Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutCCMINS 03-26-2001CITY OF LIVERMORE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 26, 2001 SPECIAL MEETING - CLOSED SESSION - 6:30 P.M CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Brown called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 3575 Pacific Avenue. ROLL CALL - Present: Vice Mayor Lorraine Dietrich, Councilmembers Tom Reitter, John Stein, Tom Vargas and Mayor Brown. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC TO ADDRESS COUNCIL ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION To meet pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 to consider the appointment of an interim City Attorney. RECONVENE PUBLIC MEETING ADJOURNMENT - At 7:00 p.m. to the City Council meeting. REGULAR CITY COUNCIl, MEETING CALL TO ORDER - The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Brown in the Council Chambers, 3575 Pacific Avenue, Livermore, CA. ROLL CALL - Present: Vice Mayor Lorraine Dietrich, Councilmembers Tom Reitter, John Stein, Tom Vargas and Mayor Brown. Staff Members Present: City Manager Linda Barton, Assistant City Attorney Dan Sodergren, Public Services Director Mike Miller, Community Development Director Marc Roberts, Senior Planner Fred Osborn, Associate Planner Steve Stewart, Associate Planner Ingrid Rademaker, City Engineer Dan Mclntyre, Senior Civil Engineer Mohammad Pournia, Assistant to the City Manager Ellyn Axelrod, and City Clerk Alice Calvert. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE March 26, 2001 City Council Minutes CM/61/215 PUBLIC REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION (as required under Government Code Section 54957.1) Mayor Brown reported that, on Friday afternoon, City Attorney Tom Curry submitted his resignation in order to pursue opportunities in the private sector. The City Council asked Dan Sodergren to act as Interim City Attorney and will hire an executive search team. She said the Council will miss Mr. Curry, who has served the City well for 21 years, and she wished him the best in the private sector. PROCLAMATIONS - A proclamation proclaiming March 2001 Hunger Awareness Month was presented to Glenn Ruley, Alameda County Food Bank; Rosemary Young, Interfaith Sharing, and Monica Bassey, Open Heart Kitchen. PRESENTATIONS - None. CITIZENS FORUM Gary Smith, 1657 Portola Avenue, discussed concerns regarding the impact of the Portola Avenue Widening Project on his property and family. He stated that staff has not yet contacted him to answer his questions. He said he needs to move his driveway, garage and front .access in order to avoid backing out into traffic. Mayor Brown stated that staff was directed to contact Mr. Smith; she asked the City Manager to insure that contact is made this week. Barbara Hickman, 2265 Sherry Court, recommended that stop signs be put at each traffic signal so that the signs will be in effect when the signals are out during rolling blackouts. She also suggested that the City use fans instead of air conditioning because fans use less energy. MINUTES APPROVAI,- Regular meeting of March 12, and special meeting of March 19, 2001. ON THE MOTION OF CM STEIN, SECONDED BY CM REITTER, AND CARRIED BY A 4-0-1 VOTE, CM VARGAS ABSTAINING, THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 12 WERE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. ON THE MOTION OF CM STEIN, SECONDED BY CM REITTER, AND CARRIED BY A 5-0 VOTE THE SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 19, 2001 WERE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. CONSENT CALENDAR Item 1.8 - Mayor Brown noted that staff had presented supplemental information on this item. Community Development Director Marc Roberts said the agreement was modified slightly to change the wording from "proportional cost sharing" to "equal cost sharing" to more clearly articulate the desires of the three agencies. Item 1.3 - VM Dietrich verified that this is to procure laptop computers for traffic officers, to allow them to prepare their reports in the field, rather than the office, thereby giving them CM/61/216 City Council Minutes March 26,2001 more time in the field. Police Captain Steve Sweeney said that was correct. This system will also allow supervisors to review and approve the reports on-line. Item 1.12 - VM Dietrich asked if Pleasanton is contributing or if they are simply charged user fees. Captain Sweeney said Livermore is paying for the consultant agreement and Pleasanton will pay a portion of the CAD fees. The agreement allows work to continue on the Request for Proposals that will be sent out. ON THE MOTION OF CM VARGAS, SECONDED BY CM STEIN, AND CARRIED BY A 5-0 VOTE, THE CONSENT CALENDAR WAS APPROVED. ITEM 1.8 APPROVED AS AMENDED. 1.la Resolution 2001-71 - Resolution certifying the environmental document and approving PWP 96-59, Portola Avenue Reconstruction. (Confirming action of March 12, 2001 .) 1.2 Resolution 2001-72 - Resolution authorizing $3,000 for the Historic Light Bulb Centennial Celebration. 1.3 Resolution 2001-73 Resolution authorizing appropriation of $37,358 of U.S. Department of Justice grant funds, and appropriating $4,151 of City funds for the purchase of Panasonic Toughbook computers from GTSI. 1.4 Resolution 2001-74 - Resolution amending Resolution 72-79 for the Classified and Unclassified Employees to include two new job classifications and to delete four job classifications. 1.5 Resolution 2001-75 - Resolution authorizing execution of an amendment to the agreement with Tele-Vue Systems, Inc. (dba AT&T Broadband) for cable television system operations, extending the agreement to May 31, 2001. 1.6 Resolution 2001-76 - Resolution rejecting all bids in connection with procurement of UV Equipment for the Reclaimed Water Facility at the Water Reclamation Plant, PWP 98-66. 1.7 Resolution 2001-77 - Resolution authorizing execution of Supplemental Agreement No. 3 with Vali Cooper & Associates in the amount of $218,861.00 for extended construction management services in connection with the Isabel Avenue Extension Project, PWP 89-50. 1.8 Resolution 2001-78 - Resolution authorizing execution of an agreement with the City of Pleasanton, Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Zone 7, and HJW Geospacial, Inc. for Aerial Orthophotography Services by HJW Geospacial, Inc. and authorizing execution of a Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Pleasanton and Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Zone 7 regarding cost sharing, PWP 97-67. Approved as amended. March 26,2001 City Council Minutes CM/61/217 1.9 Resolution 2001-79 - Resolution authorizing the purchase of a Pearpoint Explosion- Proof Television Pipeline Inspection System through a cooperative purchasing agreement in accordance with Municipal Code Section 2.68.410, for a total cost of $156,500. 1.10 Resolution 2001-80 - Resolution authorizing the award of bid for two dump tracks to Country Ford Sterling Tracks in the amount of $194,151.60. 1.11 Resolution 2001.81 Resolution accepting third-party beneficiary interest in agricultural conservation easements from H. Ross Hansen, Patricia R. Hansen, and Arroyo/Aero Properties LLC, and accePting associated right-of-entry easements. 1.12 Resolution 2001-82 - Resolution authorizing execution of a Consultant Services Agreement with Cit Corn, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $75,000, for the Computer Aided Dispatch and Records Management (CAD) System. 1.13 Resolution 2001-83 - Resolution approving the ValleyCare Senior Continuum of Care Project Traffic Impact Fee adjustment. 1.14 Request to join as Amicus in Nordyke v. King; Great Western Gun Shows v. The Count_ of Los Angeles. 1.15 Request to join as Amicus in .Cargill v. Metropolitan Water District. 1.16 Summary of Planning Commission meeting of March 20, 2001. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2.1 Planned Development-Commercial 00-189/Site Plan Approval 00-038/Signature Properties - Hearing to consider Planned Development-Commercial 00-189 and Site Plan Approval 00-038, request of Signature Properties, Inc., for Ruby Hill Development Joint Venture, L.P., to convert Planned Unit Development Permit 106-94 to a Planned Development- Commercial District and rezone the project site from Planned Development to the proposed Planned Development-Commercial District in order to construct: (1) a 7,000 square foot restaurant, (2) a 23,523 square foot retail building, including 6,023 square feet of office space on the second story, (3) a 6,600 square foot retail building, and (4) a 2,877 square foot service station with convenience market. Location: Southeast comer of Isabel and Vineyard Avenues. Parcel Size: 6.18 acres. Zoning District: Planned Development (PUD 106-94). General Plan: Neighborhood Commercial. A Negative Declaration for the proposal will be considered. Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended the City Council certify the Environmental Document with direction to file and approve Planned Development- Commercial 00-189 and Site Plan Approval 00-038, with revisions and inclusion of the automobile service station/convenience market, requiring an expansion of the development envelope of the existing agricultural easement. CM/61/218 City Council Minutes March 26, 2001 Mayor Brown said staff recommended the City Council not approve the project as submitted. Associate Planner Steve Stewart presented the staff report. He said the existing PUD does not allow a gas station or a restaurant over 1,500 square feet as permitted uses. The City and the Land Trust hold an agricultural easement over the property that limits the commercial building envelope to three acres and 40,000 square feet of building area. Both the City and the Trust must approve the proposed amendment. In December 2000 the Trust voted not to support the amendment, as summarized in the letter attached to the staff report. Approval would violate the Trust's Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws and could jeopardize their non-profit status. The Trust requested the project be located within a three-acre envelope. Mr. Stewart said that there will always be pressure to develop the easements located at the urban edge or other key locations in South Livermore, and if it is perceived that the City and the Trust will consider amendments to accommodate urban uses, the number of requests to amend them, as well as the pressure to do so, will also increase. Amendments allowing enhanced non-agricultural development will decrease the effectiveness of these easements as tools to permanently protect, enhance and promote agricultural production and the rural character of South Livermore. The other primary issue is that of land use and commercial development within South Livermore. Despite the rural Tuscan architectural style, the gas station is not wine-related nor does it enhance or contribute to the City's wine-producing character and heritage. Contrary to the intent of the neighboring commercial zoning district, which is to provide a neighborhood shopping environment, a gas station will draw and serve regional customers. The Planning Commission supported the inclusion of a gas station based on the high quality architecture, its convenient location and because it will keep traffic off downtown streets. The City of Pleasanton submitted a letter emphasizing they do not support a gas station at this location for similar reasons and they do not support amending the easement to accommodate the proposal. Staff recommended approval of the project, subject to conditions of approval in the Planned Development Standards, including the elimination of a gas station-convenience market, thereby allowing the property to develop within the existing easement development envelope. CM Reitter asked if staff considered an alternative that would allow the gas station but keep the total developed area within the three-acre limit, eliminating some of the other buildings. Mr. Stewart said square footage could be removed by removing a portion of the project, but the envelope would still be 3.084 acres. He said the only other scenario that gets under three acres is to remove the area required for the gas station and pump canopy. Jim McKeehan, Signature Properties, Executive Vice President, said there are two issues - private inurement and interpretation of the articles of incorporation of a corporation, and tax attorneys have told him a deal could be structured to avoid the inurement issue. Mr. McKeehan stated he believes the Council should focus its attention on what tit thinks is the best use of the property from a policy point of view. It appears that the gas station is the most controversial part of the project. For the past 15 years, the Council has been trying to develop the South Livermore Valley Plan. The goal has been to develop wineries and restaurants and get people to come to the South Livermore Valley. BART does not go to the South March 26, 2001 City Council Minutes CM/61/219 