************************** CM-6-281 Regula~ Meeting September 14, 1987 Cm. Hegarty questioned if this would give the applicant the ability to come in with another proposal. Mr. Tong advised that, depending on the requested use, they would go before either the Planning Commission or the City Council. Cm. Hegarty felt that if the Council approves the Negative Declaration now, the City really doesn't know what they are proposing and what impacts it might have. Mr. Tong advised that if they come in with something extra- ordinary, we could review it further. Ellen Glockner, representing the applicant, indicated she was happy with Staff's recommendation. The building is more geared toward retail. They plan to do extensive landscaping and feel the site can be greatly enhanced. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Snyder questioned when a determination would be made regarding the intersection traffic impact. Mr. Tong stated that the applicants have indicated that they will be coming in with a development proposal sometime in the near future. At that time, Staff will be able to determine what the actual contribution will be. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 73 - 87 ~ and ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING PA 87-076 RAINBOW INVESTMENT COMPANY REZONING APPLICATION RESOLUTION NO. 74 - 87 ADOPTING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING CONCERNING PA 87-076 RAINBOW INVESTMENT COMPANY REZONING APPLICATION and waived the reading and introduced the Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING DUBLIN KAWASAKI CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. On August 17, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying Dublin Kawasaki's Conditional Use Permit request to allow outside storage and display of new and used motorcycles in the parking lot of the site containing a multi-tenant commercial building located at 6743 Dublin Boulevard. On August 19, 1987, Staff received a letter from the Applicant appealing the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. Since the Applicant did not provide the grounds for the appeal, Staff requested additional information. On September 1, 1987, the Applicant submitted a letter *************************************************************************** CM-6-282 RegularMeeting September 14, 1987 explaining that the appeal is based upon the grounds that "the original application was misunderstood by the Planning Staff and denied without due consideration by the Planning Commission". The Applicant advised Staff that "the issue is parking rather than display". The Applicant further advised that he was using the parking lot to store inventory during business hours and for customer parking, not to display merchandise. Staff advised that it does not matter whether the activity is called storage, display or parking. What matters is that all merchandise for sale by businesses in a C-2 District must occur from inside an enclosed building unless the Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit allowing outside activities. Motorcycles for sale by this business should be located inside the building and not in the parking lot. Staff expressed concern that the City could be held liable if this request is approved and some form of personal injury or property damage occurs as a result of allowing the motorcycles to be stored or displayed in the proposed location. Doug Meyer, President of Dublin Kawasaki addressed the Council and advised that he is not the same individual as the previous applicant. He was not aware at the time he bought the business of these restrictions. He is a licensed vehicle dealer. When the business was first located here, there were no permit requirements. It is impossible to run a vehicle business and not have some parked outside. He indicated he did not understand why this is now such an issue, in that he will be moving in a couple of months. He did not feel that any direct complaints have been made about his vehicles. Since this situation will cease within approximately 60 days when he moves his business to a new location, Mr. Meyer requested direction regarding some way to work out the problem. Mr. Meye~r apologized for taking up the Council's time with what he felt should be an insignificant matter. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the parking lot area is paid for as part of the lease. Mr. Tong advised that this is a common area to be used by all tenants. The area was originally approved as a pedestrian walkway. Cm. Snyder stated that on a busy day, it is impossible to find a parking space in the Murco Center and often people need to park a distance away from the business they wish to frequent. With regard to Mr. Meyer's comment related to no permit being required years ago, Cm. Snyder advised that in 1968 an ordinance was enacted by Alameda County and there have been no changes subsequent to that time. It is unfortunate that Mr. Lindsey did not advise Mr. Meyer regarding past problems. Cm. Hegarty stated that in reviewing files from Alameda County, Conditional Use Permits were required. Yet, people always seem shocked and ask "why all of a sudden".~ The issues of display, parking, etc., are all combined. Very clearly, this would be granting a special priviledge. It is not right for the Council to simply turn their heads on this situation when the ordinance clearly states that this cannot be done. *************************************************************************** CM-6-283 Regular Meeting September 14, 1987 Cm. Moffatt felt the Council should support Staff's recommendation to deny the request, but allow Mr. Meyers 60 days to clean up his act. Cm. Hegarty and Cm. Snyder both indicated that the question at hand is whether or not to allow the outside activities. Mr. Meyers has been there for 3 years. The actual question is outdoor display, not the other issues and other factors. