Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-12-1988REGULAR MEETING - December 12, 1988 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, December 12, 1988, in the meeting room of the Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m., by Mayor Paul Moffatt. ROLL CALL PRESENT' Moffatt. Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle- giance to the flag. PRESENTATION BY EMERGENCY SERVICES NETWORK Nancy Halerin thanked the City of Dublin for supporting their work for the last 2 years. She gave a brief history of ESN and explained that they are a coalition of emergency service providers. They are a fill-in agency and act as a clearing house. It was founded in 1983 and was originally completely a volunteer organization. Homeless numbers have continued to increase in the entire county. Every year, the number grows by about 10-20%. There are 6,000-8,000 homeless people in Alameda County. They hold monthly meetings with approximately 35-45 people in attendance. They have several committees and a 15 member Board of Directors, which includes one homeless representative. Ms. Halerin indicated that they felt their most important accomplishment is to produce an annual report on homelessness, which is basically a survey of who is homeless. Seventy-six percent of the homeless are women and children. Many people who qualify for benefits do not know how to get the benefits. They work closely with the social services agency so people can get the benefits they need. Cm. Snyder asked for demOgraphic information regarding the general place of residence for those served. He indicated a concern that there is a benefit to the community in line wi'th the amount of money invested. Ms. Halerin passed out literature and indicated that .3% of the people served are Dublin residents, or about 30 people. This only reports people who are served. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved Minutes of Adjourned Regular Meeting-November 27th, Regular Meeting-November 28th, & Adjourned Regular Meeting-November 29, 1988; @%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@ CM-7-358 Regular Meeting December 12, 1988 Accepted the City Treasurer's Report for Period Ending November 30, 1988; Approved Financial Statements for Period Ending November 30, 1988; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 149 - 88 STATING INTENTION TO VACATE A PUBLIC STREET WESTERN TERMINUS OF BETLEN DRIV Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 150 - 88 AWARDING CONTRACT 88-8 MAJOR ARTERIALS SOUNDWALLS WOOD SOUNDWALL WEST SIDE OF SAN RAMON ROAD TO GATEWAY LANDSCAPE authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement; and authorized a budget transfer in the amount of $86,764 from the San Ramon Road Phase III project budget; Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 151 - 88 and REQUIRING PAYMENT OF FEES TO THE DOUGHERTY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 152 - 88 AMENDING JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE DOUGHERTY REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $963,698.96; Approved an agreement with Book Publishing Company for the development of a Municipal Code and authorized the Mayor to execute same. Cm. Jeffery reported that she had been advised that she should not vote on the items related to the storm drain easement in Tract 4749. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by majority vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 153 - 88 and RESCINDING REJECTION OF OFFER OF DEDICATION OF STORM DRAIN EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 17 OF BLOCK A OF TRACT 4749 AND ACCEPTING OFFER OF DEDICATION RESOLUTION NO. 154 - 88 ACCEPTING A GRANT OF STORM DRAIN EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 17 OF BLOCK A OF TRACT 4749 Cm. Jeffery abstained. @%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@ CM-7-359 Regular Meeting December 12, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING - HUCKE SIGNS 7016-7150 VILLAGE PARKWAY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - APPEAL OF PA 87-122 Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. Planning Director Tong advised that this item was continued from the November 14, 1988 City Council meeting. At that meeting, the Council directed th~ Applicant to supply documentation that the lots are legally subdivided with cross access easements and directed Staff to determine whether the City could accept a Variance application for off-site signage and whether the City could impose conditions of approval requiring clean up of the back portion of the lot and requiring landscaping of the front portion of the lot. The Council indicated that the signs cannot be located in the public right-of-way and that the issue of the southern driveway would be handled at a later date. Mr. Tong explained the subdivision status of the Applicant's Village Parkway lots, The Applicant's proposal does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance regulating Special Easement Signs, as all of the parcels have direct access and frontage on an improved public right-of-way (Village Parkway). The legal subdivision of the project site consists of four lots and in compliance with the City's Sign Ordinance, the Applicant would be entitled to four C-2-B-40 directory signs (one on each parcel) subject to Site Development Review approval (a Conditional Use Permit is not required). With regard to whether a Variance could be granted for off-site signage, the City Attorney's Office has determined that a Variance cannot be granted for an off-site sign, as this would constitute a "use" Variance which is prohibited by Government Code 65906. In order for the Applicant to identify the tenants proposed on Sign "A", the Applicant would need %o apply for and receive approval of lot line adjustments and associated variances. The existing subdivided lots comply with the minimum lot size and lot width established for the C-2-B-40 District. The developed site however, is not in complete compliance with the minimum front and side yard setbacks in that in some instances, Alameda County granted variances for setbacks and in others, the County approved development across property lines. Those buildings which cross lot lines or which were not granted variances for reduced setbacks, are considered unconforming buildings. The City Attorney's Office has determined that conditions of approval requiring clean-up of the rear portion of the property and upgrade frontyard landscaping can be imposed on either the Conditional Use Permit or Site Development Review provided there is testimony in the record to support such conditions. Several zoning and building code violations were discussed, as was the front yard landscaping. @%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@ CM-7-360 Regular Meeting December 12, 1988 Mr. Tong advised that with regard to the directory signs, two options exist: 1) The Applicant may have a maximum of four C-2-B-40 directory signs (one per legally subdivided parcel - Lot 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 3, Tract 2662) identifying only those tenants located on the parcel on which the sign is located. 2) The Applicant may apply for lot line adjustments to reconfigure the existing legal lots to suit his signage needs in compliance with the City's Zoning Ordinance. Depending upon the configuration of the lot line adjustments proposed by the Applicant, approval of variances may be necessary. Lot line adjustments are subject to approval of the Planning Director and Public Works Director and do not require public hearing. Variances are subject to Zoning Administrator approval after conducting a noticed public hearing and making required findings of fact. Staff recommended that the City Council deny the Applicant's request for a CUP for a Special Easement Sign as the Applicant's request does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements for Special Easement Signs; and approve the SDR for a maximum of four C-2-B-40 directory signs (one per legally subdivided lot) which woUld apply to existing legally subdivided lots or any future lot line adjustments which may be approved. Approval of the SDR includes conditions to require clean up of the site and upgrading of the front landscaping to include 50% living plant material (turf, shrubs and trees). Cm. Hegarty felt it should be brought out that the length of time required for this item was due to the Applicant's request. Don Hucke, 25 Crocker Avenue, Piedmont, read a prepared statement indicating that over 15 months ago he asked for a simple directory sign so rear tenants could have some identification from Village Parkway. They want only 2 directory signs. Mr. Hucke advised that Conditions #14 through #18 and #20 are totally nonrelated to the issue at hand, and unacceptable to him. Mr. Hucke stated that if the Council does not approve this request, he will have no choice but to withdraw the entire application. Ms. Dina Lee, 4646 Klamath Court, Pleasanton, indicated she was a tenant. Nineteen years ago she rented building space and her business has suffered from a loss of advertising. Mr. Hucke should not be required to dig up the rock and plant grass because of the water shortage. She felt that this is somebody's wild idea of what they plan to do in Dublin. Businesses in the rear are suffering. Cm. Hegarty advised that Staff's recommendation would allow Mr. Hucke to put up 4 signs. The Ordinance says, howeVer, that you cannot take a lot in one place and advertise it somewhere else. Ken Begun, the property owner immediately south, indicated they are still concerned because they get-all the overflow people parking in their lot. He requested that the.driveway issue be addressed now rather than deferred until after the signs, and the signal at Clark Avenue & Village Parkway goes in. @%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@ CM-7-361 Regular Meeting