Livermore Valley and there is no other public transportation, so people have to drive there, but there is no place for them to buy gas in the area. Everyone would rather not have a gas station in the area, but this would appear to be a good spot to put a gas station to accommodate the goal of the South Livermore Valley. Jim Ghilmetti, Signature Properties, said it is clear from both the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission review and approval of the project that the architecture is not in question. The issue is land use. The zoning, granted a number of years ago, talked about having a 40,000 square foot retail establishment on seven acres. It was reduced to a little over six acres in the tentative map, for the right-of-way along 84 and Vineyard Avenue. He interprets the approval process as allowing a gas station under a Conditional Use Permit. Staff did not agree and said a Planned District Overlay should be done over the whole thing. He thinks there are issues that allow them to have a service station because it does call for automotive uses, but for safety reasons, a Conditional Use Permit was needed. The Planning Commission did not want to see cars intruding into Livermore residential neighborhoods looking for gas. There is no gas along this route, from Fremont all the way down to 1-580, and they felt it would be a tremendous service for Livermore residents not to have traffic driving up and down Holmes or North First looking for gas stations. The nearby residents want the convenience of not having to drive over two miles for gas or convenience items. CM Reitter asked Mr. Ghilmetti to comment regarding truck use of the station. Mr. Ghilmetti said there would not be any diesel service. Hank Travelini, 6001 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, representing Chevron, said some residents are concerned about potential loitering and lighting issues associated with a 24-hour operation. Chevron operates in Blackhawk, Alamo, Richmond, Hercules and other communities, and they have found a template for training their people and dealing with these issues. There have not been problems at any of those stations. The Pleasanton Police Chief feels that the service station is not going to create problems and, if it does, there are ways to deal with them. Chevron is willing to put in four rather than six pumps, but is concerned that at some point, everyone will regret the lack of room for good circulation on the site. They operate a professional and responsible facility and will work with staff and residents. CM Reitter noted that the architecture has been designed to make it not look like a gas station and asked if that meant more obvious signage would be needed. Mr. Travelini said State law requires that prices be posted. There would be a Chevron monument sign on both streets, approximately 12 or 15 square feet in size, that would blend in with the architecture. Don Pickett, 1742 Tourmaline Court, a member of the South Livermore Neighborhood Association, said residents and visitors should go to downtown Livermore to find gas stations. The proposed development does not fit with anything within a mile or more, in any direction, and the site is the entrance and exit to the City. He was disappointed that the public notice for the hearing was only for 500 feet from the site. This eliminated notice to all homeowners, however it will impact them visually, audibly, and on a daily basis. He is CM/61/220 City Council Minutes March 26, 2001 outraged that the Planning Commission would recommend approval of the applicant's proposal, including expansion of the development envelope from 3 to 3.6 acres to accommodate a service station and convenience mart. He supports the staff recommendation, except for the Conditional Use Permit to expand the restaurant from 1,500 to 7,000 square feet. That is not a small restaurant that would aesthetically blend with the surroundings. The two-story buildings do not blend with the landscape of the vineyards. He suggested allowing only single story buildings. Allen Cohen, 1281 E! Monte Drive, said he loves the design and thinks it is completely within the aesthetics of the vineyards and the neighborhood. He has five issues with the proposal: sale and consumption of alcohol; hours, traffic and potential criminal activity that may occur from having an isolated mini-mart that sells alcohol 24 hours a day; traffic safety; noise that might be generated by how the project is structured; and aesthetics. He noted that he polled some of his neighbors and got a response from about 90 residents, half for and half against the proposed project or against certain provisions of the project. Brad Lusher, 456 Montori Court, Pleasanton, stated he is opposed to all aspects of the proposal. The development is inconsistent with the surrounding areas and crime is an issue. This would exacerbate current vandalism problems in Ruby Hills. People could park and walk into the development without going through the guardhouse. When he bought his home, he had to pay a $20,000 fee to the City of Livermore for viticulture. He finds it ironic that fee is being ripped away to support commercial development to which he is opposed. Kathleen Antrim, 1635 Chestnut, a Ruby Hill resident, supported the proposal. The development is probably one of the most attractive that will exist in Livermore and the design is much like residences in that area. The development has been planned since she moved in, so she is not sure why it is a surprise to some residents in the neighborhood. It is an excellent addition to an already well thought out community and will provide services that are needed in the area. Bill Hoppis, 5195 Diane Court, Livermore's representative to the South Livermore Valley Agricultural Land Trust Board of Directors, said the Trust holds the Church- Topham property with the City of Livermore. The agreement requires that both the City and the Trust concur in any amendments to the easement, such as a change in the size of the building envelope. The Trust takes no position with respect to any of the proposed uses within the existing building envelope. This is an issue between the City and Signature, as long as it is consistent with the terms of the easement. The Trust will not approve an increase in the size of the building envelope beyond its current three acres. This position has been consistently expressed verbally and in writing to Signature and to the City since December 2000. The Trust takes this position because of concerns regarding IRS restrictions on the Trust's non-profit status and approving transactions for private benefit; restrictions in the Trust's Articles of Incorporation concerning transfers of protected land to non-agricultural uses; and because the Trust views these easements as permanent agreements and takes statements concerning 'in perpetuity' very seriously. Amending easements, except under the March 26, 2001 City Council Minutes CM/61/221 most extreme circumstances, would significantly undermine the Trust's credibility in permanently protecting agricultural lands in the South Livermore Plan area. Billy Martin, Ruby Hill resident, supported the proposal and said he would like to have a gas station and other proposed services closer to his house. The restaurant will serve both residents and visitors. He noted that Napa and Sonoma have small centers where one can get gas, food and drinks and he thinks this will fit within this area. He understands the long-term environmental damage that was done by gas stations in the past, but with the protections in place now he is confused that those who drive cars do not want gas stations near their homes. This is a good location for a gas station that will serve local residents and commute traffic, keeping them off First Street. He noted that the Ruby Hill land that was vineyards was developed into a 850-unit subdivision, but now the residents don't want anything else to destroy the rural environment. It seems disingenuous to him to claim to have moved there for the fireflies, the hoot owls and the coyotes, when in fact they are being driven out. He does not see the proposal as a dangerous thing. The majority of the vandalism problems are due to neighborhood kids. Steve Sund, 657 Verese Court, said the proposal blends in beautifully with the wine country and the setting. He does not think the gas station belongs in the wine country because, when the future interchange is completed, it will be a major commuter station, serving 1,000 to 1,500 customers per day. As Isabel is extended, there will be a lot of opportunities to put a gas station in so that people coming from 1-580, commuting over to 1-680, will have a place to get gas without driving around Livermore streets. He would like to see the center approved, but without the gas station. Richard Goldstein, 1901 Altair Avenue, said he thinks that the project fills a neighborhood need. The design complements the area and the community in the area. It is their challenge to develop and grow in the best way they can and this project has done a significant job toward that. He recommended that the project move forward. Antoinette Cunningham, 510 Sand Hill Court, opposed the gas station. She said the retail center has been tastefully done, but the service station is very large and urban in appearance. 24-hour operation means there will be harsh, urban style lighting in an area that is now softly lighted only by residences. The canopy for the service station is imprinted with the Chevron logo and is over 20 feet tall and will be very noticeable in the evening from Highway 84, Ruby Hill and Livermore residences. Chevron's largest stations have 12 pumps, which is the plan for this station, and can sell over 400,000 gallons of gasoline per month. Chevron looks for locations along busy traffic corridors and claims that a busy Chevron food mart rings up monthly sales of $60,000 or more. This does not sound like the kind of operation that serves merely Pleasanton and Livermore residents. The gas station is not compatible with the vineyard setting. It is more compatible with a very busy urban traffic and litter-clogged station that services primarily transient commuters. Having a gas station in this location will draw commuters to Highway 84 and may create spillover traffic that will then swarm into Livermore. She questioned building the gas station in the Del Valle flood zone. A dam CM/61/222 City Council Minutes March 26, 2001 rupture would cause torrential flooding and an underground gasoline storage tank may not withstand that. The vineyards could be damaged. She requested an environmental study. Mary Pat Hawkins, 168 Orvieto Court, said the center would be convenient for her and the convenience store is badly needed. As a mother with teenagers, having the convenience mart and the gas station close by would give her some peace of mind. She thinks this will improve the winery image and get more tourists to the area. It could be used as a center to help people find the wineries located in the area. She agrees with keeping commuters off the neighborhood streets. It is a great design and she would hate to see what else would go in that location if this project is not approved. Phil Wente, 5565 Tesla Road, said one of the issues in the South Livermore Valley Plan was how to create a transportation corridor from 1-580 to 1-680 through the wine country without creating a detrimental effect. Preceding this was the 30-year study of where Highway 84 should go, which ended up being the Isabel Avenue Corridor as the least intrusive corridor for the whole area. Given all the years that have been spent on trying to deal with traffic issues for people who are transversing the Livermore Valley but aren't going to the wine- country, it was necessary to provide for this eventuality. The Signature proposal is a beautiful center that provides services necessary for a major transportation corridor coming through the Valley. While he is certainly a backer of aesthetics and the image of the area, the ability to service traffic not interested in getting off Highway 84 and driving around the back roads is essential. The restaurant and other proposed amenities are first class and will add to the potential exposure of the vineyards or experience of people driving by. Tony Borracco, Ruby Hill resident, said he supports the project when he considers the alternatives. It appears to be a very neat package and dissecting sections of the concept is not going to work. It would not be a big surprise to him if Signature Properties pulled out of the whole project and put the land up for sale and some rinky-dink developer came in and put up the bare minimum. Due to the caliber of the developer, he thinks everyone should take a real close look before they start objecting to the gas station. Dena Cox, Ruby Hill resident, said she and her husband lived in Blackhawk many years ago, at a time when the closest gas station was 15 minutes away. She does not remember