Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.01 Draft Minutes 05-19-1998 .. . . . RECULAR MEETING.. May 19, 1998 A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, May 19, 1998, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m., by Mayor Houston. .. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Lockhart and Mayor Houston. Councilmember Barnes. ... PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE !\1ayor Houston led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. .... CLOSED SESSION 7:06 p.m. 10.1 (700-20) The Council recessed to a closed session to discuss Personnel - Government Code Section 54957.6(a) - Conference with Agency Labor Negotiator Richard C. Ambrose - Unrepresented City Employees: Office Assistant I & II, Finance Technician I & II, Preschool Instructor, Secretary, Recreation Coordinator, Administrative Secretary, Administrative Aide, Assistant Planner, Community Safety Assistant, Computer Systems Specialist, Engineering Technician, Management Assistant, Administrative Assistant, Recreation Supervisor, Heritage Center Director, Public Works Inspector, Associate Planner, City Clerk, Senior Planner, Assistant to the City Manager, Assistant Civil Engineer, Finance Manager, Senior Civil Engineer, Economic Development Manager, Planning Director, Parks & Community Services Director, Assistant City Manager/ Administrative Services Director, Community Development Director, Public Works Director/City Engineer CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REG U LAR lViEETING 1'1 ay 1 9 f 1 998 PAGE 230 ITEM NO. ~ ,I -" ~- -- . REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTION . At 7:13 p.m. the meeting reconvened with all Councilmembers present (Cm. Barnes absent). Mayor Houston announced that no reportable action was taken in closed session. .. CONSENT CALENDAR 7:14 p.m. Items 4.1 through 4.20 Cm. Howard pointed out a correction on the roll call for the May 5 minutes which shows she was present when she was absent. She also abstained from voting on the minutes for that meeting. Cm. Burton reported that he would abstain on Item 4.13 as he owns rental property in the assessment district. On motion of Cm. Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote .( Cm. Barnes absent), the Council took the following actions: . Approved (4.1) Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 5, 1998 (Cm. Howard abstained) ; Accepted (4.2 150-70) gifts for the Dublin Senior Center, $250 check from Secure Horizons and $216 check from United Way of Santa Clara County designated by Robin E. Andrew, directed Staff to prepare formal acknowledgment to the donors, and approved the Budget Change Form; Adopted (4.3 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 56 .. 98 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES WITH BERlOGAR GEOTECHNIC,I\l CONSULTANTS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETiNG May 19, 1998 PAGE 231 . . . . Adopted (4.4 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 57 . 98 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Adopted (4.5 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 58 . 98 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES WITH BSK & ASSOCIATES Adopted (4.6 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 59 .. 98 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH TRI..VALLEY JANITORIAL SERVICES FOR CITY FACILITIES JANITORIAL SERVICES Approved (4.7 600-30) Agreement for Legal Services with Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson and authorized the Mayor to execute same; Received (4.8 330-50) the Financial Report for the Month of April 1998; Determined (4.9 600-60) that the developers of the Santa Rita Commercial Center (now known as Hacienda Crossings Commercial Center and Creekside Business Park) have complied in good faith with the terms and provisions of the Development Agreements and concluded the Annual Review; Adopted (4.10 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 60 . 98 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH OMNI.MEANS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING May 1 9, 1 998 PAGE 232 Adopted (4.11 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 61 .. 98 . AWARDING CONTRACT 98..06 ($61,000.94) ANNUAL STREET SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM TO VALLEY SLURRY SEAL approved the Budget Change Form, and authorized the Mayor to execute agreement; Adopted (4.12 360-50) RESOLUTION NO. 62 .. 98 DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ANNUAL REPORT FOR CITYWIDE STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 83-1 Adopted (4.13 360-20) (Cm. Burton abstained) RESOLUTION NO.. 63 .. 98 DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ANNUAL REPORT FOR . LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 83..2 (TRACT 4719) Adopted (4.14 360-20) RESOLUTION NO. 64 .. 98 DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ANNUAL REPORT FOR LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 86-1 (TRACT 5511) Adopted (4.15 360-20) RESOLUTION NO. 65 - 98 DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ANNUAL REPORT FOR LANDSCAPING & LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 97..1 (SANTA RITA AREA) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REG U LAR MEETING May 1 9, 1 998 PAGE 233 . . . . Adopted (4.16 530-50) RESOLUTION NO. 66 .. 98 TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT'S "1998 SPARE THE AIR" CITY CAMPAIGN Authorized (4.17 600-30) the City Manager to execute a contract with George !\1.iers & Associates to prepare working drawings and bid specifications for modifications and expansion of the Civic Center as outlined in the Space Needs and Schematic Design Study dated February 3, 1998, and approved funding for the costs associated with expenses and services needed that are not included in the contract, including architect and consultant reimbursable expenses, a topographic survey, bid and contractor sets of blueprints, soils report and testing during construction, and approved the Budget Change Form; Adopted (4.18 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 67 .. 98 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH ASSOCIATED RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES, INC.. FOR APPRAISAL SERVICES - EASTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE AND FACIUTY IMPACT FEE UPDATES and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement; Adopted (4.19 600-30) RESOLUTION NO. 68 .. 98 A.WARDING CONTRACT 98..02, 1998 ANNUAL SIDEWALK SAFElY REPAIR PROGRAM (TWO-YEAR GRINDING CONTRACT) TO CENTRAL COAST SURFACE GRINDING ($8,091.90) Approved.(4.20 300-40) the Warrant Register in the amount of $1,210,457.91. ..... Mayor Houston announced that the public hearings would be held in opposite order of the way they were listed on the agenda. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REG U LAR MEETING May 1 9 I 1 998 PAGE 234 .- PUBLIC HEARING URBAN OPPORTUNITY AREA - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PA 98-029 . This item was moved to be the fourth public hearing. 7:57 p.m. 6.1 (420-30) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Community Development Director Peabody gave a brief overview of the item. Senior Planner Cirelli presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council directed Staff to work on the Urban Opportunity Area - General Plan Amendment project as a high priority project for this Fiscal Year 1997-98. The Urban Opportunity Area (UOA) boundary within the Eastern Dublin Extended Planning Area is the 770 foot elevation line, which is the highest serviceable elevation for water service within this area based on the adopted Eastern Dublin GPA and SP, and the Dublin San Ramon Services District's Eastern Dublin Facilities Plan dated June, 1997. The UOA boundary within the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area is the . 