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 75 - 87 DENYING AN APPEAL OF PA 87-098 DUBLIN KAWASAKI CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO ALLOW THE OUTSIDE STORAGE AND DISPLAY OF MOTORCYCLES AT 6743 DUBLIN BOULEVARD Mr. Meyers questioned what about a new vehicle that is licensed and is being driven by an employee. Mayor Jeffery suggested that Mr. Meyers make an appointment and discuss his questions with Mr. Tong. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 7-82 CREATING & ESTABLISHING POSITION OF CITY MANAGER Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that the City presently operates under an ordinance which waS adopted in March, 1982 establishing the position of City Manager. This ordinance fulfills the requirements of a Council/Manager form of government with the exception of a provision which requires the City Manager to obtain the approval of the City CounCil prior to the appointment or removal of all Officers and Department Heads of the City, with the exception of the City Attorney. In actual practice, over the last 5 1/2 years, the City Manager has typically recommended for appointment only one candidate for each Department Head position, which the City Council has confirmed. In a highly competitive recruiting environment, the delays and uncertainties associated with the appointment of Department Head candidates which result from requiring Council approval may place the City at a disadvantage in being able to secure the services of those individuals that it wishes to hire. Cm. Hegarty questioned if this ordinance does not pass, what happens to the next item. City Manager Ambrose advised that Staff would need to revise the personnel rules. No members of the public commented on this item. * %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* CM-6-284 Regular Meeting September 14, 1987 Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Moffatt felt that this is a very important ordinance and requested that it be tabled for a month. Cm. Hegarty did not feel that there was anything urgent about the ordinance and questioned if Cm. Moffatt would agree to tabling it until the next meeting. Cm. Moffatt made a motion which was seconded by Cm. Hegarty to table discussion of this ordinance until the next Council meeting. This motion was defeated due to NO votes cast by Cm. Snyder, Cm. Vonheeder and Mayor Jeffery. Cm. Hegarty felt that the City has hired the most competent people arOund, with the approval of the City Council. He did not feel that there was any problem with the current ordinance with regard to timing, or that the Council should relinquish the control. Mr. Ambrose stated that timing could become a major factor with regard to the upcoming recruitment for a Public Works Director/City Engineer. Mr. Ambrose further stated that a job offer for this level position could be a very important decision for an applicant and typically they would not be able to make a decision in just a few minutes time. Our current process of recruit- ing takes several months to complete. Mayor Jeffery did not feel that the Council would be giving up any control because the Council has authority over the City Manager. Cm. Hegarty made reference to the financial problems experienced not too long ago by the City of San Jose. Cm. Hegarty also questioned what makes the City Attorney position different. Staff responded that the Government Code spells out the necessary treatment of this position. The City Attorney is not under the legal administrative authority of the City Manager. Cm. Vonheeder felt that when Dublin first incorporated and formed a Council/ Manager form of government, initially a compromise was worked Out and the current ordinance had validity while Dublin was still feeling its way. Now, however, she felt that this would be a vote of confidence and we would be streamlining the flowchart so that the City Manager has the ability to negotiate for the position in a way that is competitive. Most other organizations give the hiring and firing authority to different people. She did not feel it to be a critical issue now. Cm. Moffatt felt that the system works okay now and stated he would need to understand more fully what the Council's responsibilities would be before he could agree to this change. The Council is responsible for the City, and must answer to the people. Cm. Vonheeder felt that most of the residents are unaware that we operate in a manner such that even the League of CA Cities cannot label or identify the exact system under which we operate. Cm. Moffatt felt that what works for one agency might not necessarily work for someone else. Just because the League sees this as a good system doesn't *************************************************************************** CM-6-285 Regular Meeting September 14, 1987 mean we have to go along. Cm. Moffatt clarified that he was not sure exactly what this change would mean. Mayor Jeffery stated she did not feel that the Council would be relinquishing one iota of control. It is not fair to ask a Department Head to serve 2 masters. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by majority vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 7-82 creating and establishing the position of City Manager. Cm. Hegarty and Cm. Moffatt voted against this motion. · PUBLIC HEARING PERSONNEL ORDINANCE & PERSONNEL SYSTEM RULES Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. In 1984, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 7-84, which established a personnel system. This ordinance was based on model legislation developed by the League of California Cities. The ordinance was modified from the model legislation to be consistent with Ordinance No. 7-82 "Creating and EstabliShing the Position of City Manager". The proposed Personnel Ordinance will be consistent with the City Manager proposed ordinance which rescinds Ordinance No. 7-82. The League of California Cities has also published a 1987 edition of its suggested ordinance. The proposed ordinance is based substantially on the language contained in the recommended document and further input from the Assistant City Attorney. A detailed list of the differences contained in the proposed ordinance was presented and discussed. Staff also prepared a draft set of revised Personnel Rules, and presented a list of the changes. Staff pointed out that Section 4 (e) exempts Management employees from the Personnel Rules. Individuals serving in these positions are "at-will" employees who serve at the pleasure of the City Manager. As such, they are exempt from the personnel rules and may be dismissed with or without cause. However, those incumbents presently in these Management positions as of September 1, 1987, will continue to be covered by the same rules in effect at the time they were appointed. Once the incumbent leaves the position, the position will be considered an "at-will" position. A draft resolution was prepared which formally denotes each position. The use of a resolution avoids the requirement~to obtain an amendment to an ordinance if the organization changes and a new management position is created. The resolution can be processed in a more timely manner and allow the recruitment process to begin. The draft resolution also identifies leave benefits for the designated employees. All other positions eligible for leave benefits are subject to Personnel Rules governing members of the competitive'service. *************************************************************************** CM-6-286 Regular Meeting September 14, 1987 Cm. Hegarty asked for clarification regarding the changed overtime provision related to weeks in which a holiday occurs. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the personnel rules were general rules or common definitions. He felt that if the rules are not clearly defined,'then they could be used as a double edged sword. City Attorney Nave indicated that the definitions are determined mainly by case law. Mayor Jeffery suggested clarifying by inserting wording stating the definitions are as defined by case law or Websters Dictionary. City Attorney Nave indicated that on Page 11 of the OrdinanCe, Section 7 should be amended to read "Causes for Action": .... causes as defined by law and/or common understanding:". Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 7-84 establishing a personnel system. Cm. Hegarty abstained. RECESS A short recess was called. Ail Councilmembers were present when the meeting was reconvened. PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS) AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. The City currently provides employees with membership in the Public Employees Retirement System. Employees are not covered by Social Security unless they have sufficient service credit from another employer. The Social Security System provides benefits to the survivor of a covered individual in the event of a death. The Basic PERS program only provides a lump sum payment which consists of a refund of the members contributions plus an additional amount equal to one months salary for each year of service, up to a maximum of six months salary. Staff recommended that the Council consider offering a benefit level which ranges from 13.7% to 18.6% less than the similar benefit provided to individuals covered by Social Security. PERS law requires that an election be conducted among current employees of the agencY, to choose whether they desire to have the coverage. If an employee elects not to be covered, they will not be required to pay the $2 per month employee contribution. Any new employees hired after the November 21, 1987 effective date, however, will be required to participate. PERS considers the program to be basic catastrophic coverage and it is common among PERS contracts which are not covered by Social Security. *************************************************************************** CM-6-287 Regular Meeting September 14, 1987 Cm. Moffatt questioned if this was in lieu of or in addition to Social Security. City Manager Ambrose stated that employees of the City are not currently covered under the Social Security System. Cm. Moffatt asked if an employee could sign up for Social Security if they wanted and questioned what the financial impact would be. Mr. Ambrose advised that this it is not desirable to participate in both PERS and Social Security because the employer must contribute, as well as the employee. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Snyder, secOnded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 76 - 87 INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN approved the agreement authorizing 1959 Survivor Benefit Pool and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement; waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance amending the agreement between the City of Dublin and the PERS to include the 1959 Survivor's Benefit; continued the second reading to the meeting of October 12, 1987; and authorized Staff to proceed with the election requirements. