HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-24-1986REGULAR MEETING - March 24, 1986
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on
Monday, March 24, 1986 in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The
meeting wgs called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Peter Snyder.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt, Vonheeder and Mayor
Snyder.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alleg-
iance to the flag.
SIGN ORDINANCE
Mayor Snyder announced that the draft sign ordinance would not be considered
at this meeting. A public notice was prepared indicating that the public
hearing would be held at this meeting, but due to the length and volume of
the report, it has not yet been completed.
Mayor Snyder apologized for the delay and asked if anyone in the audience had
come to address this particular topic. No one indicated they had.
PRESENTATION
Mayor Snyder read and presented a plaque to John Alexander for his service on
the Dublin Planning Commission. Mr. Alexander resigned his position as
Chairman in December due to health reasons.
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council took the following actions:
Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 10, 1986;
Approved Financial Report for Period Ending February 28, 1986;
Denied claim submitted by George William Filstead and directed Staff to
notify the claimant and the insurance carrier;
Agreed to support the Diablo Valley Foundation for the Aging proposal as a
one-year pilot project;
Authorized Plummer Babbitt Civil Engineering, Inc., to replace William Black
& Associates as Engineer of Record for Tract 4415;
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
CM-5-55
Regular Meeting March 24, 1986
Authorized Staff to advertise Contract 86-4 for bids (Traffic Signal, Sierra
Court @ Dublin Boulevard;
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 27 - 86
Adopted
FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS
PARCEL MAP 4050
RESOLUTION NO. 28 - 86
APPROVING PA86-012 STREET NAME CHANGES FOR
CREEK SIDE DRIVE AND 12 STREETS WITHIN
TRACTS 5072, 5073 & 5074
Approved a parade permit and waive the permit fees for "Hands Across the
Valley", May 25, 1986;
Regarding the Civic Center site, authorized Staff to proceed with grading and
street improvement plans & authorized Staff to negotiate a contract for
landscaping design work;
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 29 - 86
AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A CLAIM WITH
THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR
ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1986-87
Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $198,228.28.
VILLAGES AT ALAMO CREEK - RAFANELLI & NAHAS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
REZONING & SUBDIVISION MAP (TENTATIVE MAP 5511) PA85-041.1 & .2
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
Rafanelli & Nahas are proposing a planned devel'opment with 1,165 multi-family
and single family dwelling units, a convenience food store and a 5+ acre
neighborhood park site along Dougherty Road near Amador Valley Boulevard.
Major issues involve:
The proposed Villages were summarized as:
Village I: 60 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 4.9+ Gross
Residential Acres (GRA). Two and three bedroom units at 957 to 1,~55 gross
square feet, 13 two story buildings. (Density = 12.2 DU/GRA)
Village II: 248 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 17.1+ GRA.
One, two and three bedroom units at 748 to 988 gross sq. ft., 19 two--story
buildings and 8 three story buildings. (Density = 14.5 DU/GRA)
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
CM-5-56
Regular Meeting March 24, 1986
Village III: 216 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 15 0+ GRA.
One, two and three bedroom units at 748 to 988 gross sq. ft., 18 two story
buildings and 6 three story buildings. (Density = 14.4 DU/GRA)
Village IV: 152 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 10.7+ GRA.
One, two and three bedroom units at 748 to 988 gross sq. ft., 10 two story
buildings and 6 three story buildings. (Density = 14.2 DU/GRA)
Village V: 192 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 13.6+ GRA.
One, two and three bedroom units at 748 to 988 gross sq. ft., 15 two story
buildings and 6 three story buildings. (Density = 14.1 DU/GRA)
Village VI: 146 single family lots on 26.8+ GRA. One and two story, three
and four bedroom units at 1,418 to 2,075 sq. ft. (Density = 5.8 DU/GRA)
Village VII: 151 multiple family apartment/condominium units on 11.8+ GRA.
Tentatively planned two and three bedroom units at 957 to 1,055 gross--sq.
ft., 29 two story buildings. (Density = 12.8 DU/GRA)
Total = 1,165 DU on 99.9 GRA, overall Density = 11.7 DU/GRA
The Planning Commission's recommendations regarding Village VII would adjust
the above information in the following manner:~
Village VII: 71+ single family lots on 11.8+ GRA. Tentatively anticipated
to be developed with one and two story structures being three and four
bedroom units at 1,400+ to 2,075+ sq. ft. (Density = Maximum 6.0 DU/GRA)
Total =
1,086 dwelling units over 99.9 Gross Residential Acres, overall
Density being adjusted 10.9 DU/GRA.
