HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 DwntwnSPGtewyArch ,CITY CLERK
File # 600-30
AGENDA STATEMENT
CZTY COUNCZL MEETTNG DATE: October 7, 2003
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
Downtown Streetscape Implementation Plan for the Downtown
Specific Plans - Gateway Arch Design for St. Patrick: Way
Prepared by: Eddie Peabody Jr.,
Community Development Director
1. Existing Conditions at St. Patrick Way and Amador Plaza
Road
2. Preliminary Conceptual Gateway Arch Design (Approved
May 1, 2001) with City Council minutes attached
3. Proposed Gateway Arch Design (October 2003) as
recommended by Staff
4. Alternative Gateway Arch Design (October 2003)
5. Diagram of the Approximate Location of the Gateway Arch
6. Approved Monument Design (Village Parkway/Dublin
Boulevard) with City Council minutes attached
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
2.
3.
Receive presentation by Staff
Question Staff and Consultant
Approve Staff recommended proposed Gateway Arch
Design
Direct Staff to return October 21, 2003 for consideration
of an Amendment to the contract with.Singer, Fukushima-
Evans to complete construction bid documents for the
GateWay Arch
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The total budget for the G~teway Arch is $567,820. The
amount budgeted for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 is $57,330 which
will be for completion of design. Construction will occur in
fiscal year 2004-2005.
BACKGROUND:
In November 1999, the City Council directed Staff to prepare three Specific Plans for various
portions of the downtown area of Dublin to guide the development and revitalization of the West
Dublin BART, Downtown Core and Village Parkway areas. The Specific Plans were adopted by the
City Council on December 19, 2000.
COPIES TO: In-House Distribution
Adjacent Property Owner
Singer Fukushima Evans
g:~Downtown Streetscape Impr\CC-srDwntwnStscpGatewayArchDesign
ITEM NO.
As a part of the implementation of the Specific Plans, streetscape improvements were proposed in the
West Dublin BART, Downtown Core and Village Parkway Specific Plan areas to provide continuity
and unifying elements to establish a positive image in the Downtown area. Each Specific Plan
contains guidelines and concepts for the design of the streetscape improvements addressed within the
Plan. Prior to construction of these improvements, the basic designs for the streetscapes, plazas,
monuments, gateways, and street furnishings associated with the downtown planning area were to be
determined, cost estimates obtained, and a phasing plan with priorities developed based on direction
from the City Council.
Previous City Council Action on Downtown Improvement Project: At the May 1, 2001 meeting
(see City Council minutes in Attachment 2), the City Council approved the preliminary conceptual
design for the first gateway monument to be constructed on City property at Village Parkway and
Dublin Boulevard along with the gateway arch to be constructed at St. Patrick _; Way (see Attachment
2 for Preliminary Conceptual Design of Gateway Arch), and directed Staff to finalize the design and
cost estimate for the gateway monument and arch with the related improvements. Following that
meeting, the City Council reconsidered the design of the gateway monument and established a Task
Force to revise the monument design. The City Council approved the Task Force recommended
monument design on December 3, 2002 (see Attachment 6, Approved Monument Design), with a
modification to decrease the height of the monument to 25 feet from 29 feet.
As a part of approval of the Capital Improvement Plan and budget for 2003-04, the City Council
directed Staff as top priorities to:
' · Complete improvements at Village Parkway and Lewis Avenue
· Complete sidewalk improvements and new street lights on Village Parkway bY July 1, 2004
from Amador Valley Boulevard to Dublin Boulevard
· Complete final design and construction and bid documents for both the Village Parkway /
Dublin Boulevard gateway monument and St Patrick Way Gateway Archway monuments by
May 30, 2004
The City was awarded a grant by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) of $1.306
million of Housing Incentive Program funds that is subject to the construction of high density housing
in the proposed Dublin Transit Center. A high-density housing project must break ground by May 30,
2004 in order for the City to receive these funds which can be used for pedestrian improvements.
With the approval of the 2002-07 Capital Improvement program by the City Council, these funds will
be used for construction of sidewalk widening and lighting on Village Parkway, the Gateway
monument on Village Parkway and Dublin Boulevard and the Gateway Archway monuments on St.