any problems with loitering or increased crime when gas stations started developing. If anything, property values increased and it made it a better, more convenient area. Mayor Brown closed the public hearing. Mayor Brown noted that she was very involved with Signature Properties for many years. When Ruby Hill was approved by the County and their effort to be annexed to Pleasanton had begun, she began to fear the urbanization of the South Livermore Valley. Livermore's primary goal was to preserve viticultural lands. She spent a year negotiating with Signature Properties to get Pleasanton to annex the homes, Livermore to annex the estate vineyards, and for the other infrastructure issues to be settled. Developing a gas station was never her March 26, 2001 City Council Minutes CM/61/223 vision of South Livermore. That is an urban use and does not fit. She respects Signature Properties and the work they have done but she cannot support this. Staff did a great job of reporting based on the policies the City has set. The Land Trust did the job they were asked to do when they were formed - oversight of the South Livermore Valley, conservation easement issues and the purchase of viticultural lands. The system is working and she sees no reason to change it, either by expanding the easement envelope or by incorporating additional uses. The City wants tourists who come to the South Livermore Valley to come downtown also. There are plenty of gas stations serving the needs of the City. IT WAS MOVED BY CM STEIN, SECONDED BY MAYOR BROWN, TO CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT WITH DIRECTION TO FILE AND APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL 00-189 AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL 00-038 SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, BUT ELIMINATING THE AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION/CONVENIENCE MARKET, THEREBY ALLOWING THE PROJECT TO DEVELOP WITHIN THE EXISTING AGRICULTURAL EASEMENT DEVELOPMENT ENVELOPE. CM Stein stated that Mr. Ghilmetti would like the City Council to look through the tiniest of loopholes and see what he sees. CM Stein sees what the South Livermore Plan recommended initially and he cannot see going through torturous twists and lawyering to try and get something the Plan did not want. It did not want a gas station or more than a three- acre envelope. That is the staff recommendation. CM Reitter said his biggest concern is preserving the easement. He could, with some additional constraints, possibly support a gas station, but he could not support increasing 'the envelope. CM Vargas said there is a need for some services for the tourists and he does not think it has to be contrary to the vision for South Livermore. It is a long distance to try to find gas from the Ruby Hill area. He supports the concept but he does not want to create an incentive to build a gas station and not build a restaurant and he believes the Land Trust issues are too important to start playing around with. Commitments were made and the Land Trust spoke well to those commitments. He does not see how the adjustments can be made and would not want to permit a gas station in lieu of something else that's proposed on the site. VM Dietrich said the comments about the desperation with which people are searching for gas are a surprise to her. If you run out of gas once or twice, you learn to check the gauge before you head off. To argue that one's home is more than two miles from a gas station does not persuade her. When Ruby Hills was developed, the grocery store in the southern part of Livermore was already there. People could see where they were going to need to go for a variety of services. It is a three-acre envelope and it should remain three acres. CM Stein said he is specifically against the gas station. The architecture is attractive but that is irrelevant because of the banners, posters, sandwich signs, special offers, etc., which interfere with people really enjoying the architecture. He noted that convenience marts and CM/61/224 City Council Minutes March 26, 2001 gas stations generate a lot of trash and the proposed site is windy, which will make cleanup difficult. THE MOTION CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE. 2.2 Policy Proposal 01-001 - Hearing to consider Policy Proposal 01-001, City-initiated, to consider the findings and recommendations of the Growth Review Committee (including presentation of the 2000 State of the City Report) regarding the residential growth rate proposed for 2002-2004. Also, to consider the administrative procedures for the three-year, 2002-2004 Housing Implementation Program, and to establish the maximum number of housing unit allocations for the competitive schedule for the year 2002 HIP consistent with the City's Residential Growth Management Policy of the General Plan. Location: Applies Citywide in residential areas. Zoning District: All Residential Zoning Districts. General Plan: Residential Growth Management Policies. A Negative Declaration for the proposal will be considered. Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended the City Council certify the Environmental Document with direction to file and approve the 2000 State of the City Report and the three-year 2002-2004 Housing Implementation Program, including the year 2002 program schedule. Associate Planner Ingrid Rademaker said that over a seven-month period, City and regional agency staff presented information on the status of police and fire services, solid waste, recycling, water supply, parks, schools, air quality, traffic, housing and employment to the Growth Review Committee (GRC) for preparation of the 2000 State of the City Report. The report concerns the anticipated status of public infrastructure and services for the 2002-2004 Growth Management Program. The GRC was also responsible for recommending a growth rate commensurate with the City's ability to provide infrastructure and services for that time frame. The GRC concluded that several issues are critical, either because they could be potentially growth-rate-limiting or because the GRC felt they did not have enough information to sufficiently analyze their status. Therefore, the GRC recommended a 1.5% growth rate, the lowest rate permissible under General Plan policy. Senior Planner Fred Osborn said the Housing Implementation Program (HIP) implements the City's residential growth management policy as established in the General Plan. The HIP is reviewed every three years to establish a growth rate and review targeted housing categories and existing regulations for the implementation of the HIP. The report addresses proposed changes and proposes a timeline for the 2002 HIP. The GRC recommended a 1.5% growth rate for the 2002-2004 HIP. Based upon 26,438 dwelling units existing as of January 1, 2000, the growth rate equals a total of 1,206 units over the next three-year period. Two hundred units per program year are specifically set aside for the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, leaving 606 units available for the three-year competitive program: 2002-196 units, 2003-202 units, and 2004-208 units. The three-year program recommends infill and affordable units as emphasized housing categories. Staff proposes changing the definition of "infill" by adding parcels that are five acres or larger but no greater than 10 acres and surrounded by development on four sides, March 26, 2001 City Council Minutes CM/61/225 which would potentially allow more projects to be defined as infill. Mr. Osborn discussed the schedule for the 2002 HIP, beginning in May and culminating in November. He noted minor corrections/amendments to the report. Mayor Brown requested an explanation of the recommendation to replace the tentative tract map with a final map in the definition of infill. Mr. Osbom said even though tentative tract maps are approved, there is no guarantee that final maps would follow. Staff was trying to insure that development would occur on those sites. Tentative maps have a potential for expiration; final maps assure that development will occur. CM Reitter said the language regarding density bonuses states that "density bonus projects include 10% very low income units or 20% low income units plus the 25% density bonus." He asked what the 25% density bonus refers to. Mr. Roberts said it defines the fact that the 10% and 20% are calculated before, not after, the bonus. He said that language could be clarified. CM Reitter asked what is included under the term "affordable" in relation to ABAG's categories. Mr. Osbom said the City would require more than 10% to qualify as an affordable project. Mayor Brown asked if the 10 units or 20% are very low income or low income. Mr. Roberts said all projects within the City are required to do 10% low income as a minimum. This has a higher standard, which is the 10% very low or 20% low. If a developer goes the extra mile, they get not only the density bonus, but special consideration in the HIP. CM Reitter said that needs to be clarified. He wondered if everyone would qualify for 25% with the City's new inclusionary requirement. CM Vargas said the State of the City report talks about uncertainty regarding the City's ability to handle sewage capacity into the future. His understanding is that the City is able to service the existing General Plan, especially in light of the fact that the LAVWMA pipeline repair project is underway. Public Services Director Mike Miller said there is adequate capacity for the existing General Plan. VM Dietrich said she understands the City's Sphere of Influence is geographically limited. She asked if the City is still subject to 5,107 units if the area that comprises the Sphere of Influence is not adequate to accommodate 917 units. Ms. Rademaker said that is correct. CM Stein asked if the GRC was made aware of the fact that Livermore can gain a significant share of the expansion capacity in the pipeline, with voter approval. Ms. Rademaker said she believed the GRC was aware of that. They did not feel they had the information to determine at what point Livermore was actually getting close to the limit. CM Stein said a great deal of time was spent discussing the State funding model for new schools and bonds, but almost no time was devoted to the fact that the City has a $12,500 connection tee. That is the funding model for new schools. According to the School District, growth fully pays its own way in terms of school construction. The State funding model has nothing to do with funding new schools in Livermore. He asked if the GRC was aware of that. CM/61/226 City Council Minutes March 26, 2001 Ms. Rademaker said Mike White presented the School District information and was comfortable with the GRC's final analysis. CM Vargas said the report raises concern about the ability to service students coming out of pre-existing homes. He does not see how new development relates to that. Ms. Rademaker said the GRC touched on it briefly and had concern that it was not considered as part of the State funding model. Mr. Roberts said the cost for providing school facilities for existing residents and homes cannot be passed on to new development. Other funding sources would be necessary to deal with increases in household sizes for existing development in Livermore. That is an issue but is outside the scope of the State of the City report and the City's ability to regulate growth in that area. Mayor Brown said the section regarding amendments does not define subjective words, such as "slight, variation, insignificant differences, substitution." Mr. Osbom said staff is looking at modifications such as changes to windowsills, trims, and roof pitches by five or six degrees. Mayor Brown said what she considers minor might be different from what staff considers minor. VM Dietrich asked if the allocation priority matrix was examined or carried over. Mr. Osbom said it was carried over from previous HIP's. VM Dietrich said it needs to be modified. VM Dietrich asked if project-specific criteria were looked at or carried over. Mr. Osbom said there were minor modifications; the GRC recommended some additional criteria, but given the schedule, not all the recommended modifications could be made. VM Dietrich said her particular concern has to do with Street Circulation and Layout, and she wanted more of an emphasis on neighborhood linkage and integration, the desire for communities to be more walkable and amenable to developing shade canopies, which means narrower street standards. Mayor Brown said what the GRC means by "sustainable building" needs to be defined. Mr. Osbom said it could be reviewed, along with some of the other GRC recommendations, as part of the 2003 HIP. CM Stein asked if it related to recycled building material, high energy efficiency, solar, etc. Ms. Rademaker said it includes whatever could be incorporated. CM Vargas asked if that is a set of recommendations that is not part of this. Mr. Osborn said it has not