The subject proposal was formally submitted to the City on May 23, 1985,
following six months of interaction between the applicant and Staff. During
the latter portions of that period, and subsequent to the formal application
submittal, Staff and the applicant jointly coordinated initiation of the
preparation of a variety of project related studies: 1) Botanical and
Wildlife Resources Report, prepared by Leitner and Leitner; 2) Roadway
Traffic and Parks RFTA Noise Analysis Study, prepared by Edward L. Pack
Associates; 3) Traffic Impact Analysis - Circulation Draft, prepared by
TJKM, Transporation Consultants; and 4) HorticultUral Report, dated
September 20, 1985, prepared by Hort Science, Inc., Analysts and
Consultants.
Public hearings on the project were held before the Planning Commission on
February 18, 1986, and March 3 and 17, 1986. The Commission recommended the
City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
~' Significance for the'project and approve the Planned Development PD Rezoning
and Tentative Map in a modified format which would adjust Village VII from a
12.75+_ DU/GRA multiple family residential project to a 6.0 DU/GRA single
family residential project.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
CM-5-57
Regular Meeting March 24, 1986
The Expanded Initial Study for the Villages at Alamo creek dated January 30,
1986, provided an indepth analysis of the General Plan Land Use Designations
and Development Policies that apply to the subject property.
The major remaining issues have been reduced to concerns involving the
following three areas:
A) General Plan Policies
This issue area involves General Plan Policy determinations that must be
made by the City Council regarding the residential densities of Villages I
and VI.
The consensus determination of the Planning Commission at the February 18,
1986, Commission hearing was to allow Village I to remain at the 11.7 DU/GRA
density. The Commission also expressed a desire not to impose restrictions
on Village I that would serve to subsequently alter the type of dwelling
units proposed (i.e., extensive use of three bedroom dwelling units in
four-unit building groups).
The "action" by the Commission will necessitate confirmation by the City
Council, as only the Council is empowered to make the General Plan Policy
Determination.
Ron Nahas stated he was apPealing the Village VII requirements, and did not
want to remove any further 3 bedroom units. No tentative map has been
submitted for this Village and a maximum density of 152 units is requested.
It would be brought back to the Planning Commission and City Council. The
Planning Commission conditioned its approval of the balance of the site to
Village VII as single family. Rafanelli & Nahas wish to maintain
flexibility and the Planning Commission condition removed all their flexi'
bility on this site. The Planning Commission's recommendation on Village VI
was to allow the 5.8 DU/GRA density proposed for Village VI to stand as
proposed and direct a change in the use of Village VII from 12.8+ DU/GRA
(multiple family residential) to a maximum single family residential density
of 6.0 DU/GRA. This change would shift, the total Gross Residential Acreage·
in the Project devoted to single family residential uses from 25+ acres (out
of 99.9+ GRA, or 25+%) to 37+ acres (37+%). -- ~i
B) Density and Product Type
The applicant's proposal for Village VII was 151 multiple family apartment/
condominium units on 11.8+ GRA, for a density of 12.8 DU/GRA. The Planning
Commission's recommendations for Village VII was Single family residential
with a maximum density of 6.0 DU/GRA, which would result in a maximum of 71
units. The Planning Commission indicated that the reason for the recommen-
dation was to assure compliance with the General Plan. In particular, the
Planning Commission felt that the dwelling units on the west side of the
creek, Village VI and Village VII, should both be single family residential.
The applicable General Plan Policies were:
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
CM-5-58
Regular Meeting March 24, 1986
- 'General Plan Residential Designation: Medium Density with required mixed
dwelling types including single family detached and permitting up to 25
units per acre on portions of the site.
- 2.1.2 Neighborhood Diversity
Ks a policy decision, the City Council should determine 1) the appropriate
number of single family dwelling units to be developed, and 2) the amount of
leVel lot area and rear yard area that are acceptable for the single family
units.