740 foot elevation line. This boundary was chosen because development beyond this point would result in the expansion of water service pressure zones, except for already approved projects; an increase in reservoir sizes beyond what has been already constructed and/or approved; or major impacts to visual quality, biology, geology, traffic and circulation, and areas which have slopes over 30%. Ms. Cirelli explained that the GP A will consist of adding language at the end of Section 1.4 after the discussion of the Primary Planning Area of the General Plan. The amendment includes a general descriPtion of the UOA; a descriPtion of the UOA boundary within the extended planning areas, and UOA implementing policies within both extended planning areas. GP figures have also been amended to reflect the UOA policies. Figure 1-2, Dublin General Plan - Extended Planning Area Land Use has been amended to show the UOA policies, and Guiding Policy 2.1.4 A was deleted from the map, but still retained within the text; a new Figure 1-4 has been added showing the UOA boundary within the Eastern Extended Planning Area; and a new Figure 1-5 has been added showing the UOA boundary within the Western Extended Planning Area. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING May 1 9, 1 998 PAGE 235 . . . . Ms. Cirelli stated all of the UOA policies are consistent with the existing GP policies and programs that recognize the extent of urban development within areas that would not result in impacts to public services, visually sensitive ridgelands, biologically sensitive habitat areas, and infrastructure. The proposed GPA merely defines areas of urban development potential within both extended planning areas and depicts these policies on a map. The UOA is a long-tenn commitment by the City to manage growth within the current City limits and the Eastern and Western Extended Planning Areas. Ms. Cirelli felt it was important to note that property owners within the UOA are not guaranteed development rights or &i:ven prior approval for development. These property owners would still need to request a general plan amendment, prezoning, annexation and proceed with the normal entitlement process. This entire process will require extensive environmental documentation pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and public review period. In addition, although the UOA maps depict areas where development should be precluded, property owners outside the UOA are not totally excluded from applying for general plan amendments and entitlements. Policy B under both the Eastern and Western Extended Planning Area policies states, urban land uses may be approved for areas beyond the UOA only when information covering the project's potential environmental impacts is available, as reviewed through a GPA. Ms. Cirelli advised that the Planning Commission held public hearings on the UOA at their meetings of April 14 and April 28, 1998. On a 3-2 vote, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution at their April 28 meeting recommending that the City Council adopt the UOA GPA. Mayor Houston stated he is the one who brought this forward and he is quite proud of it. People may be confused because Staff doesn't cut to the chase and say what this is all about. Stripped down of all the legal talk, what we have before us is an elevation cap. Pleasanton put one in in the early 1990's. No one can build above the elevation cap. We're talking about the entire City of Dublin. Some might have been led to believe that their neighborhood is the center of the plan, but nothing is further from the truth. The genesis of this plan came about as a result of negotiations of the sewer pipeline with neighboring cities. He stated he agreed that he would propose an elevation cap similar to what they have in Pleasanton. This provides an additional protection for capping our general plan policies. We are not changing the rules and regulations. We are not making them more restrictive; we are not making them more liberal. We are simply CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING May 1 9, 1 998 PAGE 236 - - . ..... --.-- - adding an elevation cap on top which prohibits growth in those areas. Ninety eight percent of the existing sphere of influence in Western Dublin is protected. . If people are afraid of lm:ge scale development in the western hills, they should support this project. This will prohibit the type of development proposed several years ago. There is no change in zoning whatsoever and no policy changes. The City Council has heard people's concerns and this is why he brought it forward tonight. Mark Saake, 11198 Brittany Lane, stated he and his wife have been residents for 8 years and have lived in both east and west. He is not an anti -growth proponent. We must properly plan any development to minimize impact to those affected. The people of Dublin have said they don't want development in the western Dublin ridgelands. Despite what people have voted against, growth continues. Brittany Drive and Brittany Lane are not access roads and neither is wide enough to accommodate additional growth. Traffic concerns are most important particularly in light of children and animals. Residents of Hansen Hill complain about the same traffic issues on Bay Laurel. They have lived for the last 3 years with the major inconveniences such as dust and noise of the Hansen Hill development. Housing prices are also affected. There was a misconception of the 740' cap at the Planning Commission meeting and the issue was raised whether above this level could be developed. City Planners said if the City or a developer were to fund a new water tower, then development could occur higher. He . proposed that this be changed to state what we are trying to do is put in a height level rather than say where we expect development to occur in the next 20 to 25 years. Alameda County has stated in their GP that these areas should be left as agricultural and open space. The City could annex the area and leave it as open space. He requested that the City Council reject the GPA before them. Mayor Houston responded that the 740' is in our current City guidelines. We are not attempting to change any of our GP policies. It is true that engineers can engineer anything. This is why it is important to have an elevation cap. The name puts some people off and he stated he would be happy to change the name to elevation cap. This would say we can't engineer anything above 740'. The reason he felt it important to put all this on a map is the GP is a big thick book and it's very difficult to understand. From his persPective, to have something that shows on - a map is a lot easier to understand. This shows that 2,600 acres in the Western Dublin area is protected. On the flip side, developers and property owners get the GP and say how can they get around this. He wants to be up front with what the barriers and deterrents are to developing. They can then make the decision on whether they want to face these problems. We should be fair and CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING May 1 9, 1 998 PAGE 237 . ..