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THROUGH AND LOCAL TRUCK ROUTES Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. This ordinance enables the City to establish certain City streets as through and local truck routes. Streets so designated will become part of the City's Traffic Code and "Truck Route" signs may then be posted. Street designations are not being made at this time. No members of the public spoke on this item. 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 INTRODUCED an ordinance establishing through and local truck routes. *************************************************************************** CM-6-288 Regular Meeting September 14, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES ........ ~ , , , ,,, ,, Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff advised that this ordinance provides a procedure for establishing right-of-way lines for the purpose of future street widening, extension, or creation, space for utilities, fire and police emergency access, etc. Establishment of any other right-of-way lines must be initiated by the procedure outlined in the ordinance. This provides that the right-of-way lines may be initiated by petition of property owner, resolution of City Council, or resolution of Planning Commission. Hearings are held at the Planning Commission and City Council levels, with prescribed noticing requirements. No members of the public spoke on this item. 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 INTRODUCED an ordinance establishing right-of-way lines. * * * * AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES - EASTERN AREA INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY On May 18, 1987 a meeting was held as a result of the need to determine major transportation improvements required as Dublin's easterly extended planning area develops. This meeting included members of the City Council, a member of the County Board of Supervisors, property owners, and Staff members from the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton and the County of Alameda. A subcommittee was formed, consisting of Dublin's City Engineer, Pleasanton's Public Works Director, an Alameda County staff member and a property owner from each side of 1-580. The purpose of the subcommittee was to seek out and recommend an engineering consultant to compile~existing transportation studies:and perceived needs for Dublin's expansion to the east and to explore the possibilities of funding these improvements. The subCommittee recommended the hiring of Mr. John Heindel of San Jose, who owns a small engineering consulting firm and who has no ties with any of the agencies or property owners involved in the area. This recommendation was accepted based on the funding for the study coming from private property owners, one-half from each side of 1-580. A copy of the contract was presented for Council review. Staff advised that Ted Fairfield has deposited $10,000 from the Lin family and Joe Elliott, City of Pleasanton has committed an appropriation of $10,000 from NPID members. * %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* CM-6-289 Regular Meeting September 14, 1987 Cm. Hegarty questioned if these two groups were the only ones who offered to pay. City Engineer Thompson advised that all of the money was volunteered. Ted Fairfield advised that there have been statements of support from other property owners. This will be a vehicle which causes all parties to get the issues on the table and maybe cause Alameda County to face the issue of what their participation will be. Cm. Moffatt questioned who the consultant would work for. Staff advised that the contract will be with the City of Dublin. The queStion was raised as to what would happen to the other $5,000 committed. Staff advised that it will be used for engineering prints, outside contractors, etc. City Engineer Thompson advised that they didn't want to keep nickel and diming it, so they put in this cushion. Cm. Hegarty advised that what will hopefully come out of this will be a recommendation that can then be discussed. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the agreement and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement following receipt of funds from the City of Pleasanton. SELECTION OF UNDERWRITER AND BOND COUNSEL REFINANCING OF CIVIC CENTER CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION The City Council previously authorized Staff to solicit requests for proposals for underwriting services associated with the refinancing of the Civic Center Certificate of Participation issue. Staff reviewed proposals from 6 underwriting/investment banking firms to function as underwriters for the refinancing transaction. Based on the content of the written responses, the City Manager and Finance Director selected 3 firms to interview. After reviewing the Proposals, Staff felt that Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc. (RPR) could provide quality underwriting services to the City at a competitive cost. RPR's discount rate ranges from 1.40% to 1.50%, depending on whether the issue is insured or uninsured. RPR was able to demonstrate considerable experience in working with cities in making effective presentations to Rating Agencies. An effective presenta- tion can positively affect the City's rating and ultimately result in substantial savings to the City. After discussing the performance of Bond Counsel with other cities, Staff recommended that the City Council engage the services of Jones Hall Hill & White as special legal counsel for the refinancing of