C) Parkland Dedication Requirements
The City Manager prepared a memorandum regarding the Villages~ Development
Park Dedication Proposal, and Staff recommended that the City Council
consider a compromise park proposal based on the memorandum, with the City
Council revising the memorandum as needed.
If the City Council concurs with this approach, the memorandum should be put
in final form and adopted by the City Council, and a Condition should be
substituted for Condition #23 in Exhibit B - Draft Resolution regarding the
Planned Development and Condition #26 in Exhibit C - Draft Resolution
regarding the Tentative Map. ·
C~. Hegarty indicated that the last storm did considerable damage to some
of the trees, and it appears that some of the trees will be lost. Kevin
Gailey reported that the applicants have indicated that they want to save
as many of the mature trees as possible. Mr. Gailey explained the lengthy
study that was done addressing every tree on the property. Severe erosion
has taken place at the south end of the creek.
Ron Nahas indicated that this was a culmination of 2 years of work and
presented slides of developments that ~incorporated creek settings and water
into their themes.
Discussion was held with regard to the commercial site. The site may need
to be enlarged, but this will be addressed with the Site DeveloPment Review
process. Ron Nahas indicated they plan to approximately double'the amount
of parking first proposed. The situation with the Pleasanton Housing
Authority is now in transition and they have been unable to communicate
very effectively with the existing commission.
Mr. Nahas expressed concern regarding potential enactment of fees placed on
them during the building permit stage of their development. They would
like to have some assurances that other levies on the project that they are
not aware of would not be put on the project.
They have requested some limitations be put on the quantity of improvements
in the park. Mr. Nahas expressed concern regarding the mounding & grading
of the landscaping in the park. They spoke in favor of the general
direction of the resolution to the park issue proposed by City Staff as
they~can control the timing.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
CM-5-59
Regular Meeting March 24, 1986
Paul Kelly, Department of Fish & Game stated he wished to expand on
comments that were sent to the City in February. He recommended that this
project not be approved. The mitigation measures in the original study are
okay as far as they go, but there are other problems. Many creek
restoration projects have bad track records. No alternatives were given
and he felt that the project needs a focused draft EIR which would address
alternatives such as a bypass channel. The creek should be preserved.
Cm. Jeffery stated that some improvements must be made and they are
dictated to the City by other agencies.
Sheila Brady, Planning Consultant to the City, explained the findings in
the initial study.
Margaret Tracy of Livermore explained that the policy of Zone 7 is to keep
flood control channels open. Ms. Tracy also expressed concern related to
where children in this project would attend school. Mayor Snyder reported
that there are 2 schools within a mile of this project that could
adequately handle the children in this area.
Cm. Jeffery questioned the fencing policy of Zone 7 and felt that it would
be very desirable to have meandering trails throughout the development.
Judith Bolson, San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club, stated she was
pleased to see development focusing on creek development and appreciated
the care taken regarding the trees on the site. She stated that she sees a
potential problem with straightening the path of the creek to oxbows. She
cautioned that down road there may be serious problems in that the creek
may try to cut back to its natural path. They try to urge that no
straightening at all take place as it causes erosion up and down stream.
The other consideration she discussed was habitat values along the creek,
and asked that alternatives be looked at so that the creek does not have to
be a major flood controller.
Bev Ortiz, Friends of Creeks & Urban Settings stated she concurred with
preceeding points. Even the degraded habitat provides tremendous wildlife
habitat. Once the habitat is altered, the majority of the wildlife simply
dies rather than move on. Once you change a creek location, you create
problem elsewhere. Ms. Ortiz suggested the Council look at all the
alternatives available.
John Page, Ohlone Audubon Society felt the Council should look much harder
before making a decision.
City Attorney Nave ask Mr. Kelly what census has been taken of this creek
regarding animals, fish counts, what specific birds, what specific mamals
commonly known as wildlife, etc.
Mr. Kelly indicated that approximately one year ago he had spent about an
hour at the site. He reported that he has been with the Department of Fish
& Game for 10 years and relies on consultants. He reiterated his request
that a focused EIR be done which would require more time being devoted to
this area. The creek will be mainly for flood control purposes rather than
to support wildlife.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
CM-5-60
Regular Meeting March 24, 1986
Mr. Nahas indicated that the Department of Fish & Game has issued permits
and they have been renewed. Staff has requested comments on numerous
occasions and this process is a part of the record. There has been no
attempt to avoid input. Consultants have been over every foot of this land
and everything is documented. Mr. Nahas indicated they would be more than
happy to meet with Mr. Kelly regarding specific mitigation measures.