December 12, 1988 Mayor Moffatt advised Mr. Begun that the issue before the Council at this meeting is for signs. The driveway issue should be agendized for another meeting. Mr. Begun questioned if directional arrows would be on the signs. Mr. Tong advised that Staff has previously indicated that he could have a directional arrow to the rear businesses, however, this is not part of the conditions of approval. With regard to the southern driveway access, Mr. Tong advised that Staff has drafted Condition #10 which states, "Within 6 months after approval of signage and installation and operation of signal at Lewis Avenue and Village Parkway, whichever is later, Staff shall review the change in direction of southern most driveway to "enter only". The Applicant shall be reqUired to make said changes to the driveway subject to appeal to the City Council." Ms. Kathy Lee, Spruce Street, Livermore, indicated that she has gotten a constant run around from the City, but Mr. Hucke has been the greatest landlord in the world. No one in the City can tell her if her present sign, with a permit, can be approved. It will cost her $105. Mr. Tong advised that the $105 figure is a standard fee for a sign site development review. Staff has previously advised them that it is currently trying to process a site development review for a sign on the entire site, and this means that it would not be necessary for each tenant to come in with an application for a sign. Ms. Lee indicated she still did not understand why they couldn't tell her if her sign would be allowed. Cm. Vonheeder explained the fee structure to Ms. Lee. Mr. Tong advised that if Ms. Lee would call his office with the specific measurements, Staff could answer her questions. Mr. Hucke questioned why the entire attitude of the City seems to be "NO". No one wants to help the businesses in the rear. The City seems to be against small businesses. Mayor Moffatt stated that many of the issues are not small business issues, but rather property line issues. Mr. Hucke is asking the City to go against all their ordinances and give special considerations. Mr. Hucke advised that the deeds have all been legally recorded, long before the City even existed. City Attorney Nave advised that the City was informed by the Assessor's Office that they are not legal lots. He indicated a willingness to recheck this. Mr. Hucke stated he is ~ithdrawing his application. He has fought this long enough. He feels they are all perfectly legal lots. The front tenants don't want signs, as they have signs on the building. @%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@ CM-7-362 Regular Meeting December 12, 1988 Mr. Nave advised the Council that if the applicant has withdrawn his application, there is no decision for the Council to make. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. Mr. Nave asked Mr. Hucke if he was withdrawing his application. Mr. Hucke responded, "conditionally". Cm. Jeffery asked Mr. Hucke if the Council adopts' the Staff recommendations, which contain the conditions of approval, is he then withdrawing his application. Mr. Hucke responded yes. Cm. Snyder indicated that in the documents presented there is a copy of the deed which describes Parcel 5 and which describes the ingress/egress, etc., to the back parcel. He questioned why the County is now saying this is not legal. Mr. Nave advised that the County Recorder does not look to see that deeds conform to parcel maps. Cm. Jeffery stated she felt Staff's recommendations are actually the fairest to the tenants. Cm. Jeffery then made a motion which was seconded by Cm. Hegarty to accept Staff's recommendations. This involved the adoption of a resolution denying the CUP request and a resolution upholding and amending the Planning Commission action approving a Site Development Review request for a directory sign and sign program for wall signs. Cm. Vonheeder requested an amendment to the motion to add a requirement that the signs have directions indicating businesses in the rear. Cm. Jeffery and Cm. Hegarty accepted the amendment to the motion and the second, respectively. Cm. Snyder indicated that he was troubled that the Council is doing this, knowing that Mr. Hucke will withdraw his application. He questioned what was the point. Mr. Nave indicated he was not sure that Mr. Hucke understood the procedure. He does not like the conditions of approval put on by Staff. Mr. Hucke advised that he is formally withdrawing his application. Because of this withdrawal, there was no need to call for a vote on the motion. @%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@ CM'7-363 Regular Meeting December 12, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF ORDER TO ABATE VEHICLES AT 8326 DAVONA DRIVEr WILLIAM LOPACHUK Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. City Manager Ambrose reported that Mr. Lopachuk advised him earlier that he may have to leave the meeting early as he had his 3 young children