the original Certificate of Participation issue, as they have considerable experience in Municipal Financing and have an excellent reputation. Their fee is based on a sliding scale, depending on the size of the issue. If the City were to refinance the original Certificates and not incorporate new funds into the issue, their fee would be approximately $42,500. *************************************************************************** CM-6-290 Regular Meeting September 14, 1987 With the exception of small incidental expenses, no fees will be incurred by the City' until after the sale of the certificates take place. Because the recent market changes have been in large swings with regard to interest rates, there is an ongoing need to review the conditions so that the refinancing transaction is timed to occur when the amount to be saved well exceeds the costs of the refinancing transaction. The agreements with the underwriter and bond counsel give the City the right to go to market when market conditions are most favorable to the City. Because of this need to monitor the market and to be ready to move when conditions warrant action, Staff recommended that the Council identify the underwriting firm and bond counsel at this time. By doing this, the City has the opportunity to expand the market window within which favorable conditions may occur. This window is opened when the Council chooses the underwriting firm and closes approximately 3 to 6 months thereafter. Virginia Horler and Grant Hamill, representing RPR made a presentation to the Council. Ms. Horler advised that they would be looking at refinancing as well as new money, to cover the increased amount. Chick AdamS, representing Jones Hall Hill & White was introduced. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 77 - 87 ENGAGING SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL AND UNDERWRITER IN CONNECTION WITH REFUNDING CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION PROCEEDINGS and authorized the MayOr to execute the agreements with Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc., and Jones Hall Hill & White. DUBLIN BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS · NORTHWEST FRONTAGE AT CLARK AVENUE Staff advised that this project will implement a portion of those improve- ments identified in the Dublin Boulevard Traffic Study. These improvements include an 8' widening of Dublin Boulevard at Clark Avenue to allow for emergency parking, space for bicycles and for an eastbound to westbound u-turn. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to advertise Contract 87-8 for bids. * %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* CM-6-291 Regular Meeting September 14, 1987 OTHER BUSINESS ~L~e_ggue of CA Cities - Vot...in~ D.elegates city Manager Ambrose advised that the City needed to notify the League of CA Cities as to who would be Dublin's voting delegate and voting alternate at the upcoming conference. Past practice has been to have the Mayor and Vice Mayor serve at the delegate and alternate, respectively. Council consensus was to continue with this practice. SB 709 , ,, ,, City Manager Ambrose advised that he had received a telephone call late this afternoon from Assemblyman Baker advising that there appeared to be some good financial news to the City. SB 709 would provide for up to 10¢ versus the current 6.9¢ of propertY tax bail out funds to come to the City. The Governor still needs to sign the bill and the County muSt exercise its option to participate in the bill. It should represent about $33,000/year in additional property tax funds coming to the City. We have not yet seen the bill. Signage from Freeway Cm. Vonheeder advised that since it does not appear that CalTrans is interested in an off-ramp into Dublin off of 1-680, perhaps more signage would be appropriate. It's somewhat confusing for those unfamiliar with Dublin as to how to get from 1-680 into Dublin. AlSo, it would be helpful to have the population signs updated. Staff advised that Public Works would look int© this situation. Dublin Bou!~vard/Vi~.~age. Parkw~Y Intersection Cm. Snyder requested ~hat the Traffic Safety Committee review the possibility of having two left turn lanes from eastbound Dublin Boulevard onto northbound Village Parkway. This location backs up considerably, especially around the lunch hour. Solid Waste Presentation Mayor Jeffery asked Cm. Snyder if he was familiar with the video prepared by "Rude Awakening" Cm. Snyder ABAG related to a solid waste presentation, . indicated he had not seen it, but felt that anything related to this subject would be of value to citizens. A suggestion was made to air it on Channel 30. * %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* %* CM-6-292 Regular Meeting September 14, 1987 Problem so!.ving Seminar Cm. Hegarty reported that he had received a telephone call from Lee Elaine Shoemaker regarding a problem solving seminar which was being conducted on September 17th and on September 24th. She was interested in receiving input from cities. Cm. Hegarty gave a telephone number where Ms. Shoemaker could be reached for more information. It was pointed out that there was a conflict with one of the dates as the next Tri-Valley Joint City Council meeting was being held on September 24th. CLOSED SESSION At 10:55 p.m., the Council recessed to a closed executive session to discuss pending litigation, City of Dublin vs. Pet Prevent-A-Care, Inc. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P.m. ATTEST: ~ ...... Cit~ clerk *************************************************************************** CM-6-293 Regular Meeting September 14, 1987