Mr. Gailey reported that the services of a very reputable biologist had
been used in order to avoid having to go with a focused EIR. They have
actually spent more time in developing mitigation the measures than they
would have with an EIR.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
Staff recommended that the City Council resolve the issues regarding
General Plan Policies, Density and Product Type and Park Dedication
Requirements.
With regard to General Plan Policies on mixed housing, Cm. Jeffery felt
that this project answers concerns which were originally discussed and
provides a good mix and what is presented is appropriate. Cm. Jeffery
disagreed with the Village VII condition put on by the Planning Commission.
Discussion was held regarding lot size on the single family units as well
as density flexibility on Village I.
Cm. Vonheeder felt that the addition of 3 bedroom units is something that
is currently lacking in the area and felt the project provided a good mix.
Cm. Hegarty indicated he wished to give maximum flexibility on Village VII.
He would not press for a pool but would like to see one in the single
family area. If a pool is put in, it should be in the CC&R's that
residents would pay for the maintenance and upkeep.
Cm. Moffatt questioned if sound insulation had been considered in the
multi-family areas. Staff responded that noise consideration had been
addressed and mitigation measures had been built into the project.
Cm. Vonheeder felt that school fees were the real issue and that the School
Board feels that this project will generate a major impact. Actually there
are 2 schools that were closed that could accommodate the number of
children involved.
Regarding the Park Dedication Proposal, Mayor Snyder stated that irrigation
was not addressed in Mr. Nahas' letter. Mr. Nahas stated this was an
oversight and that irrigation is intended.
With regard to fencing, City Manager Ambrose advised that continuity along
the site would be an asset to the project.
Discussion was held.with regard to park access from one side of the creek
to the other. Mr. Nahas indicated that there is a pathway along the side
of the creek. A bridge across the Zone 7 creek was discussed. Staff
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
CM-5-61
Regular Meeting March 24, 1986
indicated it had gotten some estimates from some bridge builders. Mark
Rafanelli indicated that they would be willing to finance up to $50,000 for
a bridge in exchange for some of the paved walkways. Mayor Snyder felt
that access to the park was needed.
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote,
the Council agreed that a bridge should be given high priority compared to
the walkway system, working within the designated $686,875.
Uniform lighting on the walkways was discussed.
Regarding the roofing issue, Mr. Nahas indicated that they planned to use
the same materials as were used at Amador Lakes. He asked that roofing
product be more closely defined.
Cm. Hegarty stated that the roofing materials at Amador Lakes were not what
he had originally anticipated, and requested that Rafanelli & Nahas give
the roofing treatment as much consideration as possible.
Planning Director Tong indicated that Staff had looked at various types of
roofing materials and suggested that a 300 lb weight material be used as
opposed to the 220-225 lb weight now being proposed. Mr. Tong passed out
excerpts from Sunset Books guide related to roofing & siding. Mr. Nahas
said he was willing to specify 275-325 lb. premium weight asphalt shingles
on the multi-family structures.
As Mr. Nahas had previously stated, single family values do not hinge on
size of lot. The market place has changed in the last 10-15 years, in that
it is most common now for 2 people to work and large yards become very
difficult to maintain. Mr. Nahas stated they would endeavor to have at
least 80% of the lots contain 1,000 sq ft rear yards, and the remaining 20%
in the 900 sq ft range.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council agreed that rear yards in the single family portion of the
development be a minimum of 1000 sq ft for 80% and a minimum of 900 sq ft
for 20%, and determined that the roofing shingle weight should be a minimum
of 275-325 lbs.