been defined as part of the 2002 HIP but can be done for the 2003. Mayor Brown said the cap of 10 acres for infill projects needs to be discussed. Mr. Osbom said they started with a cap of five acres and found that at least two projects in the last HIP could have been identified as infill but were over the five-acre limit. VM Dietrich said that, if a piece of vacant land is completely surrounded by development and it is 11 acres, it is an infill project. The acreage definition seems artificial. She is concerned that, for 2002, any development with three or more elements could automatically be moved to a higher ranking. She recalled that the old RDP process produced a lot of unanticipated March 26, 2001 City Council Minutes CM/61/227 consequences when rewards were given for things like basketball courts. The neighborhoods would pretty uniformly ask for permission to sell the lots and build houses. That was not a consequence that was intended when the RDP was giving credit for those kinds of things. Unanticipated consequences need to be looked at carefully when talking about three or more elements. It might be more appropriate to set minimums about sustainable building practices that must be met, rather than making it so optional. Mayor Brown opened the public hearing. Richard Flores, 1531 Merritt Lane, said the California Association of Realtors says that only 16% of the residents of the Bay Area can afford the median priced home. There are different definitions of what constitutes affordable. HUD defines it as 30% of the income of the buyer. He complimented the Council for its housing plan and said Livermore has done more than surrounding communities in providing and planning for affordable housing. There is a very great need for more affordable housing in the community. There are now 163 homes listed for sale in Livermore and the median price is $514,000 with the lowest price home at $298,000. Mark Beeman, 173 Rainier Avenue, a member of the Design Review Committee, Redevelopment Project Area Committee, and Growth Review Committee, speaking for himself, thanked staff for their support of the GRC. He said the GRC was comprised of a wide range of people. What dictated how they proceeded was the General Plan statement regarding growth. Given the direction of the General Plan, the GRC did an admirable job of trying to look at a lot of diverse information in a relatively short period of time. They spent most of their time looking at infrastructure. They did not put a lot of weight on the ABAG recommendations because they were focussed on the quality of life issues. He said they envisioned sustainable development/building as things like neighborhood layouts and transportation access and how they work together with the environment; roof overhangs and landscaping on the south sides of buildings; orientation of housing; and building materials. They discussed this at the Planning Commission and determined that, because of the staff load and difficulty in trying to implement some of those ideas this year, staff would add it to the program next year. The GRC recommended a review process during non-competitive years in order to bring developers and staff into the same room at one time every year, to increase communication and give ideas and visions to developers as to where the City is headed, without going through the competition itself. They also recommended City Council meetings with the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee prior to running a HIP on a three-year cycle to solidify the vision for residential developments. He said he is waiting to see how much weight is given to the ABAG recommendations versus how much weight is given to the recommendations of the citizens of Livermore. There is a good opportunity to use this document as a strong foundation for the Visioning process. VM Dietrich asked if he was suggesting that the optional pre-meeting that the DRC holds with developers in competitive years would be an appropriate kind of forum in non-competitive years. Mr. Beeman said it does not look like there will be non-competitive years for a while but CM/61/228 City Council Minutes March 26, 2001 the hope was to encourage dialog between developers and the City to help smooth out and make that process more efficient. CM Stein said the GRC noted that they might have recommended a lower rate than 1.5% if it were permitted by the General Plan policy. He asked what rate they would have recommended. Mr. Beeman said they never discussed a number because they knew it was pointless, but they had serious concerns that limits have already been reached on a number of the factors that appear to be rate-limiting and for which there is no mitigation. CM Stein said that, throughout the Executive Summary, but nowhere else, there are references to a more balanced community. He asked what it is they are balancing. Mr. Beeman said it had a lot to do with the jobs-housing balance, not so much the raw numbers, but more along the lines of cost of housing versus salaries of new jobs. CM Stein said the Executive Summary states that future large-scale housing development should be avoided, but there is no discussion about that in the rest of the report. He asked why large scale projects, assuming they fit under the growth rate and number of years, are better than piecemeal and smaller projects. Mr. Beeman said that, at that time, the discussion centered around the North Livermore project and the GRC in general did not see that as a productive direction in which to go. It was before the passage of Measure D. Margaret Tracy, asked the City to accept the recommendation of the GRC for 1.4% growth and to allow a City Visioning process to occur and wait until it is complete before changing the growth rate. The 1,600 Vasco Laughlin area dwelling units should be considered after the Visioning process has been finished. She said, regarding ABAG projections, that the State cannot guarantee electrical energy for the present number of homes, so there should be no rush to add hundreds of homes. Donna Cabanne, 4086 Loch Lomond, urged the City Council to accept the findings of the GRC of a 1.5% or lower growth rate. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with the findings. The report cites five critical areas where Livermore has reached capacity: traffic, schools, parks, sewer capacity and air quality. To consider a rate above 1.5% would put the community at risk. This is an honest and earnest effort to present the community with the best available information. Staff suggests that doubling the growth rate from 1.5% to 2.8% is necessary to meet ABAG needs. ABAG only requires that cities identify where future growth could occur. It has never required cities to double their growth rate, or to build out at a specific rate or by a specific date, and it has never imposed any penalties. Give breathing space to look at traffic-calming solutions realistically and not in a piecemeal fashion and to dialog about the type of schools which will best serve Livermore students. A third high school is needed. She questioned whether residents want a mega school or magnet school and referred to a Newsweek article regarding the problems with mega schools. All critical areas highlighted in the report should be discussed in the Visioning process. Give time to discuss these growth-driven issues in a meaningful fashion by adopting and maintaining the 1.5% growth rate until the Visioning process is completed. March 26, 2001 City Council Minutes CM/61/229 Douglas Goodman, 1779 Corte Sueno, said the State of the City Report as a key to the Visioning process and as a document to begin with is interesting. One of the respondents to the RFQ mentions the report as a place to start. He hopes the Council accepts the recommendation. He requested that the location and amount of buildout be established and then it should be planned backwards. Bob Beltzer, 544 El Caminito, agreed with all the previous speakers. He said the GRC did a great job and their recommendations should be adopted. This is a wonderful foundation for the Visioning process and should be used that way. The time for Livermore to start worrying about ABAG requirements is when Silicon Valley pays any attention to them. Tom Jefferson, 1646 Arrowhead Avenue, agreed with the 1.5% growth recommendation. He said it is hard to take buildings away but easy to add them. The report states that not meeting ABAG's regional housing needs targets over a long period of time could potentially result in the City's Housing Element not being certified by the State. Not meeting ABAG's targets would have to be over a long period of time and even then nothing might happen. He does not think there is a rush to do anything right now. He noted, under the amendments section, that increases or decreases of no more than 10% of the building footprints are a giant increase and he thinks that should go to the DRC. Someone other than staff should be allowed to refer amendments to the City Council. Mayor Brown closed the matter to public comments. Mayor Brown said she is excited to hear that so many people are excited about Visioning. She heard there was an effort to put an initiative on the street. If the slogan is to wait for the Visioning process, it's wonderful news. She agrees that the GRC did a very good job. They worked hard and she commended everyone who served on the GRC. CM Stein thanked the GRC and said he agreed with the recommendations, particularly infill and the 1.5%. He would like the 1.5% to be a one-year growth rate. With longer term growth rates, there is a tendency to borrow from future years, and there is always the impossibility of lowering it once it's in place. He said that, although the conclusions in the report are valid, the report itself lacks balance. By not ranking any of these issues, they have not provided the Council with the information it needs to make decisions. There are six or seven critical issues and there ought to be some ranking and what should be done to fix them if they are intolerable. Specifically, it says that traffic conditions in the City are unacceptable. In some areas they are but there is no information on local traffic and the location of the bad interchanges. Previous reports have included information on interchanges that exceeded Level of Service D. Over the past few years, some interchanges have gotten better and some have gotten worse. He stated that limiting the growth rate does have some negative impacts. In the past, high-skill businesses have gone to areas with rapid growth rates. A really tight growth rate makes it harder to get the high-tech, high-salary jobs. It also makes it harder to get BART and things like a regional art center or movie theater. There are positives and negatives to growth. It is neither bad nor evil, but something to be managed. This report was unbalanced in that it only provided the negatives CM/61/230 City Council Minutes March 26, 2001 of growth, not the positives. Some things can't be changed, such as regional traffic and air quality. It doesn't matter where the houses are, the traffic and air quality impacts on Livermore and everyone else in the area will be the same. The City's jobs-housing balance is a good policy, but it cannot be micromanaged. Future large scale housing projects are talked about only in the negative, yet the South Livermore plan is preserving 2,000 acres of vineyards, producing wineries, creating an ambience, producing upscale housing, and producing a permanent edge to the City and permanent open space protection in the same way other large scale projects have provided for school sites, wetlands protection, park sites, circulation, etc. There are advantages to some large-scale projects in terms of providing needed infrastructure in a way that is easier to get than it is with piecemeal development. The growth component of education and building new schools is separate from that of increased children in existing houses. He was supportive of the fact that new parks and landscaping should be as water- conservation and minimum-maintenance as possible. He has always supported natural native vegetation. The specific area plans and growth rate buildout as an issue will be addressed in Visioning. One of the important issues in looking at a buildout and a firm urban growth boundary is that there be some funding mechanism to acquire open space beyond the boundary or else it will not hold. He would like to see a policy that buys one acre of open space for every acre of development that occurs beyond our current boundaries. Infill is a socially delicate issue. Most people who live in a neighborhood don't want to see higher density, they want density equivalent to theirs or lower. The existing downtown infrastructure is not adequate and must be tom out before the real infrastructure can be put in to support higher density. Downtown traffic is already close to its limit and until there is a full, areawide transit system, there will be a lot of parking