with him. Mr. Ambrose questioned how the Council wished to handle this item. By a consensus of the Council, this public hearing was continued to the January 9, 1989 Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING-DOUGHERTY ROAD @ AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD DESIGNATION OF SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION & PROHIBITION OF U-TURNS FOR NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC Mayor Moffatt opened the public hearing. City Engineer Thompson advised that Ordinance No. 55-87 provides that signalized intersections must be established by resolution. Prohibition of u-turns must be established by ordinance. Construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Dougherty Road at Amador Valley Boulevard is one of the conditions of approval for Tract 5511, the Villages @ Willow Creek. This signal is in the process of being constructed by Rafanelli & Nahas, and will soon be operational. U-turns must be prohibited for northbound traffic because of lack of sufficient room to make a U-tUrn. No comments were made by members of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Moffatt closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and on an urgency basis, adopted ORDINANCE NO. 22 - 88 PROHIBITING U-TURNS FOR NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC AT THE INTERSECTION OF DOUGHERTY ROAD & AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 155 - 88 DESIGNATING DOUGHERTY ROAD @ AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD AS A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION @%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+a@ CM-7-364 Regular Meeting December 12, 1988 WEST DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY & SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY REQUESTS Planning Director Tong advised that Michael S. McKissick, representing Eden Development Group, and Robert Yohai, representing Schaefer Heights, Incorporated, have separately requested the City Council to authorize a General Plan Amendment Study and Specific Plan Study for the Western Extended Planning Area. The Eden Development Group request involves approximately 3,600 acres under 11 separate ownerships. The area is generally bounded by 1-580 on the south, Eden Canyon Road on the west, the Alameda County/Contra Costa County boundary on the north, and the Dublin City boundary and Schaefer Ranch Road on the east. The Applicant intends to extend the Dublin General Plan Primary Planning Area to include the property and have a Specific Plan prepared in order to develop an exclusive Country club Community with high end homes, substantial amenities such as an 18-hole championship golf course, and some support retail/commercial areas. The request contains property owner authorization from 10 property owners: Davilla/Fields; Manuel Machado; Butch Schaefer; Robert Nielsen; Jeffrey Wiederman; John Machado; Scott Machado; Dennis Gibbs; Domino Cattle Co.; and LeMoyne/Eastwood/Bartling. Authorization from Marie Cronin has not been submitted. The Schaefer Heights, Incorporated request involves approximately 335 acres owned by Barbara Schaefer. The area is generally bounded by 1-580 on the south, Schaefer Ranch Road on the west, and Donlan Canyon on the north and east. The site includes Donlon Point. The Applicant intends to extend the Dublin General Plan Primary Planning Area to include the property and have a Specific Plan prepared in order to develop an upscale single family Planned Development Community with support facilities. Mr. Tong advised that state law limits General Plan Amendments to a maximum of 4 per calendar year. The City Council has previously authorized the following 4 General Plan Amendment Studies: 1) Hansen Hill Ranch, 2) Blaylock, Gleason, Fletcher (Donlan Canyon), 3) Dublin Boulevard Extension (Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way to Tassajara Road), and 4) East Dublin. It would be appropriate to combine the Eden Development Group request with the Schaefer Heights, Inc., request to form a single "West Dublin" General Plan Amendment Study and Specific Plan Study. Staff anticipated that the first 3 listed amendments will take place in 1989, and the fourth occurring after 1989. State law does not limit the number of Specific Plans that can be prepared. It does, however, call out the contents of a Specific Plan, which must include: 1) land use designations, 2) infrastructure and facilities, 3) development and environmental management, and 4) implementation and financing measures. @%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@ CM-7-365 Regular Meeting December 12, 1988 The initial step is for the City Council to determine whether or not to authorize a General Plan Amendment Study. If the Council decides not to authorize an amendment study, the existing policies remain in effect. If the Council decides to authorize a General Plan Amendment Study, it should also determine whether or not to authorize a Specific Plan Study. The Council should also determine the boundaries of the study areas, if appropriate. To help process the studies, Staff advised that it would need to hire a Contract Planner, or perhaps contract with a Planning Firm, as well as assemble a Consultant Team with expertise in such areas as hillside development, transportation planning, environmental review, geology, fiscal analysis, and infrastructure planning. Staff recommended that the Council: 1) determine whether or not to authorize a General Plan Amendment Study and Specific Plan Study, including a determination of study area boundaries. If the study is not authorized, no other action would be needed. 