Patrick':3 Way. All design costs are to be borne by city of Dublin for these projects since the grant is
for construction costs only. If the Transit Center Housing project(s) are not begun by May 30, 2004,
the construction of the above projects would have to be deferred or funded from the City's Downtown
Improvement Reserve.
GATEWAY ARCH AT ST. PATRICK'S WAY/AMADOR PLAZA RD:
Archway Design: The basic design element of the gateway arch for the intersection of St. Patrick's
Way and Amador Plaza Road is two columns or towers on either side of St. Patrick' Way, with a
metal arch spanning the roadway between the two supporting members.
The final design of the gateway arch requires City Council approval prior to preparation of
construction and bid documents. The final design o£the archway is similar to the preliminary
conceptual design approved by the City Council on May 1,2001 (see Attachment 2 for Preliminary
2
Conceptual Gateway Arch Design); however, some design changes have been made to the supporting
Columns and the light feature in the preliminary conceptual design.
Since it is necessary for the two supporting columns to take the added structural loading of the arch
itself, it was necessary to revise the scale of the Support columns to accept this added structural
loading. The preliminary design concept approved by the City Council in May 2001 consisting of a
metal archway containing an internally lit City seal spanning St. Patrick ~ Way, between two
colUmns, has virtuallY remained the same (see Attachment 3 for Proposed Gateway Arch Design).
The two supporting columns of the archway are to be constructed of pre-cast concrete resembling the
approved monument's Campanile style with the look of a stone facade, but their scale has been
slightly increased to provide the additional support needed for the archway structure. Each column
will stand approximately 22 feet in height on a 4 foot by 4 foot base, with the light fixture affixed to
the top of the tower, adding an additional 2 ½ feet of height. The metal archway (aluminum) will be
approximately 18 feet above the pavement to provide clearance for trucks and other large vehicles in
accordance with CalTrans standards. The columns also contain open grillwork and details reflective
of the monument design. This grillWork reflects a style similar to that on the Murray School bell
tower reCently restored by the City.
Also included, is an alternative design based sOlely on the Village Parkway Monument with a top cap
reflecting the originally aPproved monument design (Attachment 4). Given the archway design and
orbital, internally lit City logo, Staff believes that the slightly modified light fixture on the top of the
monument (Attachment 3) better reflects the character oft"he archway / logo design that will be
created over St. Patrick Way.
Archway Location: When the 1-680 freeway off ramp project by CalTrans was created, the City of
Dublin dedicated the St. Patrick: Way right-of-way from Amador Plaza to Golden Gate Avenue to
CalTrans as a part of our local share cost for the project. As a result, the archway project will be
located directly on CalTrans property. Efforts have begun to secure an easement for both. the
sidewalk foundation location and the airspace easement for the archway from CalTrans. No other
right-of-way is needed for the project. The archway will span across St. Patrick Way (see
Attachment 5) to the west of the intersection of St. Patrick':. Way and Amador Plaza Road. The West
Dublin BART Specific Plan established this general location as the archway location, as it will be
visible and directly across Amador Plaza Road from the 1-680 off-ramp, at a major gateway entrance
to the City. The consultant's engineers considered placing the archway across the northwest and
southwest portion of the intersection; however, this would conflict with the location and operation of
the traffic signal at the comer of the intersection. Because of this, it was determined that the best
location for the archway would be further west of the intersection.
The portion of the base of each archway column will be placed within the public right-of-way (4-feet
by 4-feet on both the north and south sides), and will encroach approximately 4 feet into the 8-foot
sidewalk on St. Patrick Way. This would leave the sidewalk adjacent to the monument at a width of
4' which exceeds ADA requirements.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Estimated Construction Cost for the Gateway Arch is $258,000. Related improvements such as
replacement landscaping and any special paving around the base of the structural supports for the
arch, determined to be necessary, are estimated at $30,000 (total $288,000). $479,490 is allocated in
the Capital Improvement Program budget for physical and structural improvements for the gateway
arch project, and the anticipated cost would be well within the budget allocation amount.
3
No right-of-way costs are anticipated given the location of the monuments on the CalTrans sidewalk.
Should there be minor costs for any utility relocation due to the monument pads related to the
construction, General Fund monies allocated in the 2002-2003 budget ($24,200) for the right-of-way
and related items in the CIP budget will adequately fund this part of the project.
