"I haven’t missed a meeting, and I don’t plan to. But If I have an emergency, I don’t want it to become a political thing"-Mayor Varela
"You need to take a step back and look at the big picture about what you are here for"-Mike Torres
"There’s a Cat and Dog Fight, no doubt about it"-Warren Urnberg
"I have seen 12 year olds that can get along better than you guys"[1]
It was an interesting meeting, noooooooo doubt about it. I wish I could say the all the discussions that night were informed, rational, and focused on coming to an agreed upon consensus.
It seemed to start out well enough, with a few 5/0 decisions and some fairly rational give-and-take. But once the “audience” started to thin and the Sun Star reporter left, things got just a tad testy. The “new tone for a new year” quickly devolved into more of a verbal sparring match than a genuine search for “truth, justice, and what’s in the best interest of Livingston residents”.
So…since the verbal tussles that ensued[2] were more akin to the bombast and bluster you’d hear from WWE or La Lucha Libre “tag teams”, I’ve decided to call “as spade a spade” and introduce you to our “City of Livingston City Council Tag Teams”
In THIS corner, we have TEAM ESPINOZA! with Senior Councilperson Rodrigo Espinoza and Junior Councilperson Margarita Aguilar.
And in THAT corner, we have TEAM VIERRA![3], with Senior Councilperson Frank Vierra, Mayor Daniel Varela, and Junior Councilperson (and former City Clerk) Martha Nateras.
But wait!…..Before we get to the Main Event, let’s take quick “time out” and look at the things that were discussed during Closed Session that evening
1. Conference with Legal Counsel—Existing Litigation. Government Code Section 54956.9(a).
a. Merced County Farm Bureau v. City of Livingston, et al., California Superior Court, County of Merced, Case No. CU151754 [consolidated with Valley Advocates v. City of Livingston, et al., Superior Court, County of Merced, Case No. CU151757].
b. Fernando Davalos et al, v. City of Livingston et al, California Superior Court, County of Merced, Case No. CV000669.
c. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. City of Livingston, et al, California Superior Court, County of Merced, Case No. CV000292.
When time came for the Regular Meeting to begin (DING!), there was no sign of the former City Attorney who had been dismissed in June then “invited back” in December[4].Since nothing
and I mean NOTHING was said about it, guess you’ll have to read “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Council Meeting” to get a sense of the “personal dynamics” and make your own “educated guesses” as to what exactly happened.[5]
Well skip over the AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND PROCLAMATIONS and the ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS and get right down to the “red meat” you have all been salivating for: the PUBLIC HEARINGS![6]
First up, Item #3 on the Agenda: Resolution Conditionally Approving Site Plan/Design Review 2009-04 for the Dr. Singh Mixed Use Project.
By “Mixed Use” for this project it meant, basically a Dentist Office on the Ground Floor with an Apartment on the Second Floor. The number of parking spaces seemed to be the main “glitch” here: According to the City the project was estimated to be short about 10 spaces.
Team Espinoza was in favor of Community Based Projects and would rather see a new building than an empty lot with weeds and wanted the In Lieu Parking Fee cut from 10,000 to 5,000
Although Team Vierra was also in favor of Community Based Projects but stated a concern about having enough parking and the “fairness” of cutting In Lieu Parking Fees for one developer and not all.
As too The Public no one in the audience seemed to have anything against the project (Or at least pitching a big fit about it at this time)
Result? passes 5-0 with In-Lieu Parking Fees cut from $10,000 to $5,000 [7]
There’s 5-0 vote Number 1!
Next up on the Agenda, Item # 4. City Council Guidance on Site Plan/ Design Review 2009-05 for Adding Composition Shingles to Parkside Subdivision’s Approved Materials.
What the Developer of the Parkside Subdivision said he wanted to do was address a "cash flow" issue: cutting costs where ever possible and still keep framers & other employees working.
If I heard correctly, although the “Approved Materials List” for the Development only included Tile, the Development Agreement itself did not specifically prohibit the use of Composition Roofing. In addition to that, there was no “date certain” clause to require the construction of a park within the development within a particular time frame.
Since there’d been a complaint made about Composition instead of Tile on some homes, Council needed to decide if they were going to insist on only allowing tile roofs in the Parkside Subdivision, or allowing some homes to have Composition Roofs[8]
Team Espinoza (one of whom lives in the Parkside Subdivision) said that as far as s/he knew, the only material that was ever approved for construction was tile roofing and that the developer "mislead" people by not letting them know they could have tile as an upgrade.