"Parkland shall be dedicated or in-lieu fees shall be paid, or a combina-
tion of both shall be provided prior to issuance of Building Permits or
prior to recordation of the Final Map, whichever occur.s first, in
accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance. The parkland dedication
required is approximately 9.774 acres to 10.485 acres, depending on the
total number of dwelling units (0.009 acres/dwelling units x number of
dwelling units). The subdivider/developer shall receive 5.0 acres of
credit for the parkland dedication. The subdivider/developer shall provide
certain improvements to the dedicated parkland. The dedicated parkland and
associated improvements shall satisfy the developer's total park dedication
requirement. The improvements shall be installed to the City's satisfac-
tion within 30 months of the recordation of the Final Map or issuance of
Building Permits. The items to be provided shall be as specified in the
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
CM-5-62
Regular Meeting March 24, 1986
Compromise Park Proposal portion of the Memorandum from the City Manager to
the City Council regarding Villages Development Park Dedication Proposal
dated March 20, 1986, as revised and adopted by the City Council."
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council agreed to substitute the above statement for Condition ~23 in
the resolution regarding the Planned Development and Condition #26 in the
resolution regarding the Tentative Map.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote,
the Council agreed to change the condition related to Village VII back to
the original concept.
Staff reported that on Exhibit C, Tentative Map, Page 5, ~21, the wording
Martin Canyon Creek should be changed to read Alamo Creek.
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote,
the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 30 - 86
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING AND TENTATIVE MAP 5511 REQUESTS FOR
A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 1,165 + DWELLING UNITS, A
FIVE-PLUS ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SITE, A COMMERCIAL SITE FOR FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT AS A CONVENIENCE STORE AND COMMON OPEN SPACE PARCELS
COLLECTIVELY PROPOSED OVER A 135 + ACRE PROPERTY FRONTING ALONG DOUGHERTY
ROAD, EXTENDING SOUTHERLY FROM THE ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LINE ALONG
THE WEST SIDE OF DOUGHERTY ROAD FOR 4,200 + FEET, COLLECTIVELY
REQUESTED UNDER PA 85-041.1 AND .2
VILLAGES AT ALAMO CREEK - RAFANELLI & NAHAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote,
the Council adopted, as amended
RESOLUTION NO. 31 - 86
APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS & GENERAL PROVISIONS
FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING CONCERNING PA 85-041.1
VILLAGES AT ALAMO CREEK - RAFANELLI & NAHAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote,
the Council adopted, as amended
RESOLUTION NO. 32 - 86
APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 5511
CONCERNING PA 85-041.2 VILLAGES AT ALAMO CREEK -
RAFANELLI & NAHAS REAL ESTATE SITE DEVELOPMENT
On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote,
the Council waived the reading and introduced an Ordinance amending the
Zoning Ordinance.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
CM-5-63
Regular Meeting March 24, 1986
RECESS
A short recess was called. Ail Councilmembers were present when the meeting
reconvened.
POLICE PATROL VEHICLE PURCHASE
On March 10, 1986, the City Council authorized Staff to seek bids on 8 police
Vehicles. Pursuant to the adopted purchasing ordinance, the sealed bids were
opened on Friday, March 21, 1986.
The bid specifications requested price quotations on a 1986 Dodge Diplomat
CHP police cruiser. The documents allowed the substitution of a comparable
vehicle. One bid was received from Shamrock Ford of Dublin based on a 1986
Crown Victoria. The Police Chief reviewed the specifications and found this
vehicle to be comparable to CHP specifications.
Cost comparisons between purchasing throught the State program vs. Shamrock
Ford were discussed. The net cost of the single bid received is within
approximately 1% of the State program. The purchasing ordinance indicates
that on-going maintenance may be a factor in awarding the bid. The CHP
program offers an 85,000 mile major parts warranty. The Ford vehicles would
be covered under a 100,000 mile warranty. In addition, Ford Motor Company
has instituted a very cost effective on-going maintenance program. The
service contract provides for scheduled maintenance services every 5,000
miles. The one-time charge for this service is $1,795 per vehicle. Staff
also reviewed a vehicle maintenance cost proposal submitted by MCE
Corporation. Based on current salaries, the 3-year cost for comparable
maintenance by MCE would be $2,930.
Delivery is anticipated after July 1, 1986, and the expenditure will be
included in the 1986-87 budget.
Mayor Snyder questioned if the City would be able to take advantage of the
gas guzzler tax exemption through the IRS. Captain Shores indicated he would
investigate.
Mayor Snyder questioned if the cars would have an AM radio. Captain Shores
indicated that the radios will be deleted.
Mayor Snyder asked if the City could check into the possibility of getting
silicon radiator hoses even though there is usually a 25 vehicle minimum
order required. Perhaps they could be installed by special request. Staff
will check into this.