~- . -. -- - . . honest on what's in our GP. The map is very important because it lays it out very clearly with an elevation cap over it. Pattie Clarley, Hansen Hills stated she has lived here for 12 years. She is opposed to whatever you want to call this. She questioned how Schaefer Ranch was approved. Mayor Houston stated he is very proud of Schaefer Ranch. This brought amenities to the west side and to the City that we did not have before, such as open space, trails, soccer fields, little league fields, etc. The City got something for that project. What doesn't show on the map is how it is designed. It is designed to not encourage further growth beyond: It has loop roads. There will be no roads beyond the Schaefer Ranch project. Ms. Clarley stated she was opposed to development in the blue area which Mayor Houston said is agriculturally zoned. They were not told that Bay Laurel would be a freeway and access for the Valley Christian Center. It is literally a freeway. They love using it instead of Dublin Boulevard. She invited all the Council to come to her street between 7:00 a.m. and 7:15 a.m. in the morning. She continually almost gets read-ended backing out of her driveway. The City allowed the street to be built too narrow. It was never disclosed to her that this . street would be used by Valley Christian Center. Tom Ford, 7262 Tina Place stated he is a 12 year resident who follows city operations and mistakes. The Council should oppose the UOA, as it is against the voter's wishes. After many meetings, it was claimed there was a consensus to develop Schaefer Ranch. In Dublin 15 people not voting opposed 78% of the voter's wishes. The Council supported growth in East Dublin. He has a video tape of the Mayor opposing growth in West Dublin. This was prior to the election. The 740' topographic line would not protect the ridge. Livermore and Pleasanton have beautiful cities. Livermore has lots of trees and Pleasanton has many park acres. He asked us to survey people here to see if they are as happy as those in Pleasanton. people there are very happy with the protected ridgeline areas. Weare making some progress with putting in playgrounds, etc., but we've got a long way to go. This space needs to be open with trails. This agreement is based probably on a violation of the Brown Act. The will of the people suggests a no vote on the UOA. It is a very bad issue. . Sue Rainey, 11157 Bay Laurel stated they are afraid of enhancing issues they already have if any more opportunity is allowed in the hills. If anything is allowed in the blue area, this means more traffic and she stated this scares the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REG U LAR MEETING May 1 9, 1 998 PAGE 238 - ..- ---- - - hell out of her and anyone else on the street. City people try to compare their street with Vomac, but she drives Vomac all the time and they are very different. . Her street is full of curves. The street was not built for the type of traffic that is using it. It can't handle any more development in the hills. Next year the cap will be raised. Opportunity means a chance to do. There should be no more development. People should be allowed to vote if they want more traffic and more smog in their neighborhoods. She stated she laughed at the loop road system for Schaefer Ranch. They were told their street was a loop road. You can't believe anybody anymore. This is a piecemeal type development and it's not good for Dublin to keep putting pieces here and there. Her neighbor's kids can't play out in the front yard. This is pretty sad. We need to take more consideration of people here now and not worry about fUture development. Mayor Houston commented regarding the Hansen Hill project that it was one of the conditions to the VCC access and egress. You have to have two ways to get in and out. Hansen Hills had to have access through VCC property to have secondary access. VCC permitted the secondary access so the project could be approved. Russell Greenlaw, 11765 Shadow Drive stated he is past president of the homeowners association directly down from this site. They tolerated and bit the bullet with noise and dust weII past the time the City Council told them it would be done and were told this would be a nice development when it was finished. This is the Hansen Ranch development. He stated he was not present to debate the Brown Act. This wonderlul riparian zone adjacent to the area should not be built on. This would serve Hansen Ranch as well as areas below. He did not receive anything at his address or addressed to the HOA regarding this UOA. If they had received it they would have taken it before their organization. They knew virtually nothing about this. Morgan King, 8348 Creekside Drive stated there were a number of problems with this. This is a proposed GPA and the Government Code allows the GP to be amended only if it is in the public interest. The State of California has very strongly encouraged cities to preserve open space. He asked where the need is for more housing in the hills. What public interest is being served? A second problem is that it is based on a false premise which presumes the citizens of Dublin want to see any more houses on the hills. This was made clear several times by the voters. The Mayor stated he was opposed to further development in the hills and now says he is proud to bring this issue forward. What caused him to change his views after the election? There is a credibility problem. For development below the 740' level, we have some constraints but what isn't listed CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING May 1 9, 1 998 PAGE 239 . . . . . are open space and traffic and urban sprawl and air quality constraints. Many believe this is deliberate. Dublin's existing GP sections were referenced. The Hansen Hills project violates all of Dublin's existing policies. This creates a credibility gap. They don't believe the Mayor and don't believe the City is serious. We have major traffic problems on Bay Laurel and Hansen is often referred to as the freeway bypass. What's in the UOA is meaningless. The Council will ignore it when it suits them. People have said they don't want any more development in the hills. This tells them figuratively that the Mayor is giving them the finger and they resent it. . - John Anderson, 111 74 Brittany Lane congratulated the City Council on trying to put a cap on the western hills. He also commented that putting the minutes and Goals & Objectives on the Internet is very useful. We have changed the speaker forms to be a lot more friendly. One of the things according to the language in the amendment is all the UOA policies are consistent with the GP. If this is the case, why do we need a UOA; what's the purpose? Mayor Houston stated this is exactly what they're trying to do; 99% of the development occurring in our City will occur in the east. The name, for good or bad, really is talking about the entire City and the urban opportunity area is in the eastern side of our City. He would be more than happy to drop every time it says UOA and put in elevation cap. There is no deviation from what he just said. We have our existing policies and we are not considering changing any of that. He would be glad to have the words "elevation cap" put in instead of UOA. Mr. Anderson stated there are many areas under the 740' height that have serious constraints. Mayor Houston pointed out any development will have to go through the studies and meet the standards and go through the geological processes to have a project. Mr. Anderson commented on the 740' and asked if this could be something different. Could it be 1,000 or some other figure? Mayor Houston stated any change would have to be studied separately. This is an elevation cap. We're not discussing any other policies tonight. This would be an extra layer of protection. Mr. Anderson stated 250' could be set and asked if it could apply to Schaefer Ranch. The City Council could make it anything they want. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING May 1 9 I 1 998 PAGE 240 .-- - .... Mayor Houston reiterated he looked at this as an entire City ordinance, not just one neighborhood. Again, it came about due to the 1,500 acres in Eastern . Dublin. It is unrealistic to think the Council can't even study things. Everyone understands that 99% of the growth in the City will be in the east. David Bewley, 11166 Brittany Lane stated there are some positive things to the City, but concerns tonight are about the GP. The City's Website is great. Fortunately, he has access to a computer and as time goes on it will serve more and more people. It is fair and reasonable to bifurcate this from east to west. We have a specific plan for each and there was a referendum on the west side. There are similarities, but many more differences. It would be wise to look at the two areas separately. He felt it would be consistent with what has been done for the last 6 or 7 years to look at the areas separately. He stated he appreciates the intent that this is not going to be a change of policy; however, this is not well defined. The structure of the writing belies what the intent is. When this Council is out of office, we will have to look at the written memorial of what we have done. There is confusion and it needs to be redone; particularly for Western Dublin. Mr. Bewley quoted from the Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission and stated he felt the language contradicts the intent. We should ask what people will think 10 years from now when they read this. We are putting in new policies here. The language is confusing and ambiguous. The signs point both ways. It says urban opportunity area and the words imply something . different than what they are being told here. If this change in policy in any way modifies or overrides 7.7 J., 7.7 .b., 3.1.a., 7.1.d., 7.5. etc. etc., and there is a conflict in the structure of the language, we have to give reason for any legislative act and any court would strive to give reason to the language. Will the policies be changed in any way or modified? He stated he was speaking above and below the line. Mayor Houston asked if the elevation cap changes any of the polices above and below the line. Mr. Peabody stated no. Mr. Bewley stated he disagreed. You cannot ignore the structure of the language. There are'visually sensitive areas. Mayor Houston stated professional staff is giving their opinion and they are saying no the policies are not changed. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING May 1 9, 1 998 PAGE 241 . . . . Mr. Peabody stated notwithstanding what is in the blue area there has to be a complete evaluation of any of the policies of the GP. If in fact issues are found, they have to be addressed before anything can proceed. It doesn't violate the GP policies because we have to follow the policies wherever we go. Mr. Bewley read from the resolution about contradictory language. He felt it should be written in the record rather than just spoken so it's clear 10 years from now. Mayor Houston asked if the map causes confusion. Mr. Bewley stated a lot of their concerns is that the Nielsen GPA study has not been formally closed. Mr. Peabody stated it closed last month; their time period ran out. Mr. Bewley stated until last month and while this was deliberated, it had not expired. From a pure gestalt, they think there will be development there. If the Nielsen Ranch study goes back, what affect would the UOA have on this? He is still troubled by language that is contradictory. This needs to be rewritten as the language belies the intent. Jerry Miller, 11481 Silvergate Drive submitted a written statement, "I object to any further development of the West Dublin Hills." Gus Wojke, 11470 Silvergate Drive submitted a written statement, "I object to any further development of the Western Dublin Hills." Susan Bewley, 11166 Brittany Lane commented that she did not receive any notice about this hearing. Mayor Houston explained that this is a citywide ordinance so there was no individual notices. He asked Staff to explain the policy for notification. Mr. Peabody stated it is usually 300' but in the case of a GPA we don't send out notices to individual property owners. We use the newspaper and our general noticing for citywide projects. Ms. Bewley asked about when it is actually a development. A lot of time newspaper articles are really small. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING May 19, 1998 PAGE 242 .Mr. Peabody stated on specific projects, we notify within 300', post at the library, . post in the kiosk, and on the Internet. Ms. Bewley commended the City for trying to put a cap limit, but stated she felt this will serve as a welcome wagon for future development. The intent seems reasonable. Even before Schaefer Ranch has broken any ground, people sit through two signals going up Dublin Boulevard and this is before they even go in and before big trucks start going up filled with dirt. We need to do a traffic study of Dublin Boulevard and Amarillo. At one of the previous meetings where this was discussed, Mayor Houston stated he was sympathetic about people getting in and out of their driveways. This was a different situation with a flat level of ground, than people trying to back out of their driveways on rolling hills. People are forced to back in and out more than once, just trying to get out of their driveways. This is really frustrating for people. It is also a dangerous situation for kids. We should have more parks and kids wouldn't have to play in the street. Matjorie LaBar, 11707 Juarez Lane submitted a letter which Mayor Houston read into the record. "Dear Mayor and City Council' The concept of Urban Opportunity Areas and areas svecificallv excluded from develovment is excellent and long overdue. Howevez; the policy as outlined at the . Planning Commission meeting of April Z~ J 998 is lacking in important detail The proposal also includes a portion of the western Dublin hills that should be excluded to be consistent with previously stated City policy. The public would be better served by delaying mzy final decision on this matter until a more detailed map can be prepared The City of Dublin has in its possession detailed maps of steep slopes7 creeks and seasonal drainages7 and important wildlife habitat which were prepared for General Plan amendments for both the eastern and western hiJJs. These maps should be combined and reproduced with topographic lines included at sufficient size that the public can recognize the features included The map used at the Planning Commission meeting was by far too vague to serve as more than a starting point for discussion. I am concerned that the description of the areas to be included relies too heavily on water pressure zones and did not adequately address bioti~ geologi~ and other public policy issues. As a matter of pmdent public policy to limit City liability for future earth movemenf; the City of Dublin should communicate with other jurisdictions to ascertain what soil types on slopes between 15% and 30% failed in ~'EI Nino~~ conditions. Grante4 a General Plan document should contain material of a broad scope7 but~ the material must have sufficient detail to be enfol'Ceable~ defensible and understandable to the general public. The current plan as presented fails on all fronts because there is insufficient data supplied CITY COUNCIL MINUTES . VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING May 1 9, 1 998 PAGE 243 . . . . - .._ _ ono .. It appears that the plan includes land in the western hills that have previously been deemed unacceptable