PROGRESS OF DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS:
Side.walk Widening and Lighting Improvements - Village Parkway'.
A specific work program with Permco Engineering, already under contract with the City, has
commenced to prepare construction and bid documents for sidewalk widening and new streetlights
for both Sides of Village Parkway between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Road. These
documents will be completed in the next few months, with construction scheduled before the end of
June 2004.
Improvements at Village Parkway and Lewis Avenue: The construction of the 'intersection
improvements for Village Parkway and Lewis Avenue, including a small plaza, landscaping, seating,
and a new left-turn pocket, are nearly completed.
Gateway Monument: The preparation of construction and bid documents by the City's consultant
for the first gateway monument at the intersection of Village Parkway and Dublin Boulevard is nearly
complete. It is anticipated that the documents will be completed within the next few months.
Potential funding from the aforementioned MTC grant will be secured by May 30, 2004 for the
construction of the monument.
Following preparation of the documents, the consultant will issue a request for bids on the project
which is currently scheduled for construction in September 2004. After bids are received, the Staff
will bring the bid proposals back to the Council for review and selection of a contractor for the
construction of the monument.
Gateway Archway: If the City Council gives its approval to the final design, the construction bid
documents would be completed by May 30, 2004 and construction will begin bY September 2004.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the presentation by Staff; question Staff and
Consultant; approve Staff recommended proposed Gateway Arch Design; direct Staff to return
October 21, 2003 for consideration of an amendment to the contract with Singer, Fukushima-Evans to
complete construction bid documents for the Gateway Arch.
A.~'m
~CHME~ I
'"/, L ,
~c
°*~
o~'
ID.t-'e-
'~o
o
o~
'5~ _c: 8
ATTACHMENT
On motion of Vice Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by unanimous vote,
the Council directed Staff to proceed w/th abatement and to provide a Season End Report
for completion of abatements and associated costs.
DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FoR THE
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLANS - PRELIMINARY.DESIGN CONCEPTS & PRIORITIES
7:53 p.m. 8,1 (410-55)
Senior Planner Janet Harbin presented the Staff Report and advised that Preliminary
Design Concepts and Priorities have been developed for the Downtown Streetscape
.Implementation Plan. The Council is being asked to provide direction regarding the
detailed design work and specific cost analysis.
A presentation was made by Freeman Tung & Bottomley, ConsuRants:' The Council was
requested to review options for gateway monuments, streetscape options for Village
Parkway, street lights and Street furniture, a Dublin Boulevard streetscape plan and a
proposed Plaza at Amador Plaza Road and select preferred options for the above
improvements or direct Staff to return with new options.
The Council was asked to designate the following projects as the highest priority for
inclusion in the 2001-0Z UPdate to the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program:
a) Gateway Monument at Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway
b) Custom-designed Gateway feature at St. Patrick Way and Amador Plaza Road with
Right-of-Way Acquisition
c) Lewis Avenue and Village Parkway intersection streetscape improvements
An attachment included a Conceptual Cost Summary for improvements for the various
roadway segments and gateway, street furniture, etc. Some of the costs may be the
responsibility of new adjacent development and Staff recommended that more detailed
cost estimates be developed with more refined designs to be presented to the City Council
at a'later date.
The Council discussed the Primary and Secondary locations and the 4 Gateway options
presented in the Staff Report. Option 1 - Brick Monument; Option 2 - Masonry
Monument; Option 3 - Signage; and Option 4 - Custom Designed Gateway Feature.
Under Streetscape Plans, the Council discussed the 2 options for Street L/ghting. OptiOn
1 - Transit Series (Lumec) Design; and Option 2 - Custom Designed Luminaire (Lumec).
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 20
REGULAR MEETING
May 1, 2001
PAGE 191
With regard to Benches~ 3 options were presented. Option I ~ Hess America, Corvus
Bench; Option £ ~ Landscape Forms, Presidio Collection; and Option $ - Landscape forms,
Presidio Collection, Stylized.
Three options were discussed for the Bus Shelter Concept. Option 1 ~ Uniform Design;
Option Z - Artist Designed; and Option $ - Standard Metal.
The Council discussed the Street Trees Concept.
The Council discussed the 3 concepts for the Village Parkway Specific Streetscape Design,
as well as the pros and cons of each concept.
The Council discussed the Dublin Boulevard Specific Design, and Plaza opportunities.