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the
Council awarded the bid to Shamrock Ford (8 vehicles-S102,554.32) and
authorized Staff to issue a purchase order based on the bid and authorized
purchase of Ford recommended maintenance plan ($14,360).
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
CM-5-64
Regular Meeting March 24, 1986
SHANNON CENTER RENTAL POLICIES
A need to revise the Shannon Center Rental Policy was identified in the 1985
Goals & Objectives. Staff relayed that there are areas that are continuously
misunderstood by the public and in addition, there is pertinent information
that applicants need to know that is not included in the current information.
The fee schedule has also been restructured. An hourly rate is being
proposed which incorporates all fees.
An increase in the rental rates was not recommended, as it was recentlY
determined that the fees charged for the use of Shannon Center are comparable
to rates charged for similar facilities.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the
Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 33 - 86
ESTABLISHING THE FACILITY RENTAL RATES
FOR THE SHANNON COMMUNITY CENTER AND
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 54-84
VALLEY ARTISTS INC., GRANT APPLICATION
The City has received an application for funding from the Valley Artists,
Inc., a non-profit organization comprised of local artists. The group is
seeking funding for various projects.
The groups 67 members are from Alamo to Fremont, with 20% of the group being
Dublin residents and 41% of the group living within the boundaries of the
Dublin San Ramon Services District.
The Park & Recreation Commission heard testimony from the Valley Artists,
Inc., at their meeting of March 11, 1986. Although the Commission was
supportive of the goals of the Valley Artists, they did not feel comfortable
in recommending that the project be funded without a formal policy to support
their decision.
Dorothy Harder, President of the Valley Artists, Inc., introduced their Vice
President Sharon Nichols, Pat Marr their Program Chairman and Harvey Scudder.
Ms. Harder indicated that their facilities are inadequate and they need
support from the City to make it possible for membership to grow. Their
public exposure is almost nil. They could triple their membership with
support. Every Thursday they have a wOrkshop whereby everyone comes and
helps each other at the Senior Center.
The Council felt that this was a worthy cause, but were concerned that no
policy has been developed to deal with such requests.
CM-5-65
Regular Meeting March 24, 1986
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote,
the Council agreed to defer consideration of the request until development of
the Fiscal Year 1986-87 Budget. The Council further directed Staff to
develop policies related to funding non-profit groups. The Park & Recreation
Commission should address the philosophical issues and the Council will
address budget issues.
OTHER BUSINESS
Budget Hearings
City Manager Ambrose indicated that dates needed to be selected in which to
conduct meetings related to the 1986-87 Budget.
Following discussion, the Council determined that Tuesday, June 17th would be
the best date for the study session and then the budget hearing could be
scheduled for Thursday, June 26th. Both meetings should start at 6:00 p.m.
Staff was directed to arrange for a meeting location.
Tri-Valley Citizens' Committee
Staff reported that the Alameda County Planning Department is proposing a
Tri-Valley Citizens' Committee to consist of 21 members. Seven would be
Planning Commissioners (1 from each jurisdiction), 7 would be citizen members
(1 from each jurisdiction), and 7 would be at-large members (1 from each
jurisdiction). The Dublin Planning Commissioner will be Brian Raley.
Mayor Snyder indicated to Bill Fraley that the request that the Planning
Commission make the 2 other appointments was inappropriate as the City
Council makes appointments rather than the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission could certainly submit names to fill the 2 vacancies
however.
ABAG Resolutions
Cm. Moffatt reported that the ABAG Resolutions needed to be discussed in
order that he could report Dublin's position at the upcoming General
Assembly. A bylaws change is being proposed whereby dues would be based on
population and new city calculations will be based on subventions submitted
to the State. Consensus of the Council was to not support the proposed
change.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
CM-5-66
Regular Meeting March 24, 1986
CLOSED SESSION
At 12:46 a.m. the Council recessed to a closed executive session to discuss
pending litigation, in accordance with Government Code Section 54956.9(a),
City of Dublin vs. The Sawmill and City of Dublin vs. McCartney.
AD JOURNME NT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was
adjourned at 1:05 a.m. /~
City "C~i e r k
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
CM-5-67
'Regular Meeting March 24, 1986