and traffic downtown which will make it difficult for the current commercial development to survive. Overall the report was very good but lacks balance. More information needs to be gained and some of the pros and cons of growth need to be looked at. Mayor Brown asked if the department heads saw the report before it went out. She said the fact that Part 1 crimes have decreased is not included in the report. There are areas where information is lacking. She suggested sending it back to the department heads for comment. VM Dietrich thanked everyone who served on the GRC. She noted that she attended the Ahwanee Conference from which the Ahwanee Principles get their name. Peter Kalthorp was the keynote speaker. He said one way to look at how population growth is being handled in a community is to look at how the percentage of growth compares to the percentage of new land being covered and the second percentage should be small in comparison to the first. He made the point that greenfield development will happen. California population growth projections are huge, from 35 million people now to 47 million in 2020, requiring 4.5 million new homes throughout the state. It is appropriate to continue through the Visioning process with the 1.5% rate and to re-examine it after the process. People in California are deeply conflicted about growth. She said they discussed visioning processes by other communities and said a lot of people want to pretend that increased population does not exist. People from the State are talking about providing a variety of incentives for communities meeting their local housing need projections. The economist suggested that the distinctions communities draw between good and bad jobs don't make sense. Good jobs means you have people who have the income March 26, 2001 City Council Minutes CM/61/231 to buy a lot of services which are provided by people who have poor jobs. A balanced community enables everyone who works in the community to live within it. He suggested that the strategy used in California for the last decade or so is one that fails to plan properly. She thinks the GRC report has a lot of good information that will be very useful to whatever consultant is selected to lead the Visioning process. CM Vargas thanked the GRC and said the City has been moving forward very cautiously over the last five years with the 1.5% growth rate. It does not constitute rapid development; it has been very measured. Three of the top five critical issues in the report are traffic, air quality and the jobs-housing imbalance. The conclusion on those situations is that less housing should be built. In fact, those issues are all inextricably linked to the price of housing in the Bay Area today, including Livermore. He understands the concern, but stopping housing continues to compound the problem. The report makes recommendations that lend themselves to more housing. What Livermore wants to become as a community and how to deal with these critical issues needs to be kept in mind as the Visioning process begins. This is a good time to have the 1.5% growth rate. The community has grown responsibly for many years. The Genetal Plan specifically states that new development has to pay its own way and the impacts have to be mitigated, and the City has gone to court to force developers to pay the highest impact fees in the state. Agreements to provide new schools have been reached. The same thing has been done with traffic impact fees that mitigate local and regional traffic impacts above and beyond what is normally required of new development. The City mandates that water is in place before new development moves forward. There seems to be a misconception that that is not being done in Livermore. It is a good report, the HIP recommendations are good, and the staff has put together a sound report. There is value in having the three-year 1.5% HIP in that it gives some certainty in moving forward and ability to provide a minimal level of housing that is phased in over a three-year period as the Visioning process and its recommendations move forward. That is the floor of the General Plan and something beyond that can be looked at as the Visioning process proceeds. CM Reitter commended the GRC for its work. ABAG is continuing the 30-year allusion that the gradient between what most of the jobs pay and what the houses cost can somehow be maintained. That has been done by a lot of public expenditures for roads so that underpaid workers can live farther away and commute to their jobs. Affordable housing is provided, all of which requires subsidies in one way or another. When developers are required to provide 10% affordable housing in Livermore, they get that money by raising the price on the market rate houses, which creates problems for people who don't qualify for affordable and can't afford the market rate. The whole area is suffering from the illusion that things can be patched and the process can be kept going. The situation that has been created is very unnatural. He questioned what would have happened if employers had had to pay living wages to people - they either would have found some other way to do the work or paid people more. He does not see any recognition from ABAG or the State or Federal governments that this can't go on forever. The most important thing the City can do is try to define as part of the Visioning process the buildout that is wanted for Livermore and over what period of time. Until we can decide how big we want the City to be and how long we want to take to get there, we should stick with CM/61/232 City Council Minutes March 26, 2001 1.5%. He would like to see local traffic data in the report. It is his perception that local traffic has gotten worse. He a~eed that the 10% increase in a footprint is not a minor amendment. Mayor Brown said it is obvious that the Council cares about a sustainable economy in the community; making sure the housing supply is decent, affordable, safe and accessible; the transportation system and the need to strengthen it, especially public transit; open space and the need to define the areas to be maintained in perpetuity; the use of resources; the integrity of neighborhoods; the educational system; community health; social equity; and civic engagement. She believes the Visioning process is an opportunity to pull all those together. She does not think the Council can say that a specific percentage gets all those things. She recommended supporting the 1.5% growth rate and bringing it back after the Visioning process. She said she would like the department heads to see the State of the City report before the Council accepts it. She asked if the Council wanted to have it come back and have another night of testimony or just direct it to be sent to department heads and, if there is any significant information, that it be included in the report. IT WAS MOVED BY CM STEIN, SECONDED BY VM DIETRICH, TO CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT WITH DIRECTION TO FILE; ADOPT THE 2000 STATE OF THE CITY REPORT; AND APPROVE THE 2002-2004 HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM, WITH A ONE-YEAR 2002 HIP WITH A 1.5% GROWTH RATE. Mayor Brown asked if the City Council wanted staff to bring any parts of the State of the City Report back. CM Stein said he did not. If someone wanted to write a commentary it would be fine, but the problem is it makes the decisions easy by only presenting a positive view of a 1.5% growth rate and none of the negatives. The decision is not easy. There are a number of things that this may not make easier. AN AMENDING MOTION WAS MADE BY MAYOR BROWN, SECONDED BY CM REITTER TO AMEND SECTION 4D TO ALLOW STAFF LEVEL REVIEW TO INCLUDE AMENDMENTS FOR DECREASES OF NO MORE THAN 10% IN THE SIZE OF BUILDING FOOTPRINTS. INCREASES OF MORE THAN 10% MUST BE BROUGHT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE AMENDING MOTION CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE. AN AMENDING MOTION WAS MADE BY VM DIETRICH, SECONDED BY CM STEIN, TO ADD THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA TO THE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM: 1) STREET CIRCULATION AND LAYOUT, NEW CONDITION 2F: INTERCONNECTIVITY INCLUDING PATHWAYS, SHALL BE EVALUATED, 2) STREET CIRCULATION AND LAYOUT, NEW CONDITION 2G: PAVING SHALL BE MINIMIZED THROUGH LAYOUT OF UNITS, NARROW STREET WIDTHS AND OTHER MEANS, 3) LANDSCAPING DESIGN QUALITY, CONDITION F, REVISED TO INCLUDE THE USE OF NATIVE PLANTS. VM Dietrich noted that getting streets down to a width that would allow development of shade canopies is desirable, particularly in light of water and energy issues. THE AMENDING MOTION CARRIED ON A 5-0 VOTE. Mr. Roberts noted that the main motion would be inconsistent with the General Plan and a General Plan Amendment would be needed in order to implement a one-year HIP. This March 26,2001 City Council Minutes CM/61/233 would mean that the HIP would have to be postponed until the General Plan Amendment was approved. An alternative would be to have the 1.5% growth rate as a base for the three year period, with the understanding that the Council would review it for years 2 and 3 or at the end of the Visioning process. CM Stein said his concern is that the City cannot go down from 1.5% in years 2 and 3. It is a base and once it is put in place it cannot be changed. Mr. Roberts said an amendment could be brought back and the General Plan would have to be changed. CM Stein asked if the ability to borrow from future years could be removed. Mr. Roberts said the borrowing provision was not included in this three-year program. BY A SUBSTITUTE MOTION FOR THE MAIN MOTION, MADE BY CM STEIN, SECONDED BY VM . DIETRICH, AND CARRIED BY A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT WITH DIRECTION TO FILE AND APPROVED THE 2000 STATE OF THE CITY REPORT AND THE 2002-2004 HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM WITH THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS: 1) STREET CIRCULATION AND LAYOUT, NEW CONDITION 2F: INTERCONNECTIVITY INCLUDING PATHWAYS, SHALL BE EVALUATED; 2) STREET CIRCULATION AND LAYOUT, NEW CONDITION 2G: PAVING SHALL BE MINIMIZED THROUGH LAYOUT OF UNITS, NARROW STREET WIDTHS AND OTHER MEANS; 3) LANDSCAPING DESIGN QUALITY, CONDITION F, REVISED TO INCLUDE THE USE OF NATIVE PLANTS; 4) SECTION XI,D., AMENDED TO READ: "DECREASES OF NO MORE THAN 10 PERCENT IN THE SIZE OF BUILDING FOOTPRINTS;" 5) ESTABLISH 3-YEAR HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM (2002-2004) WITH 1.5% GROWTH RATE. GROWTH RATE TO BE REVIEWED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE VISIONING PROCESS. THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MAIN MOTION DIED. 2.3 General Zoning Change/Text Amendment T-00-303/Tri-Valley Technology Park - Hearing to reconsider General Zoning Change, Text Amendment T-00-303, request of Ken Ellis for Tri-Valley Technology Park to amend Planned Development - Industrial (PD-I) 00- 181 to clarify the permitted open space uses as uses consistent with the OS-A (Open Space - Agriculture) Zoning district. This would apply to those portions of the TKG Business Park with the General Plan Designation of Hillside Conservation. Location: The proposal will affect a 125 +/- parcel located west of Collier Canyon Road, and a 19.9 +/- acre parcel located east of Doolan Road, and north of North Canyons Parkway. General Plan: Hillside Conservation. A Negative Declaration for the proposal will be considered. Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council certify the Environmental Document with direction to file, approve General Zoning Change, Text Amendment T-00-303 and introduce by first reading, title only, an ordinance amending Planned Development - Industrial (PD-I) 00-181. Marc Roberts reported that on February 12, 2001, the City Council approved the application with three proposed changes, one of which required a conservation easement for agricultural lands in order to approve the Planned Development permit. It was subsequently determined that City procedures require negotiation and approval of a development agreement in order to implement the conservation easement. That process would have delayed the project substantially and caused the applicant to miss the upcoming planting season. Therefore, the CM/61/234 City Council Minutes March 26, 2001 applicant requested that the item be reconsidered and the City Council agreed. Staff evaluated the applicant's request to remove the conservation easement as a condition of the planned development, but to replace it with an equivalent requirement on the encroachment permit, which is needed by the applicant in order to run an agricultural water line across a public street. A development agreement would not be required if the easement were made a requirement of the encroachment permit. Mayor Brown asked if the proposal would give the same assurance that the property would be maintained in open space as would a development agreement. Mr. Roberts said it would. Mayor Brown asked Interim City Attorney Dan Sodergren if the proposal is legally strong. Mr. Sodergren stated that it is. Mayor Brown opened the public hearing. Ken Ellis, TKG International and Tri-Valley Technology Park, stated he supported the proposed conditions He noted that TKG had already provided the executed documents. Margaret Tracy, 1262 Madison, said the report states that one single-family residence may be permitted on slopes less than 15%. Slopes less than 15% are usually at the top of the hill. She asked if this means that houses would be permitted on top of the hill. Mr. Roberts stated that this condition must be in conformance with the grading ordinance and the General Plan Scenic Route Element Policies, which specifically prohibit both silhouetting and placing a structure on the top of the ridge line and would not allow a house on top of the hill. Danielle Williams, Collier Canyon Road, discussed numerous problems she has had with the applicant and the applicant's contractors and the impact upon her home related to removal of fencing, failure to restore her pasture to its natural state as promised, construction vehicles blocking her driveway and exhaust and debris in her house and on her plants, etc. Mayor Brown referred to a letter that Ms. Williams had submitted to the Council, which laid out some serious issues and noted that she would give the letter to staff so that the issues could be looked into. She said it is important that the developer make the commitment to make sure that the kinds of things mentioned in the letter do not happen again. Ms. Williams asked if the area can only be agriculture, not natural open space with wild flora and fauna. Mayor Brown said it would be open space agriculture. CM Stein stated there are open space easements and agricultural easements, but they are different and they have different values. This is a permanent easement that would allow for agriculture. If the property owner does not want to raise crops, they could use it for grazing. Mayor Brown closed the public hearing. ON THE MOTION OF CM REITTER, SECONDED BY CM VARGAS, AND CARRIED BY A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT WITH DIRECTION TO FILE AND APPROVED GENERAL ZONING CHANGE/TEXT AMENDMENT T-00-303. March 26, 2001 City Council Minutes CM/61/235 2.4 Municipal Code Amendment/Cable Television Franchise - Hearing to consider an amendment to Chapter 13.52 of the Livermore Municipal Code, Cable Television Franchise. The Ordinance enables the regulation of Cable System Franchises to the extent permitted by Federal and State law. Proposed amendments include (but are not limited to) the addition of minimum consumer protection and services standards, updated construction requirements and ordinance restructuring to be made applicable to State and Federal law. Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council 1) introduce by first reading, title only, an ordinance repealing Division V (Community Cable Television), Chapter 13.52 (Cable Television Franchise), Title 13 (Public Services) of the Livermore Municipal Code and enacting the Cable System Regulatory ordinance and 2) adopt a resolution authorizing execution of agreement and side letter with Tele-Vue Systems, Inc. (dba AT&T Broadband) for a Cable Television Franchise Agreement. Mayor Brown asked if there really is a Tele-Vue System company. Ellyn Axelrod, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that it exists only in name. They do business as AT&T Broadband. Mayor Brown stated that TCI wanted to do this with a shell company and the Council said no. She asked if this is the same kind of thing. Michael Freedman, Telecommunications Management, the consultant for the City, said the current franchise is held by Tele-Vue Cable Systems. The franchise has been transferred many times over the years, but remains held by Tele-Vue. The parent companies have changed. Tele-Vue Systems is wholly owned by TCI Pacific Communications, which is wholly owned by AT&T Broadband, LLC, which is wholly owned by AT&T Corporation. Ms. Axelrod reported that this item would introduce amendments to the City's cable television regulatory ordinance, including new regulatory and consumer protection provisions and franchise enforcement capabilities to protect the public interest. The proposed ordinance includes provisions that any future cable operator will be required to meet operational service, and billing and information standards as allowed by the Federal Communications Commission. The amendments are proposed because the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon, which are provided cable service by AT&T's Broadband division, have renegotiated a cable television franchise agreement. Since the ordinance regulates cable franchise agreements, it needs to be amended to be compatible with the new requirements of the franchise agreement. The cities share the same cable system and their cable franchises are similar in scope and term. The cities began coordinating the franchise renewal effort over two years ago. Joint pooling of resources provided opportunities for reducing franchise renewal costs and maximizing effectiveness of negotiations. The four cities signed a consultant services agreement with Telecommunications Management Corporation to provide assistance with the franchise renewal process. Mr. Freeman stated that the franchise renewal is a ten-year, non-exclusive franchise. The franchise fee continues to be 5% of gross revenues, the maximum permitted by law. Last year that was approximately $725,000 in revenue to the City for lease of its public right-of-way CM/61/236 City Council Minutes March 26,2001 that the cable company uses. Collectively, the four cities will receive a $1 million grant that breaks down to $200,000 per city for capital expenditures for equipment, plus an additional $50,000 per city which will then be expended sometime over the life of the franchise for construction cost for extending the system to facilities that would normally not be serviceable by the cable company without additional expenditure. An on-going grant of 50 cents per subscriber per month, based on approximately 23,000 subscribers in Livermore, would be approximately $138,000 per year. There are savings to the City, as it has been supporting CTV in the amount of approximately $120,000 out of General Fund revenue. Mayor Brown asked if the one-time grant for video equipment is passed through to subscribers. Mr. Freeman said it would not be broken out as a separate item on bills. The cable company is permitted to recover it within its rate structure. Mayor Brown said that if Livermore' s subscribers are paying for the one-time grant, she has a problem with subsidizing the other cities. She has no problem with it going to CTV, because everyone enjoys the benefit of local programming, but she has concerns if the subscribers in Livermore will be subsidizing the other cities at any level. She said she believes Livermore has the largest subscriber base of the four cities. Mr. Freeman stated that was correct. Livermore has a slightly larger subscriber base than Pleasanton, by approximately 1,000 subscribers. Mayor Brown asked Mr. Freeman to address the 50 cent per subscriber issue, noting that money does come back to the City. Mr. Freemen stated that cumulatively Livermore has a $250,000 one-time amount, and including the franchise fee and the on-going grant, $863,000, plus a savings of approximately $118,000 in addition to that. There are also some non-direct financial benefits to the franchise, including providing service to homes on Trevarno Road and Almond Circle that have not had cable service. There is a $300,000 benefit, which is the estimated cost of extending the cable plant to serve those homes. There are no similar situations in the other cities as their homes are all currently served. There is a fiber optic communications link for live City Council meeting coverage, plus the ability to have a second link elsewhere in the City upon request. The estimated cost for doing the fiber optic links for the initial connection is $440,000 for all four cities. Pleasanton already has a link for cablecasting their meetings and would not necessarily be receiving a direct benefit from this provision. AT&T would assume all responsibility for the public access portion of public, educational, and government access. Their current expenditures are currently in the range of $150,000 per year. Other things with financial impact that varies are providing the three channels for education and governmental access. In the past, one of those channels has been shared. Public access would be moved to a separate channel under AT&T's responsibility and free cable service would be provided to public buildings, including schools and libraries, which would also receive free cable modem internet service. Mayor Brown asked if the one free cable outlet at all City buildings included all the outlying buildings. Mr. Freeman referred to a list of buildings included in the materials given to Council. He stated that there is a caveat that the buildings that currently receive service will March 26, 2001 City Council Minutes CM/61/237 continue do so. Other buildings that are within 125 feet of the cable system would receive service for free. Those beyond the 125 feet would be provided service as part of the $50,000 grant that can be subcontracted back to AT&T for extending service. Mayor Brown said she believes the statement that AT&T will provide all schools and libraries with free cable outlet and cable service needs to be defined. She said the language implies that it is only one outlet to each school. Mr. Freeman said the agreement is specific in its terms, but the summary is not. Mr. Freeman clarified that it is one outlet. Mayor Brown stated that conduit installed in the open trenches in new commercial development has been an issue for her for a long time and she thinks it is wonderful that it will happen. CM Stein, commenting on the 50 cent fee, said he felt that adjustments for increases to the subscriber base inflation should be built into the contract. He noted that the language says adjustments are possible. Mr. Freeman stated that they are built into the contract. If the rate of subscriber growth exceeds the inflation rate, the amount will not necessarily increase, but if subscriber growth is less than the rate of inflation, the grant can be increased. It can go no less than 45 cents and no more than 60 cents. CM Stein said the 50 cents per subscriber should be just that, then the 50 cents should be adjusted to reflect the CPI. If there is going to be a constant level of service, with inflation and with increased subscriber base, it would seem that it would increase with both of those things, not the greater or lesser of the two. If the subscriber base increased by 10% and the CPI increased by 10% in one year, a 20% increase would be expected from 50 cents to 60 cents. Mr. Freeman said that if the subscriber base increased by 10%, the City would get 50 cents per subscriber from 10% more subscribers, so revenues would increase by 10%. CM Stein said the service required may increase also, based on the number of subscribers. They may want more services or more programming. Mr. Freeman stated that was a consideration, but it is the reason the inflator was built in. Over the past 15 years the subscriber base has more than doubled, but that may not be repeated in the future. If this provision were available in the last franchise, the City's revenues would have more than doubled because the subscriber base doubled. This has the potential to do the same thing. The only catch is that if the subscriber base rises at a rate that is smaller than the rate of inflation, the cities have the right to make incremental increases up to 60 cents per subscriber per month. This would increase the revenue stream so that the cities are at least tracking inflation. The expectation, based on past performance and projections for the area, is that the subscriber base will increase greater than the rate of inflation. CM Stein stated that is appears that the intent is to keep the fee at 50 cents, assuming the subscriber rate grows faster than inflation. Mr. Freeman stated that it was AT&T's intention to never change the 50 cents and it took quite a bit of discussion to get to any kind of inflationary adjustment from them. CM/61/238 City Council Minutes March 26,2001 VM Dietrich asked if the City would have the option of adding outlets in addition to the one outlet being provided to City buildings. Mr. Freeman said that was correct. Mayor Brown clarified that if the City asks the cable company to provide additional outlets, the City will be charged for those additional outlets at a discount rate. Mr. Freeman said that was correct as it relates to traditional cable service. It would be a different issue on the cable modem service. VM Dietrich said the report stated that AT&T agrees to pay $10,000 toward phone