Establishing priorities and financial considerations of the Downtown Streetscape
Implementation Plan were discussed.
In conclusion, Staff recommended that the City Council approve the following concept
designs:
· Gateways - Option 2 (Masonry Clad)
· Streetlighting ~ Boulevard Light - Lumec Custom Design
· Benches - BenCh Option 3
· Bus Shelter ~ Uniform Design as presented for areas not specifically designated for
Artist Designed Shelters along Dublin Boulevard
Street Trees ~ Installed along the curb at 130 feet on center where possible
· Plazas - First concept to be implemented at Amador Plaza Road in Dublin Place
shopping center
· Village Parkway Streetscape Concept C - Widen existing sidewalks in accordance
with CIP
· Dublin Boulevard streetscape - As Presented in Attachment 5
In addition, Staff recommended that the City Council authorize three projects, including
preparation of more detailed cost estimates, to be considered in the 2001-02 CIP:
Final design and construction of the first gateway monument at the northwest
comer of Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway (preliminary cost eshmate
$159,000)
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME gO
REGULAR MEETING
May 1,200'~
PAGE 192
· Final design and construction of the custom-designed gateway feature project at
the intersection of St. Patrick Way and Amador Plaza Road (I~680 off-ramp)
(preliminary cost estimate $364,9.00)
· Final design and construction of a streetscape improvement at the intersection of
Village Parkway at Lewis Avenue (preliminary cost estimate $510,320).
Staff advised that these costs will need to be refined with more detailed designs.
Dave Evans gave a slide presentation and explained that a particular focus was on
gateways and streetscape improvements.
Cm. Oravetz asked about the Village Parkway options. Which is best for us?
Mr. Evans stated they like to see trees front and back of curb. He hates the idea of cutting
down healthy mature trees, however~ a 5' sidewalk is not an ideal uridth.
Mayor Houston asked if it is Possible to have the trees in the middle of a sidewalk.
Mr. Evans stated they would need an arborist's point of view. They're almost too big for
grates. The pear is a fairly shallow rooted tree.
Cm. Ora3etz Commented on the two styles of lights and asked Mr. Evans about what he
preferred.
Mr. Evans stated he did not feel the historic ones are appropriate for Dublin.
Vice Mayor Lockhart stated she felt we need to take a close look at the trees on Village
Parkway and the whole purpose was to make this a pedestrian friendly area. At the
corner gateways, she was intrigued and assumed we would have some type of different
look on the ground.
Mr. Evans explained the concept and stated they offer some possibilities for treatment
beneath.
Vice Mayor Lockhart stated she and Val Barnes were at a League of California Cities
meeting where they attended a presentation by a man from Palm Springs who had a
unique idea related to benches designed to look like humans. In the downtown area, we
are focusing more on a human scale and activity and maybe we could look at some
bronze people interacting or something like this.
Mayor Houston asked about the Dublin Boulevard and Golden Gate Drive intersection.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 20
REGULAR MEETING
May 1, 2001
PAGE 193
Mr. Evans stated this is a location for a key marker. It seems like a fairly important
intersection.
Mayor Houston suggested trying to tie this area to the core downtown via a pedestrian
bridge and connect the two areas. This could connect it safely and make it look very
attractive. He talked about a bridge in Walnut Creek that spans the Iron Horse Trail over
YgnaCio Valley Boulevard.
Cm. McCormick stated since Village Parkway is really not part of the 4 points where the
gateways are, and not really in the downtown, she liked the idea of a tower or modified
marker in the median and designating this as The Village Green or its own distinct place
with its own identity.
Vice Mayor Lockhart stated she would like to see us include an artist in on the bus
shelters.
Mayor Houston and others indicated they did not particularly care for the seats and the
trash receptacles shown.
Vice Mayor Lockhart stated usually cities that really stand out as being unique are the
ones with the little details that make the difference. This is what really brings it all
together. This is what sets Tucson apart. These are the:things that will be pleasing to the
eye and won't be really expensive. We will be working with WHEELS on the bus
shelters. They don't have the expertise to do some of the things, though. ·
Cm. McCormiCk encouraged them to look at Village Parkway in terms of keeping the
trees. At least look to see if some of the trees can be saved.
