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