fees associated with a franchise fee audit. She asked if that was limited to $7,500 in the contract. Mr. Freeman stated that was from the old franchise. AT&T is paying for those costs under the old franchise and that is why they are not included in the new franchise. AT&T has already paid the $50,000 in underpaid franchise fees. The only disputed amounts were $10,000 in interest and $10,000 in consultant fees. They have indicated they will pay upon receipt of an invoice. VM Dietrich asked if the new contract limits consultant fees for audits to $7,500. Mr. Freeman stated that was correct. CM Reitter said the staff report mentions $200,000 for construction to connect distant facilities to the cable system, then later mentions Almond Avenue and Trevarno Road being $300,000. He asked what the $200,000 applies to. Mr. Freeman stated that the $200,000 is for the four cities. For example, the new joint fire training station will be in a fairly remote area and for the cable company to provide service it would be well in excess of its standard connection drop. These types of funds would be available to reimburse the cable company to extend its cable plant to serve that fire facility. CM Reitter asked if each City Council decides how the $800,000 mentioned in the report is to be spent. Mr. Freeman stated that was correct. CM Reitter asked if each city has a portion of that, based on the number of subscribers, or if the cities have to agree on how to spend it. Mayor Brown said that has been her issue. It has been divided among the four cities and yet it is going to be passed on to Livermore's subscribers. She feels that, since Livermore has a larger subscriber base, it should be proportional unless all of it is to be directed to community television or facilities. Mr. Freeman stated this was discussed with the ad-hoc committee. It is an internal cities issue, not an AT&T issue. It does not necessarily need to be addressed in the franchise agreement. He pointed out that the side letter part of the document indicates that the cost would be amortized over the life of the franchise, so there would be a ten-year recovery of these costs. Historically, the grants for capital equipment that have been provided by AT&T have been provided equally to the four cities, and the grants that the cities have provided to CTV have been provided equally, not on a proportional basis. The operating costs have been provided on a per subscriber basis, which mirror the 50 cents per subscriber that has been negotiated with AT&T. March 26, 2001 City Council Minutes CM/61/239 Mayor Brown stated that in the past there was one city that had difficulty coming up with the money. Ms. Axelrod noted that for the past three years all four cities have equally contributed capital equipment funding to CTV, in the amount of $12,500 per year. CM Reitter asked what people could be told about how these changes would affect their bills. Mr. Freeman stated that the only item that would be separately identified on the bill would be the 50 cents per subscriber, per month. AT&T has indicated that if agreement is reached and the franchise is implemented on June 1, 2001, it will commence on July 1, 2001 and the 50 cent fee would go into effect. Cable rates, by Federal law, are de-regulated for every level of service beyond the basic service. Therefore, they are allowed to charge what the market will bear. Provisions have been made that, in the event the provider alleges that costs are increasing because of something the cities have done, the cities will have the right to review the material before it goes to subscribers to make sure that it is accurately reflected. CM Reitter said he realizes that this is a non-exclusive franchise, but asked how many cities have competition. Mr. Freeman said a competitor has come to Concord and Walnut Creek but he has not seen much activity. There has been increasing talk nationally of competitors coming in to provide service, but there is no way to predict when a competitor might appear. Federal and State law and local franchises require that franchises be non-exclusive. Any cable company can provide a competitive application and the city would review it and consider it in accordance with those laws. Mayor Brown said that she thinks AT&T basically does a good job. She has been approached by AT&T about providing local phone service through her cable line, so they are moving in that direction as well. Customer service has traditionally been an issue. She said that prior to this meeting, she received a message from Becky Dennis about some unresolved issues that she would be going to her attorney about. Mayor Brown said she is concerned about the million dollar grant being passed on to Livermore's subscribers. She said that unless it is seriously tied up on capital projects that serve community television in some way, she cannot support an equal split. That money should come back to the subscriber city in the same breakdown that the 50 cents is coming back. She said the challenge to the consultant is to see how it can be tied up in expenditures for CTV 30. Mr. Freeman suggested that how that money is shared might be an appropriate discussion for the ad-hoc committee of the four cities. Mayor Brown asked if there is anything in the ordinance presented to the Council that ties this issue down. Mr. Freeman stated that there is nothing within either the ordinance or the agreement that commits to any sort of split of the money. Mr. Freeman reported that Becky Dennis is a Councilmember in the City of Pleasanton and she does not have problems with the deal points of the franchise but is concerned with regard to some of the customer services standards. She was specifically looking for additional reporting requirements. He said he has indicated to her that there is a catch-all wherein cities can request any reports they want. A provision has also been provided that states that if the existing customer service standards that have been proposed as part of the ordinance are somehow unacceptable, the city can unilaterally impose more stringent standards. Ms. CM/61/240 City Council Minutes March 26, 2001 Dennis had a personal situation with the cable company telling her that problems she was experiencing could all be resolved only if she upgraded to the digital tier of service. Mr. Freeman stated that he did not think there was anyone who would agree that that is an appropriate way of doing business. He will be arranging a conference call to discuss how this issue can be resolved from a customer service viewpoint. There is nothing that would prevent adoption of language at a later date to address this, in the event it should become an issue is Livermore. Mayor Brown opened the public hearing. Douglas Goodman, 1779 Corte Sueno, asked how the $250,000 that would go to Livermore subscribers would be passed on. He stated that a commitment should be made that future buildings that do not fit into the category of activated service as of franchise effective date would in fact have the lines they are supposed to have. Tom Jefferson, 1646 Arrowhead Avenue, said that the 50 cent fee would not be able to be used for the operational budget. It is limited to capital equipment only. He asked if everyone would have to pay the fee and if they would then have access to CTV. Mayor Brown said it is part of the basic service and subscribers would have that access. Mr. Freeman stated that the grant may be used for educational and governmental access, operating expenses and administrative expenses. This is not a tax because it is not an assessment on subscribers, it is an assessment on AT&T based on how many subscribers they have. Mayor Brown said that AT&T gets to pass it through, so in effect it is a fee to the subscribers. Mr. Freeman pointed out that the City has been paying these costs for as long as CTV has been around and in roughly the same amount. The buildings that are not included on the list of buildings that are to be connected do not currently have cable service. The reason for distinguishing between the buildings that have cable services currently and those that do not is to make certain that buildings that currently have service continue to receive it without a time lag. VM Dietrich requested clarification that all of the buildings included on the list of buildings to be connected either now have or will have cable service. Mr. Freeman said that was correct, with a qualifier. There may be a cost for connecting buildings that are beyond 125 feet of the cable system. Mayor Brown stated that AT&T, formerly TCI, genuinely earned a bad reputation at times. However, she does not believe that pass-through costs, and identifying them on a bill, is a bad thing for them to do. If a 50 cent fee is going to be established, the City needs to say it did that. She has no desire to ask AT&T to hide that action. Mayor Brown closed the public hearing. March 26, 2001 City Council Minutes CM/61/241 ON THE MOTION OF MAYOR BROWN, SECONDED BY VM DIETRICH, AND CARRIED BY A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL INTRODUCED BY FIRST READING, TITLE ONLY, THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE: Ordinance - Ordinance repealing Division V (Community Cable Television), Chapter 13.52 (Cable Television Franchise), Title 13 (Public Services) of the Livermore Municipal Code and enacting the Cable System Regulatory ordinance. Mayor Brown said the motion was with the understanding that the division of the grant would be worked out, and she wanted the other cities to understand that Livermore did not support that part tonight. ON THE MOTION OF MAYOR BROWN, SECONDED BY VM DIETRICH, AND CARRIED BY A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLLrrlON: Resolution 2001-84 - Resolution authorizing execution of agreement and side letter with Tele- Vue Systems, Inc. (dba AT&T Broadband) for a Cable Television Franchise Agreement. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 3.1 Appointment of Councilmembers to Council/Mayor Committees. - No action. 3.2 Discussion regarding new street name signs for the downtown area. Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council approve a street name sign for installation in the downtown core area. VM Dietrich reported that the Main Street design committee actually attached mocked up signs downtown to be able to step back and take a look at the various designs. They determined that at a distance, the signs with the grape clusters are clear, which is why the simplified cluster on the burgundy sign was favored by Main Street. She also noted that the color rendition of the sign before the Council was not the color that the committee looked at. Mayor Brown invited comments from the audience. There were no comments. ON THE MOTION OF CM REITTER, SECONDED BY CM STEIN, AND CARRIED BY A 4-1 VOTE, VM DIETRICH VOTING NO, THE CITY COUNCIL SELECTED A SIGN WITH A GREEN BACKGROUND AND GRAPE CLUSTER WITH STEM AND LEAVES. ORDINANCES 4.1 Introduction by first reading, title only, of an ordinance amending Chapter 2.46 of Title 2 (Public Art Committee) of the Livermore Municipal Code to require 1% of the construction costs of Livermore building funded with public funds be used for public mt. CM/61/242 City Council Minutes March 26, 2001 CM Reitter said the ordinance clearly states that the City owns the art on the public projects, but it wasn't clear who owned it on the private projects. City Manager Linda Barton stated that the ordinance addresses only public art. Discussion regarding private art will come to the Council at a later tim.e. ON THE MOTION OF CM STEIN SECONDED BY VM DIETRICH, AND CARRIED BY A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL INTRODUCED THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE: Ordinance - Ordinance amending Chapter 2.46 of Title 2 (Public Art Committee) of the Livermore Municipal Code to require 1% of the construction costs of Livermore building funded with public funds be used for public art. 4.2 Second reading and adopton of an ordinance approving Planned Development - Industrial 00-197, request of Industrial Development International for Circuit City Stores, Inc. Location: 400 Longfellow Court. (Confirming action of February 26, 2001.) CM Stein asked if the special landscaping, park for employees, planting for birds or native plants, was included. Mr. Roberts stated that it is not in the ordinance. He said staff took that as general direction rather than part of the ordinance. ON THE MOTION OF CM VARGAS, SECONDED BY VM DIETRICH, AND CARRIED BY A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE: Ordinance 1622 - Ordinance approving Planned Development -Industrial 00-197, request of Industrial Development International for Circuit City Stores, Inc. Location: 400 Longfellow Court. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 5.1 Letter from Sandy Overton thanking Public Services Director Michael Mille~ for his responsiveness and accountability regarding the maintenance along Highway 8,~ and Independence Park. ' NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Discussion regarding limiting trucks on Vallecitos Road. Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council not limit trucks along Vallecitos Road. CM Stein stated that the pavement is failing on numerous locations along the road, which is not designed for truck traffic. The road was built probably fifty or sixty years ago and a large portion of it was built on native soil, most of which is gravel, but parts of it are not. Long areas of repair and patching are visible about one-tenth of a mile outside of the tire track, and there are a lot of areas where the road has double grooves, which is a sign of overloading the March 26, 2001 City Council Minutes CM/61/243 base. The king-pin-to-rear-axle requirement is not enforced, there is no requirement that double trucks not use the road and they tend to swing wide on the rear axle. Prohibiting trucks along Vallecitos Road would increase truck traffic on already congested freeways, but Vallecitos Road would be able to handle double the car traffic. Overall, the system could handle more traffic if trucks were kept on 1-580/680. The statement that there is a steady flow of traffic exiting both ends of Vallecitos Road is incorrect. Both the inlet and the exit are heavy, particularly coming into Livermore at night. There should be a limit on the weight and at a minimum the maximum 30 foot king-pin-to-rear-axle should be enforced. Just last week a truck broke down on Vallecitos, causing a two-hour delay. There are no shoulders or easy way for conventional tow trucks to move large trucks. He recommended limiting the weight of Vallecitos Road to whatever the State requirement is and participating with the County. Supervisor Haggerty has indicated he would be talking to the State. Mohammad Pournia, Senior Transportation Engineer, said he would look into that, as both agencies would need to adopt ordinances before submitting to the State for approval. CM Stein said that the first thing to do is to clarify whether the County is going to hold a public hearing and if they plan to do it, Livermore should as well. Mr. Pournia said agreement also needs to be reached as to the weight limit before an ordinance is adopted. Livermore staff would discuss that further with State staff and come back to the Council. He said the staff report for this item was based on preliminary discussion with State and County staff and according to the State, damage is just normal wear and tear on the road. THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO WORK WITH ALAMEDA COUNTY AND CALTRANS TO REDUCE THE WEIGHT LIMIT OF TRUCKS THAT ARE CURRENTLY PERMITTED ON VALLECITOS ROAD. 6.2 Resolution approving Tourism and Special Event Grant Allocations for 2001/2002. Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council adopt the resolution. CM Stein stated that the amount of this fund has been relatively static for the past eight or ten years and it needs to be increased to cover inflation. The City has complained that people don't apply and the reason is probably because the amounts are so small. Mayor Brown asked what kind of advertising the City does. Economic Development Director Karen Majors stated that staff sends notices out to all the prior year recipients and tries to get the word out. However, staff does not put an ad in the newspaper. CM Stein said he would like to see it raised in future years, gradually going to double the current amount. CM Reitter said he thought the Council had raised the amount of funding several years ago to $15,000. Ms. Majors said it was raised an additional $2,000, but staff did not feel it had enough applications to warrant giving out additional monies. CM/61/244 City Council Minutes March 26, 2001 Mayor Brown suggested that the Council approve this year's funding and ask the City Manager to put this information on the website and in the City newsletter. CM Stein asked that the matter also come back to the Council to determine how much to raise the limit to. ON THE MOTION OF MAYOR BROWN, SECONDED BY CM REITTER, AND CARRIED BY A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION: Resolution 2001-85 - Resolution approving Tourism and Special Event Grant Allocations for 2001/2002. 6.3 Consideration of modifications to the Special Event Ordinance to establish a $500 cleanup deposit and an annual fee for sidewalk cleaning for downtown events. Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council consider amendments to the Special Event Permit and Ordinance. Mayor Brown asked if the event people had been talked to. Ms. Majors stated they had and they were comfortable with the increase. VM Dietrich said she raised the question with Main Street and they said the proposed fee was very reasonable and is much less than any other jurisdiction charges.' ON THE MOTION OF VM DIETRICH, SECONDED BY CM VARGAS, AND CARRIED BY A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 6.4 Discussion regarding request of Pleasanton Mayor Pico to establish a City of Livermore/Cit¥ of Pleasanton City Council Liaison Committee. Mayor Brown reported that she met with Mayor Pico and suggested that she and he talk on a regular basis about issues the two cities have in common. However, Mayor Pico said his city wants a formal committee, which means there needs to be a formal agenda and notification of meetings per the Brown Act. ON THE MOTION OF CM REITTER, SECONDED BY VM DIETRICH, AND CARRIED BY A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHED A CITY OF LIVERMORE-CITY OF PLEASANTON CITY COUNCIL LIAISON COMMITTEE. Mayor Brown appointed CM Vargas and VM Dietrich as delegates and all other Councilmembers as alternates. 6.5 Discussion regarding Transportation Funding Priorities. Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council direct staff to pursue federal March 26, 2001 City Council Minutes CM/61/245 roadway funding for three priority projects. City Manager Linda Barton said that Pat Jordan, the City's lobbyist in Washington, D.C., said that some additional transportation funds are available that the City could apply for. Livermore has a series of projects that have potential and it would be important to have some discussion with Council about what staff sees as the top priorities and make sure the Council agrees with those priorities. Staff would then submit that information to Pat Jordan in the near future. Mayor Brown stated that she thought the priorities as stated in the staff report were fine. CM Stein said his only concern is the Isabel Avenue/Route 84/1-580 interchange. If there are any shortfalls, that should move to the top of the list, but if it is fully funded, he has no problem with it. City Engineer Dan Mclntyre advised the Council that Shea Properties is obligated to pay all of the shortfall. They are covered by a development agreement. Mayor Brown stated that the priorities are as follows: 1) Vasco/I-580 interchange, 2) HOV lanes, and 3) Isabel Corridor. ON THE MOTION OF CM REITTER, SECONDED BY VM DIETRICH, AND CARRIED BY A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO PURSUE FEDERAL ROADWAY FUNDING FOR 1) THE VASCO ROAD/I-580 INTERCHANGE PROJECT; 2) THE 1-580 HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES; AND 3) THE ROUTE 84 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS SOUTH OF LIVERMORE TO 1-680. 6.6 Resolutions approving: a) a policy for the installation of private agricultural water lines in the public right-of-way and b) agreement with Tri-Vallev Technology Park LLC for the installation of a private agricultural water line in public right-of-way. Recommendation: Staff recommended the City Council adopt the resolutions. Mayor Brown stated that this is where the City gets assurance that this area stays in a conservation easement. CM Reitter asked if Livermore was going to ask the South Livermore Valley Land Trust to hold this for the City. Marc Roberts stated that the City did ask and the preliminary discussions indicated that the Trust was not interested. He said staff would continue to pursue that. He noted that the easement is written in behalf of the City, but staff will prepare documents to transfer it or have a co-holder status if that was the Council's pleasure at a later time. ON THE MOTION OF CM VARGAS, SECONDED BY VM DIETRICH, AND CARRIED BY A 5-0 VOTE, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS: Resolution 2001-86 - Resolution approving a policy for the installation of private agricultural water lines in the public right-of-way. CM/61/246 City Council Minutes March 26, 2001 Resolution 2001-87 - Resolution approving an agreement with Tri-Valley Technology Park LLC for the installation of a private agricultural water line in public right-of-way. 7. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Countywide Transportation Plan - CM Vargas said the Congestion Management Agency is updating the Countywide Transportation Plan to fit in with the Regional Transportation Plan. Livermore is part of Planning Area 4, and there will be a public hearing on Tuesday, April l0th, 6:30, Dublin Civic Center. This will be an opportunity to submit projects that are important to the Planning Area and will be the time to bring tBART forward. Mayor Brown directed staff to place this matter on the April 9 agenda for discussion. LAVTA - CM Vargas said he traveled to Washington D.C. as part of the LAVTA team to seek $4 million in federal funds for a 10 acre satellite facility for LAVTA's large buses. The total cost of the project is $18 million. East Bay Division, League of California Cities - CM Reitter reported on several Division issues: Summer Institute: Grants are available for high school or middle school teachers interested in attending a one-week summer institute, in Sacramento, about how local government works. National Fire Protection Association - The Division is concerned regarding the Association's effort to require a four minute versus five minute travel time response and four firefighters per truck regardless of need. He noted the Fire Chief will make a presentation on this matter at the April 9th City Council meeting. The City Manager said a resolution will be brought to the Council to consider taking a position. ERAF - The word is that no attention will be put on ERAF in Sacramento until the energy problem is solved. The State reserves are all being spent to buy energy. Legislation to cap ERAF increases may be possible, but there is no effort to return any of the money already taken and no guarantee that it won't happen again. 1-580 Smart Corridor Project - The Division approved a deployment plan, site visits are scheduled for April 18-20 in Phoenix and Houston, and a presentation will be made to the City Council. MATTERS INITIATED BY CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, STAFF AND COUNCILMEMBERS March 26, 2001 City Council Minutes CM/61/247 Visioning Process Consultant Interviews - The City Manager noted that the interviews will be held on April 3rd and 4th at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Two consultants will be interviewed each evening. Awahnee Conference/Energy Issue - Energy issues were discussed at the conference and the major point made was that conservation in the short term is the most effective strategy. Green Building Take-out Menu - Waste Management is developing a variety of programs that they will make available to the City and other people to offer technical, design assistance and information about green building grants. LED Traffic Lights - CM Stein said the lights look very good. He noted that flashing red signals will be installed at major intersections, in case of power failures. Second Units on New Construction - CM Stein noted that Danville is looking at mother-in- law type units on new construction as very low income apartments and requiring one unit for every 2.5 homes. He suggested that Livermore look into it. Gas Station at Catalina and Holmes - CM Vargas asked what can be done about the gas station. It continues to languish and he heard the permits have expired. Mr. Roberts said the City's options are relatively limited but staff would do some research and report to Council. Energy Fair - Mayor Brown noted that staff is working on an Energy Fair. Youth Summit - Mayor Brown reported that the Youth Summit was a great success, with over 100 kids and about 50 adults. A panel of young people representing high schools and middle schools identified issues that are the most pressing for them to deal with, such as safety in school, the need for diversity training among adults, and their desire for more after- school activities. All the notes regarding the Summit are on the new Website, Livermoreteens.com. ADJOURNMENT - At 11:40 p.m. to a regular City Council meeting on Monday, April 9, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers, 3575 Pacific Avenue, Livermore. APPROVED: ALICE CALVERT, CITY CLERK CITY OF LIVERMORE CM/61/248 City Council Minutes March 26, 2001