Mr. Ambrose stated from a timing standpoint, the items for inclusion in the CIP, Staff
needs direction of whether this is the direction we will go.
The Council identified that it would like Village Parkway to be a hybrid between
Concepts A and B.
Mr. Ambrose stated Staff needed direction on the lighting. Staff will come back with
other options for benches and receptacles.
The Council selected the Option 2 lighting.
The Council stated they liked the tower with the light on top and understood we would
use smaller versions at the more minor locations. The Council selected Option 2 gateway
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME g0
REGULAR MEETING
May 1, 2001
PAGE 194
monument that goes across the street. Of the brick styles, they Iiked the second one.
They wanted a Village Parkway marker; one in front of McDonalds and one near Amador
Valley Boulevard. Designate the area with smaller marker that identifies Village Parkway
as a spec/al location. They could have the same architectural character, but smaller. In
front of the Oil Changers would be the best location. There would have to be some land
acquisitions.
Mr. Ambrose stated some of the changes are more easily implement able and Staff felt we
could make an immediate impact.
Vice Mayor Lockhart pointed out there is potential for some business changes on Village
Parkway and there may be opportunities in the future.
Mayor Houston reminded Staff to keep the bridge idea in mind.
The City Council indicated they liked the City logo on the gateway.
The City Council supported the group of projects recommended for highest priority for
inclusion in the 2001~02 Update to the Five-Year CIE:
· Final design and construction of the first gateway monument at the northwest
comer of Dublin Boulevard and Village Parkway (preliminary cost estimate
$159,000)
· Final design and construction of the custom-designed gateway feature project at
the inte~'secfion of St. Patrick Way and Amador Plaza Road (I-~80 off-vamp)
(preliminary cost estimate $564,200)
· Final design and construction of a streetscape improvement at the intersection of
Village Parkway at Lewis Avenue (preliminary cost estimate $510,520).
CIVIC CENTER LIBRARY TIME CAPSULE
8:38 p.m. 8.2 (940-50)
Parks & Facilities Development Manager Herma Lichtenstein presented the Staff Report
and advised that in order to accommodate a time capsule into the new Dublin Public
Library, a location and proposed timing for the inclusion of the capsule will have to be
determined. Additionally, it will be necessary to begin to identify the items for inclusion
in the time capsule.
Ms. Lichtenstein discussed two options proposed in the Staff Report. The first would be to
provide a vault in the paving area in the front plaza. The time capsule could be placed in
the vault and sealed with a concrete topping.: The concrete could be poured to allow
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 20
REGULAR MEETING
May 1, 2001
PAGE 195
i?
////
18' Above Pavement
Minimum
0
ATTACHMEnt' ~
~ '~18' Above Pavement
Minimum
ATTACHMENT/-'/-
E
lb'~e~6°t p\~z~
t-
×
0
0
_J
Existing Driveway
ATTACHMENT
APPROVED MONUMENT DESIGN
(VILLAGE PARKWAY/DUBLIN BOULEVARD)
WITH CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
1/2" cast bmma ~lUe ~er det~
1/4" a{tuukum inlaid
Tower Elevation
Scale 3/8" = 1'- 0"
t051 46th Avenue
o,akl~,s)c~, CA 94601
Phone 510.533.7693
F~zx. 51(I.533.08t5
tic..J314794
www.er fowsigncomp any.cam
Jab No,me:
Rlermme:
Sheel:
ATTACHMENT 6
ToiMer Plali View sca~ 3/8" - 1'- o"
Oakland, CA 94601 G~: ~n,~
~hone 5~ 0.~.769~ ~1~
Lit. 9314794
www.or r owsigncompany.com
(us~omKApp~:
Cm. Sbranti asked if there are any new concepts being worked on or will the same plan
be submitted for approval?
Mr. Porto stated the developers for the individual parcels will bring a SDR with their
design concepts and we will use the City Council's comments in reviewing what they
bring to the table. There is still lots of review that w/il occur.
Cm. Sbranti stated while he supports Stage 1, there is a lot to still look at.
No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue.
Mayor Lockhart Closed the public hearing.