for suburban scale development. The policy as written states under ~:rmplementing Policies-Urban Opportunity Area-Western Extended PolicY7 Item #9" that development beyond the Urban Opportunity Area is possible through a General Plan Amendment. This language makes the inclusion of portions of the Nielsen and Milestone parcels within the Urban Opportunity Area unnecessary. These properties contain a long list of development constraints nearly identical described in Item #9 making General Plan Amendment level studies required before any development can occur. It is doubtful that a sufficient case for development could be I11l1de for the area in light of the land constraints and previously stated public policy concerns. No development proposal has been submitted to the City for the contested areas since the public spoke clearly with a referendum which overtumed massive western growth. Including these contested areas within an area proposed for growth invites proposals and negative response from the neighborhood which removes planning resources from more suitable areas readily available in the flatter portions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City would be much better served by encouraging growth in the flatter portions of the Eastern Planning Area near the .t1eeway than inviting development proposals for this highly unsuitable area. Please note that the concerns I have raised about a lack of detail apply to both the Eastern and Western Extended Planning.Areas. It is the best interest of orderly growth in Dublin to define those areas less suited to development in order to encourage development where it best serves the public interest. Thank you for your consideration. SincerelY7 (signed) M81:jorie LaBar" Michael Fisher, 8365 Creekside Drive stated the Dublin City Council is proposing to amend the GP in an area which is currently open agricultural land. He asked if this is a precursor to development. This is Alameda County agricultural land. !\1ayor Houston stated the area is currently in our Sphere of Influence. :Mr. Peabody explained that the areas surrounding the City are actually in the County, and the Local Agency Formation Commission decides if the City can annex in the future. All the development entitlements that are appropriate are addressed by the Planning Commission and then the City Council. LAFCO would then look at the proposal and determine as to whether or not the annexation is appropriate. The annexation starts with the City Council. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REG U LAR MEETING May 1 9, 1 998 PAGE 244 Mr. fisher felt the .Mayor's opening statement was really a placation for the Mayors of the other cities. He did not feel there would be any barriers in deleting . this amendment for the western hills. This would keep things rolling and be a good solution. He has problems in that Alameda County currently zones this as agricultural and requires it to remain open space and agricultural and urban development is not allowed. He felt it seems this amendment is the first step in doing this. This plan is not helping anything. Christina Bond, 11182 Brittany Lane submitted a written statement which was read by the .Mayor: "1 wish to voice my opinion as a citizen of Dublin: no more development should be allowed on the west side of Dublin." Jack Kuhn, 8429 Creekside Drive stated the fact that they don't intend to change plans is exactly what has them scared. The Mayor will try through slight of hand or whatever to develop this area. This is an ill advised plan and one the voters have said no to. Building on the steep slopes in the western area is not a good idea. A house destroyed by EI Nino is just as destroyed as any other time. Channel 2 has done many reports on houses sliding and areas where houses have cracks in the walls and they can't sell the houses. Houses represent for many, part of their retirement planning. What the .Mayor proposes is to take this away from them without following the law and ignoring the wish of the voters. Somebody owned parts of Yosemite once, but do they have a right to develop it? . No. Somebody has to have the guts to say no to the developers. These people are not good neighbors now. When he asked them to plow a fire line he was told to "bleep off". They don't adequately maintain their property now. Why should they be encouraged to build houses on it? Why set this area as developable? To keep bringing these developments to them is arrogance on the part of the Council. What incentive do the Planning Commissioners have to ignore the wishes of the .Mayor who appoints them? Why should the people believe them now when they haven't done what they said they would do in the past? This puts an arbitrary height limit that can be circumvented when they decide to do it. All the people here have better things to do than come down here and keep saying don't develop west Dublin now or ever. Bob fasulkey, 7776 Topaz Circle discussed the dispute between Hayward and Pleasantori a couple or three years ago over the ridgelines. Whatever all the specific issues are, this is not the right platform to address the problems. He urged the Council to vote for this. Don't become the Hayward of the valley. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING May 1 9.. 1 998 PAGE 245 . . Dan Rodriguez, 6851 lone Way asked for clarification of the UOA. The UOA is the area in the whole City that can be developed with a 740' cap on the west and 770' on the east. It doesn't change any of the policieS of the existing GP. Mayor Houston stated yes, it is that simple. Weare limiting the height as to where development can occur. Mr. Rodriguez asked if this will increase or decrease densities. Mayor Houston stated what was referended by the people in 1993, yes. This plan would eliminate anything close to that (?,o00 homes) from happening. You can't get that many homes in the lower elevation. Mr. Rodriguez clarified there would be less homes. He then asked how permanent this ordinance is. Zoning laws can be changed at any time. Mayor Houston stated it is no different from any of the other laws the City has or that any other city has. Mr. Rodriguez asked if someone could get a variance for a home at 790 feet. . Mayor Houston stated GP policies changes can be made. This would be another layer of protection. If we have enough barriers, people won't even ask to develop. He felt the City Council is trying to negate. As in any city, if you have a majority vote, you can make changes. Mr. Rodriguez stated he felt another look at the wording would be appropriate. Tony Oravetz 7748 Squirrel Creek Circle, stated he is on the Planning Commission and explained that he was one of two Planning Commissioners who voted against this at their meeting of April 28th. There was a lot of confusion at their meeting. People thought the City was pushing new development. The crowd had a skePtical feeling of what was happening that night. He suggested it be continued to give time to study the issues. When they deliberated, the Planning Commission decided not to offer a continuance. He felt Mr. Anderson made some good points. If we are just trying to have an elevation cap, this is a good thing. UOA does not sound good; let's call it an elevation cap. If this information had been available a month ago, he would have supported this. He felt it should be approved tonight. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING May 1 9, 1 998 PAGE 246 . Jack Smith, 23320 Foothill Boulevard, Hayward stated he is an Attorney with law offices in Hayward and represents the Davilla and fields families who are property owners. He could take exception at some things said tonight. The first would be that the Davillas and fields are bad neighbors to anybody. They rent property from him and they are good people. They own a lot of land that is in the Sphere of Influence of Dublin. He read tonight the analysis of the trouble of the UOA. His clients can develop their land without question. He trusts the City Council; the Davillas and Fields tmst the City Council. He believes what the City has done is give them no opportunity to develop; none at all. He felt the City has taken away any use or chance to develop their property. His clients own hundreds of acres and it is not fair they.are being told they have no right to develop their property except for cattle. Since the intention seems to be to treat the property in this manner, the City should join with the Davillas and Fields and move Dublin's Sphere of Influence back to the Schaefer Ranch. To be fair, they shouldn't be treated like this. He met with the Planning Staff and we don't leave them any rights at all. He had heard tonight that this is a developers ploy to get the land developed, but he certainly has not heard this. He will tell his clients to get out of this City. There is no opportunity for his clients. He requested that the City Council move the Sphere of Influence line from Eden Canyon back to Schaefer Ranch. Bruce Goslin, 8067 Brittany Drive spoke as leader of the Dublin Citizen's Committee that successfully defeated the Eden Canyon Development a few years ago, he didn't think he would have to be here again. The idea of an opportunity area is like beating a dead term. This is clearly a beacon to development. What struck him as he looks at the community is that Staff states the DOA is to preserve Dublin's visual qualities. The cap at that level will not serve visually. He showed a picture of what Hansen Hills looked like a few years ago. We now have the Dublin strip mine. East Dublin presents many opportunities to develop and many who were against west development support growth in east Dublin. To develop 2% in the west Dublin is just not worth it. There couldn't be more than 25 homes built. He recommended that the City Council vote against this proposal or at least eliminate the west Dublin portion from it. It is not worth it for the citizens to have to go through this again. It's time to develop east Dublin and do it right and keep the backdrop as pure as we can. A written note was received in the Planning Department just prior to the public hearing and copies were distributed to the Council. "To the City Counci4 I strongly oppose the General Plan Amendment PA 98-029. It is very- distressing to see the process of .Ylevelopment" unfold HealY equipment and trucks banelling (sic) down residential streets (usually breaking speed limits), foothills being carved into CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REG U LAR MEETING May 1 9, 1 998 PAGE 2.47 . . . . . . - - --_. ..- parcels, and deer running from cars. No to gro'Wfh, no to traffic, no to special interestsl SincerelY7 Suzanne Xaid Dublin, C4" Mayor Houston closed the public hearing at 1 0:02 p.m. Cm. Burton stated he felt most of the people are against any particular project on the west side where the Nielsen property is. This is merely an elevation cap. It has become obvious that the wrong words were used for what we wanted to do. The elevation cap would be the right name. This will change nothing, but just add an elevation cap. Maybe we should not try to rewrite the ordinance. Trying to evaluate the GP; this has already been done. He clarified that they are not going to vote on changing the GP tonight. These people are living on land where the City Council fought the same battles time after time. He knows traffic is a problem and access is a problem. Mr. Smith stated this is a real stop growth program. He recommended we merely have an ordinance that uses the term elevation cap and that they not get into areas that conflict with terms. We will probably never please all the people by including west Dublin in this ordinance so maybe we should take west Dublin out. Cm. Lockhart stated she came trying to understand everything in this and came with the opinion that we were going in the right direction with putting a cap on it. She understood the frustration with traffic issues. Their issues are no different than those with all the other areas. She heard some really good ideas on what's wrong with what we're doing. She could support splitting the plan between east and west. With regard to Mr. Bewley's comments about how it is written and defined and what it will mean 10 years from now, she is interest in pursuing those issues. The issue of 15% versus 30 % slopes, she too has seen the slides. The name change is obvious. She felt what people would really like to say is no growth in the west. It disturbs her to hear that the Mayor has some ulterior motive for bringing this up. This is a sensitive issue for the entire community and she felt it was a good idea to be brought before the City Council. She felt she did not have enough information and details to support this the way it is currently written. A great dialog has been started. The Council is here to represent the people. She would like to see it studied more. Cm. Howard agreed with Cm. Lockhart and stated she felt uncomfortable voting on it tonight. She liked the idea of splitting it. Mayor Houston stated it seems the message is not getting through. He would support 100% that we drop the whole concept on the west side entirely.tNeighboring cities were mainly concerned with the east. Elevation cap is the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING May 1 9 I 1 998 PAGE 248 words or phrase and the words Urban Opportunity Area could be droppeci, and . drop the entire concept for the west side. In some ways, this may be a mistake and people may regret this in the future. People are comfortable with existing GP policies in the west. In the east, it is still a valid concept and he would support the division and have this just apply in the eastern area. Ms. Silver felt this should be referred back to the Planning Commission. Cm. Burton asked if they can specify just elevation cap without repeating this agam. .Mr. Peabody stated if the City Council desires to refer this back to the Planning Commission they will put together information and make findings which apply just to the eastern area. The elevation cap language will be emphasized. Cm. Lockhart stated she would support dividing this. On motion of Mayor Houston, Cm. Burton, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Barnes absent), the Council referred the issue back to the Planning Commission to look at just the eastern planning area with emphasis on the term/name elevation cap and all other guidelines and principles and get back to the City Council ASAP. Speaker slips were submitted to the City Clerk following closure of the public hearing: . "Carol Carter; 11200 Rothschild Ct Dublin I believe a cap is appropriate for all of Dublin to protect the environment and aesthetic appeal of the hills. Without it we open ourselves up to over-development &- eJ..ploitation of our natural resources. Janet Lockhart's approach is a viable one?' ".Mrs. Janine Saake, 11198 Brittany Lane Dublin C4 94568 It was said tonight that approval a/the UOA in the Western Dublin Hills doesn't guarantee future development. But.. ~ it does'nt {sic} not guarantee development. It is the first step. As a mother of a 13-month old son who currently loves to play outside in our front yard, I don't feel enough planning has been done by the City of Dublin in regards to the traffic and public safety concerns the increased amounts of traffic this area would bring should it be developed in the future. I feel this amendment should be reworded to make it clear as to its exact meaning. Therefore, I am opposed to the UOAiin the Western Dublin Hills. Thank YouP' .. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING May 1 9, 1 998 PAGE 249 . ... . . . PUBLIC HEARING WEEDS AND COMBUSTIBLE REFUSE ABATEMENT ORDER This item was moved and heard as the third public hearing. 7:52 p.m. 6.2 (540-50) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Fire Marshal Ferdinand presented the Staff Report and advised that on April 21, 1998, the City Council directed Staff to notify property owners of a declared public nuisance created by weeds and combustible debris growing, accumulating upon the streets, sidewalks and property within the City of Dublin and ordering abatement. Mr. Ferdinand advised that notices were posted as well as abatement Courtesy Notices sent to all known existing property owners to abate the hazard. Dick Stein 11524 Marwick Drive stated he receives this letter every year and every year he cleans up his weeds. He wished to address the timing for compliance. This is an unusual year. It was raining the day he received the notice, and raining on the day of the deadline. He asked for a little bit more time and consideration of a different date. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. Mr. Ferdinand stated currently they are taking calls and giving extensions of 2 to 3 weeks. They look at it on a case by case basis. Mayor Houston asked if they could offer a 30 days extension and just be done with it. Mr. Ferdinand stated he felt this would be reasonable. Thirty days would be great. He reported that 185 notices were sent out and we are getting very good response from people. Cm. Lockhart clarified that this 30 day extension would just be for those requesting it. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING May 1 9, 1 998 PAGE 250 On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Lockhart, and by unanimous vote (Cm. Barnes absent), the Council directed Staff to proceed with abatement and to . provide a Season End Report for Completion of Abatements and Associates Costs. .. PUBLIC HEARING - CASTERSON PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE, AND GENERAL PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PA 97-040 This item was moved and heard as the second public hearing. 7:50 p.m. 6.3 (450-30) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Community Development Director Peabody presented the Staff Report and advised that the second reading of this Ordinance would approve a PD for a residential subdivision of 109 homes on the west side of Tassajara Road, north of Gleason Drive. The project includes a segment of the Tassajara Creek regional trail and open space stream corridor. At a public hearing held on May 5, 1998, the City Council approved a Negative . Declaration, adopted a Specific Plan/ GP A, and introduced the Ordinance. The proposed development is located on an approximately 19 acre site. Mr. Peabody stated the proposed PDzoning would be consistent with the Prezoning, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and General Plan land use designations for this site. No public testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this Issue. Mayor Houston closed the public hearing. City Attorney Silver reported a correction to Section 3. It should read, "Except as provided in the Development Plan, the use, development, improvement and maintenance of the Property shall be governed by the provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance." CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING May 19, 1998 PAGE 2.51 . .._ _.r. _ ~. ;... . On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Lockhart, and by unanimous vote (em. Barnes absent), the Council waived the reading and with the above referenced correction, adopted ORDINANCE NO.7.. 98 AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5020 TASSJUARA ROAD (APN 986..0002-003) TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT PlAN FOR THE CASTERSON PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PA 97-040) +. PUBLIC HEARING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES - PA 97-046 This item was moved and heard as the first public hearing. 7:16 p.m. 6.4 (450-20) . Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Cirelli presented the staff Report and advised that the City is proposing a Zoning Ordinance Amendment that involves the regulation of wireless communication facilities. The purpose and intent of the proposed Ordinance is to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of standards for the development and installation of wireless communication facilities, and to protect and promote the public health, safety, community welfare and aesthetic qualities for the City. Ms. Cirelli discussed: Telecommunications Act of 1996; Local Government Zoning Decisions; Dublin's Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment; Planning Permit Requirements; Permitted Uses and Uses Requiring Only Site Development Review Waiver Approval; Parks/ Open Space/Historical Sites; Location; Satellite Dish Antennas Greater than Four Feet in Diameter; Design Standards and Conditional Use Permit Criteria; Application Requirements; Maintenance/Facility Removal Agreement; Mapping/Tracking System; Registration; and Miscellaneous Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, including Direct Broadcast Satellite Antennas, amateur (Ham) Radio Antennas; and finally Status of Telecommunications Policy/Ordinance. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING May 1 9, 1 998 PAGE 252 . Ms. Cirelli advised that the draft zoning ordinance amendment was presented to . the Planning Commission on April 28, 1998. There were no public comments, however, Chairperson Jennings inquired as to whether the City could completely prohibit lattice towers within the City. Currently, the draft ordinance allows lattice towers only within industrial zoning districts with CUP / SDR approval. Staff consulted with the City Attorney's Office and was advised that the City should not prohibit lattice towers. The City can, however, prohibit lattice towers if they pose public health, safety, and building issues. The Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of the draft ordinance. Ms. Cirelli showed several overhead illustrations of the various types of towers and poles. Ms. Cirelli advised that during the next year, the City will hire a consultant to develop policies. Several minor corrections were discussed. On page 2, 4 conditions were listed, not 5 as written. On Page 9, the second to last paragraph last sentence reads: "However, the City can prohibit lattice towers if they pose public health, safety, and building issues." This was a typographical error and should say "regulate" . rather than "prohibit". Ms. Cirelli advised that comments were received and distributed from 2 providers, GTE and Nextel, and Staff is working toward addressing their concerns. She stated changes could be made to the Ordinance in accordance with the five page draft report distributed this evening. Also under the policy decision section, "Term of CUP", the draft states the initial term would be for 5 years and then Staff would assess. GTE requested, as well as Nextel, that the permit be valid for 10 years instead of 5 years. This is a policy level decision that the Council will direct Staff on. With regard to Maintenance/Facility Removal Agreement, GTE and Nextel requested that the agreement exclude the wireless communication facilities lessors (property owners leasing property to wireless communication service providers) from being responsible and liable for the maintenance and removal of any wireless communication services facilities. The reason Staff includes property owners is to make sure somebody is ultimately responsible for a wireless communication facility. This is also policy direction that will come from the Council. Cm. Lockhart asked if we got any feedback from the ham radio operators. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING May 1 9, 1 998 PAGE 253 . . . . Ms. Cirelli stated she did not. em. Lockhart stated she was confused on a couple of points. Number 4 on Page 3 was read. "As long as wireless communication fa.cilities meet standards to be set by the FCC, a local government may not base any decision denying a request to construct such facilities on the ground that radio frequency emissions from the fa.cilities will be ha.nnful to the environment or health of residents. . . .>> Then, on Page 5 under the permitted uses section, she stated she was confused as to how these work together. It seems to be one way in one place and the other way in another place. Ms. Cirelli stated FCC says we cannot baSe denial on health affects, but we can place stricter planning approvals if they are located in sensitive areas. We cannot deny it based on health affects, but we can consider reports that they must comply with FCC's electromagnetic acceptable limits. Cm. Burton commented he felt this was a long report and the ordinance amendment was just delivered tonight. He questioned why they were receiving this tonight. Mayor Houston stated the handouts were just comments from Nextel and GTE. The two big issues are the term of the permits and the maintenance removal agreement. Cm. Burton questioned the 75' in residential property and asked if there was a reason this couldn't be less. Ms. Cirelli stated this is a standard distance common with most of the ordinances she read. Staff felt this was reasonable. Cm. Burton stated he did not want to vote on this tonight and asked if there is an urgency to this. Mr. Ambrose stated there was no problem continuing it to a future meeting. Mayor Houston asked if the fee is like an encroachment permit. Ms. Cirelli stated it is one fee Per carrier to register with the City. Staff will need to research the amounts. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING May 1 9/ 1 998 PAGE 254 Mayor Houston asked what type of command we have or latitude in saying where . these things can be located. Ms. Cirelli stated we do have latitude. The lattice tower would only be allowed in an industrial district. If the City Council wants to point out areas where they would allow them, cities are allowed to do this. We can't just say no. Mayor Houston asked about residential uses and what restrictions can be imposed. Ms. Cirelli stated a monopole would be allowed in a residential district but could be no higher than 45'. This requires CUP and SDR approval. As part of the requirements, we will request alternate sites. It depends on the type of facility. Mayor Houston stated from a practical standpoint, our valley is in a bowl and this is why we have to have cable. He questioned if an area like ours would be susceptible to more or less of these types of facilities. Ms. Cirelli stated they require a certain height for certain types of facilities. We don't have a lot of high structures. Pleasanton has a lot more than we have. In the future we may get more requests as we get newer businesses in our eastern Dublin area. . Mayor Houston asked if we can disallow them on agricultural properties. Ms. Cirelli stated she specifically mentioned open space and/or agricultural areas in the handout. Staff proposes a change on Page 4, Section E. Any ground mounted wireless communication facilities proposed for parks, agricultural districts, and other similar open space areas shall be subject to SDR and wireless facilities that will be located on light standards or water tanks will require SDR waiver. Monopoles and lattice poles shall be subject to CUP and SDR because they may have a significant visual impact on the City. Cm. Burton commented on Danville's pole where they made it look like a tree. He asked how this is working out. Ms. Cirelli stated this seems to work out very well, but it is very expensive. "Whatever facility is proposed, we want it concealed in the best way it can be. Cm. Burton stated technology is changing so fast we don't know what it will be in 5 years. We should review our policy in 5 years. Ten years might be too long. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING May 1 9, 1 998 PAGE 255 . . . . ..: .. .~,. Cm. Lockhart asked about Section 2 related to maintenance/facility removal agreement and stated she believes we should not change the way the ordinance reads now. If a company puts in something and then goes out of business, it is important that the final final is the landowner. Mr. Ambrose suggested that Staff could do a better job addressing the Council's concerns in a matrix format. Research could be done by Staff and information could be put in a more reader friendly format. Mayor Houston announced that the issue would be continued to a future City Council meeting. ... OTHER BU SINESS 10:18 p.m. q. I Affordable Housin,2; (430-80) Cm. Lockhart commented on the invitation received from the East Bay Housing Organization for the June 10th tour. They will travel through the valley and look at senior and affordable housing throughout the area. She looked forward to taking this tour. ... Policy Re,2;ardin,2; Incentives for Local Vendors (610-20) I- r Cm. Lockhart stated she had an issue which she previously discussed with the Mayor regarding businesses in Dublin and having some kind of an incentive or something for local versus not local vendors on contracts. The Mayor had a different opinion on this than she. She requested that the topic be agendized for discussion by the whole Council. Is there a way to be more business friendly toward our own businesses. Dublin could explore how and why it works for other cities. It deserves their time and efforts. Mayor Houston asked that she explain what prompted this request. Cm. Lockhart advised that the situation is we had a local business that bid on a contract and lost the bid by $43.84 and the contract went to a neighboring city. Other cities offer a 2 to 5% variance on contracts for local bidders. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING May 1 9/ 1998 PAGE 256 " I\1ayor Houston stated he felt this is a subsidy and they would not be doing a . service to taxpayers when they don't go with the best bid. The criteria for contracts is the best price and the best value for our citizens. Other cities may give subsidies to their businesses, but he stated he felt this is something that ultimately hurts the taxpayers. Cm. Howard and em. Burton both felt they should be able to talk about it. Mr. Ambrose asked if it could be brought back to the City Council after the budget. The consensus of the Council was that the issue be placed on a future agenda, but there was no hurry. .. Show Featurin~ Vintage Planes @ Livennore Airport (950-40) ?,3 Cm. Burton announced that this weekend, starting Sunday afternoon, and on Monday and Tuesday, there will be 3 World War II airplanes at the Livermore Airport for people to climb aboard. They have no air conditioning and no heating. He invited the public to come and see the B24. People can ride on it for . $300 and write it off as a tax deduction. ... ADJOURNMENT 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ~ ~ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 17 REGULAR MEETING May 1 9, 1 998 PAGE 257 .