Team Vierra agreed that "Principles of Conformity" should be maintained and that getting the park finished needs to be done as soon as possible. As to Tile being the only materiel originally approved: that was because the homes in the development were so close together, tile would be safer in case of fire. Also Wished the developer had come to them first with his "economic troubles"
The Public (mostly residents in the sub division who bought homes with composition roofs) felt they were cheated out of their right to a Tile Roof. Those who bought their houses with composition roofs want tile on their roofs now. They were also upset that the park that was supposed to be part of the subdivision has not been finished.
The Result? Adding Tile To the Approved Materials List was denied 5-0. Houses already done with composition have to be re-roofed.
There’s 5-0 vote Number 2!
So far, no major sniping and the votes have been 5-0. Could we be “on a roll” here?
Next up, Item #5 on the Agenda: the Memorandum of Understanding between the Merced Union High School District and the City of Livingston Regarding the Deferral of Improvements to Peach Avenue.
(Those of you who were at the Council Meeting in December will remember that this one was “put off” until this meeting “to give the public more time to give an opinion”[9])
Approving the MOU would allow the High School District to move forward with the preparation of their CEQA documents. This Memorandum of Understanding would at least get the project going and "take off the table" the rerouting of Peach Avenue. The High School District would widen Peach Avenue and install a Pedestrian Overpass after the last of the Measure M bonds are sold. In the mean time, the District will install a Pedestrian Activated lighted crosswalk as part of the Livingston High School Expansion Project.
The Team Espinoza position is another 300 to 500 homes may be built within the next 10 years so the overpass should be built sooner.
The Team Vierra position is if there is more building then the District will have the property taxes necessary for the Bond Sale which would allow them to build the overpass. Is concerned about the current problem of delivery trucks blocking traffic and “traffic jams” that happen during student "drop off” and “pick up” times.
Comments from The Public include the owners of The Pink Store who do not want their dreams ruined by a re-rout of Peach and wish the City would approve the MOU. Others commented that the process had been going long enough: and it was time for the city to make a decision. There were also questions from the public about the "loading and unloading" of students and the related "traffic jams" during the morning and afternoon
The District said the High School Expansion will also include a new parking lot which should absorb most of the student traffic.
Result? The Memorandum of Understanding with the Merced Union High School District passes 5-0.
There’s 5-0 vote Number 3!
Looking good so far isn’t it? Beginning to look like council persons have put aside their differences and are getting down to the work of at least discussing issues in a rational manner…but we’re not quite done yet. We haven’t gotten to the CONSENT CALANDAR and DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS.
As Paul Harvey might have said, there’s still “the rest of the story”.
Which will be the subject of a future post… J
[1]No..I didn’t catch the name. Go get the Audio if you want it.
[2] And have taken place in the past.
[3] No..I’m not naming it after the Mayor. Since I named TEAM ESPINOZA after the Senior Member of THAT team is seams only fair to name “the other side” after the most Senior Member. J
[4]Score one “loss” for Team Espinoza.
[5] Of the choices listed in that post, I’m leaning towards a combination of “A” with a healthy dose of “B” thrown in for good measure. J
[6] And yes, I am cutting out a lot of the discussion. Guess you’ll just have to either go get a copy of the Audio or wait until the Draft Minutes come out. Or-come to the meetings!
[7] I’ll let you decide if 5-0 votes should be “scored” a “draw” or just a plain “Win for Livingston Citizens” J
[8] Will the park ever get built? Hmmmm, well the Developer was not a “happy camper” when he left the meeting that night. Re-roofing a few houses with Tile is going to cost him “a pretty penny”. Should he have gone before the council with his woes earlier? Maybe..but that’s not my point here. He wanted to use Composition Roofs and his Development Agreement didn’t prohibit it. Residents at Parkside want their park built. But, unless I heard wrong, there is nothing in the Development Agreement to encourage him to get it done any time soon: especially after having to “shell out” the funds to re-roof several homes. This could be one of those times where the residents “won their tile but lost their park”. Will the developer even continue with the Subdivision? Well just have to see…..
[9] Guess not too many people were really interested: about this time the trickle of “the public” out the door had already begun.