On motion of Cm. McCormick, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the
Council waived the reading and adopted
ORDINANCE NO. 2'( -02
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE PROPERTY
AND APPROVING A RELATED STAGE I DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE D[.JBUN TRANSIT CENTER PROJECT PA 00-0~13
DOWNTOWN STREETSC~E IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLANS - GATEWAY MONUMENT SIMULATIONS
8:02 p.m. 7.1 (600-50/400-50)
Senior Planner Janet Harbin presented the Staff Report and explained that as requested at
the City Council meeting on November 5, 2002, the Consultant for the DowntoWn
Streetscape Implementation Plan has prepared sknulations of the approved gateway
monument design for other locations designated by the Downtown Specific Plans for
consideration by the Council.
The estimated cost for the monument and related improvements during Phase I of the
project is $195~055.40. The funding for the monument is included in CIP Project #
940¢0 for FY 2002~05, as part of the Downtown Streetscape Implementation Program.
Dave Evans reviewed the corner locations which were previously looked at. Both 25'
and 29' sign simulations were shown at each location.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
Fd~GU~.
December 3, 2002
PAGE 605
Cm. Zika asked about moving the traffic controller on the comer by Oil Changers.
What was the reason for this?
Mr. Evans Stated it was visual and he wasn't sure the cost to relocate the traffic
controller would be justified.
Mayor Lockhart asked if any consideration was given to the vacant lot across the street
where an office building will be going in? It could be constructed with new buildings
going in and wouldn't look like something added after the fact.
Mr. Evans stated he looked at it with Staff and the proposed architecture will have a
comer tower. Part of it was his original justification on what the ideal comers were.
The inside comers would be preferable, if they w/Il fit there.
Cm. Sbranti stated ff you were to put it on that corner and another one at Casa Orosco
they would at least be on the same side of the street. The Casa Orosco side is preferred
by him as he felt this is somewhat of a unique building. In the future, perhaps
Shamrock Village could build on the theme.
Cm. McCormick asked how this would fit with the other two comers if they selected the
north comers.
Mr. Evans stated he did not think they mark the downtown area quite as well. He
pointed out that the simulations are just a static view. When you are actually seeing
them, you will experience them from different angles.
Janet Harbin suggested that the City Council may want to consider the actual locations
after we install the first one by McDonalds.
Mr. Evans stated the construction documents will be for the first target site and the
critical factor will be how tall the City Council wants the monument.
Mayor Lockhart stated she prefers the shorter and the other CoUncilmembers agreed
except for Cm. Oravetz, who later stated he would be willing to go with the £ 5'.
Bruce Fiedler, stated in looking at the perspective, he felt the smaller would look better
because that proportion doesn't overwhelm what is behind it.
Tom Odam stated he was on the Task Force and also on the Village Parkway Task Force.
The monument will be there for a long time and will be something permanent. You can
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 21
December 3, 2002
PAGE 606
always make it smaller, but you can't make it bigger. He stated he supports the outside
corners, but can live with the inside corners. Bigger is better.
An unidentified audience member who spoke from her seat, stated she is for the taller
Olle.
Cm. Sbranti stated he felt both are pretty tall monuments. He agrees that in years ahead
SOme of the businesses may change. He prefers the 25' height as it fits more with the
scheme of the area.
Mayor Lockhart pointed out that the Village Parkway monuments are really more
pedestrian oriented.
Cm. McCormick stated she really likes the design and supports the smaller height.
Cm. Oravetz stated he really likes the design also.
On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Sbranti, and by unanimous vote, the Council
selected the 25' height, directed the Consultant to finalize the approved Task Force
recommended monument design; instructed the Consultant to prepare construction bid
documents for the first monument; and directed Staff to request bids following
preparation of bid-level documents.
AWARD OF BID FOR PURCHASE OF CITY POOL VEHICLE
8:24 p.m. 7.2 ($50-Z0)
Public Works Director Lee Thompson presented the Staff Report and advised that bids for
a hybrid passenger car to be used by Staff as a pool car were requested from Alameda
County Honda and Toyota dealerships, Five bids were received, with the lowest bidder
being Toyota Walnut Creek, with a bid of $21,310.77.
These vehicles get 45 to 52 miles per gallon.
Cm. Sbranti noted that Dublin Honda's bid was only about $210 more and asked if we
are always bound to take the absolute lowest bidder?
Mr. Thompson responded he felt if we stop doing this, we may not get bids.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME Z 1
REGULAR MEETING
December 3, 2002
PAGE 607