2) Based upon the current Planning Department workload, sufficient Staff resources to process this General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Study are NOT available. In order to be able to coordinate these requests, the Applicants have agreed to incur the costs of the City hiring another Planner. It is the City Manager's recommendation that the Council not hire another full time permanent Planner until the Management Audit of Development Services is undertaken and completed. The City Manager recommended that the Council authorize Staff to secure the services of a Contract Planner to handle the processing of this study, if the study is authorized. It was also recommended that the Council authorize Staff to initiate discussions with other agencies having jurisdiction, determine the appropriate Consultant Team, bring a Consultant Team Contract to the City Council for authorization and bring any other associated documents, agreements, or resolutions to the City Council for action. Mike McKissick, representing Eden Development Group, and Robert Yohai, representing Schaefer Heights, Inc., indicated they agreed with Staff's recommendation. Marjorie LaBar, 11707 Juarez Lane was present representing the Preserve Area Ridgelines Committee. She urged the City Council to look at this entire piece of land as a whole. There are parts that can be seen all the way from the Altamont Pass. She indicated that she hopes Mrs. Cronin will allow inclusion in the study, as she felt that piecemeal studies don't work. Ms. LaBar requested that Staff bring in consultants who are used to dealing with broad open spaces. She encouraged Dublin to work with the Park District. Zev Kahn, 11708 Harlan Road asked at what point would an EIR come into play. Would it be now or later? Mr. Tong advised that an EIR would be prepared as early on in the project as possible. The Applicants would want to use it to identify and build in mitigations as part of the project. It would also be used to help design the project itself. @%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@ CM-7-366 Regular Meeting December 12, 1988 Mr. Kahn asked if the financing for a project planner would include all the costs of contract planners. Mr. Tong advised that the existing policy is that development applications pay their own way. All costs would have to be paid for by the applicant. George Butler, 8667 Bloomington Way suggested that a model be made of the area showing what would be seen from the freeway. A1 Bilotti, 8116 Creekside Drive expressed concerns that lately with the Hansen property, K & B development and Bordeaux Estates, it is getting very congested and crowded from a traffic standpoint. He questioned how we will handle all the traffic. Dublin also has sewer problems which should be carefully reviewed. Mayor Moffatt advised that these are areas that would be covered by the study. He further stated that Mr. Bilotti's attendance at all the upcoming meetings would help to ensure that all the issues are brought out. Cm. Hegarty asked if the costs will be shared proportionately. Mr. Tong advised that the specifics have not yet been discussed, but he assumed that they would come up with an equitable arrangement for sharing the costs. Cm. Hegarty asked if we just go around the Cronin property if she does not agree to the study. Mr. Tong advised that Staff could either include or exclude this parcel. If the parcel is included, there is a Government Code Section which states that we can require reimbursement when this particular parcel develops. City Manager Ambrose clarified that this would only be for the Specific Plan portion of the study. Cm. Jeffery suggested that the entire area be studied. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized a General Plan Amendment Study and Specific Plan Study, with a determination that the study area boundaries, and directed Staff to hire a Contract Planner, initiate discussions with other agencies having jurisdiction, determine appropriate consultant team, bring consultant team contract to City Council for authorization, and bring any other associated agreements or documents to City Council for action. @%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@ CM-7-367 Regular Meeting December 12, 1988 ABAG HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATIONS Planning Director Tong advised that the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), has prepared a report identifying each locality's share of the regional housing needs. The report gives a 50% discount to the number of housing units needed for new workers rather than fully accounting for the region's jobs/housing needs. Staff feels that such a substantial discount ignores ABAG's responsibility to identify the regional housing needs and each locality's equitable share of those regional housing needs. It also inappropriately mixes the requirement to identify regional housing needs, with the policy making function of establishing regional housing goals. The effect of the discount is to significantly shift the burden of 1) total housing needs, and 2) housing needs by income category, on to those cities such as Dublin that have done and will continue to do their share in providing housing opportunities for their workers. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 156 - 88 REVISING THE CITY OF DUBLIN'S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS STATUS REPORTS ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS Mayor Moffatt requested that members of the Council be given an opportunity tofreport to the Council regarding any activities being undertaken by committees or other bodies to which the individual Councilmembers are appointed. Mayor Moffatt explained that his purpose for putting this on the agenda was that he would like to have a portion on the agenda to allow reports from anyone who sits on the various committees. Cm. Vonheeder stated that the Tri-Valley Transportation Committee should be added to the list. She serves as the representative with a Staff member as alternate. Cm. Jeffery stated that the Alameda County Transportation Committee, as it was originally set up, no longer exists and should be deleted. Cm. Vonheeder stated that the birthday celebration committee was formed to prepare for the City's 5th birthday so this committee could be deleted from the list. Cm. Hegarty felt the meetings with Zone 7 should be reactivated. Lee Thompson suggested that it might be helpful to have an annual meeting. Mayor Moffatt is on this committee. @%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+a@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@ CM-7-368 Regular Meeting December 12, 1988 Cm. Vonheeder advised that even.though the DSRSD liaison committee was combined when we were negotiating, we might want to again separated them back to 2 committees, as she felt there is still a need for both committees. We have dealings with both entities. Cm. Snyder and Cm. Jeffery serve on the 'San Ramon liaison committee, and Cm. Snyder and Cm. Vonheeder serve on the DSRSD liaison committee. OTHER BUSINESS Camp Parks Closure Cm. Jeffery indicated that a letter from Congressman Stark's Office related to Camp Parks which was recently received needed to be discussed. They are starting to have the hearings on this. City Manager Ambrose advised that by a 4/5 vote, the Council could discuss the item and make a decision at this time, if they feel the hearings are scheduled such that they won't be able to provide timely input. The letter asks for comments regarding his idea to close Camp Parks. He spoke with an Aide in Congressman Stark's Office who indicated that the matter was not urgent, but there would be discussions over the next several months and we will have more than sufficient time to comment. Cm. Vonheeder felt that this might be an appropriate issue for the 5 cities to discuss at their next Tri-Valley Joint Council meeting which is being hosted in January by San Ramon. The Council requested that this item be placed on the January 9, 1989 agenda. Tri-Valley Community Television Cm. Hegarty advised that Livermore will give their portion, $27,000 to the Community TV organization. Cm. Hegarty reported that the TV organization is looking at a new type of camera which is coming out and appears to cost in the $38,000 - $40,000 range. Panasonic has indicated they will take the old one back and'provide the new one for about $16,000. Pleasanton Library Cm. Hegarty advised that he had visited the new Pleasanton Library and it is a really nice facility. 'The City of Pleasanton has followed Dublin's lead and is funding additional hours. Hopefully, this new facility will relieve some of the strain on Dublin's Library. @%+&@%+&@%+&@%*&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@ CM-7-369 Regular Meeting December 12, 1988 Cm. Snyder stated he was in the parking lot at the Library this evening at about 5:45 p.m., and he was very surprised at the number of people who droVe through, thinking that the Library was open. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p~.m.' ' - City C~l)e~k @%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@%+&@ CM-7-370 Regular Meeting December 12, 1988